COMMISSIONER OF POLICE vs. KUSI [1959]DLHC5523

Date	1959-03-05
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1959]DLHC5523

MURPHY J.

[1959]DLHC5523
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >COMMISSIONER
OF POLICE<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>KUSI <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, KUMASI]<o:p></o:p>[1959]
GLR 98&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;Date: 5TH MARCH, 1959.<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>MURPHY J.<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>HEADNOTES<o:p></o:p>The 1st
accused was owner of a plot at Dajanso village; the plot did not have a
completed dwelling-house on it. Another person of the same name also had a plot
in the same village, and this plot had a dwelling-house on it.<o:p></o:p>The 2nd
accused was a Solicitor’s Managing Clerk. He prepared for the 1st accused a
formal lease of the plot with the dwelling-house.<o:p></o:p>In July,
the two accused persons together took the lease to the Chief, who was made to
understand that it was a lease of the 1st accused’s own plot. Under this
impression, the Chief thumb-printed it.<o:p></o:p>In
September the 1st accused approached the Manager of the Ghana Commercial Bank
for a loan. He represented that he owned the plot with the dwelling-house and
supported his assertion by producing the lease. By means of this false pretence
he obtained a loan of £800 from the Bank.<o:p></o:p>In due
course there was a prosecution, and the 2nd accused (with whom alone the
present appeal is concerned) was convicted by the Senior Magistrate, Kumasi.<o:p></o:p>(1) of
conspiring with the 1st accused to defraud the Bank of £800 by false pretences;
and<o:p></o:p>(2) of
aiding and abetting the 1st accused in defrauding the Bank of £800 by false
pretences.<o:p></o:p>The 2nd
accused appealed to the High Court, Kumasi (Criminal Appeal, No. 171/58).<o:p></o:p>Held:
that the appellant’s knowledge that the 1st accused was not the owner of the
property described in the July lease was not of itself sufficient to establish
that he also knew the purpose to which that lease would be put in September.<o:p></o:p>Murphy
J.: (His lordship stated the facts, and proceeded):—<o:p></o:p>It is, I
think, clear that in considering the case against the appellant there were two
separate questions to be decided:<o:p></o:p>(1) was
the appellant aware that the 1st accused was not in fact the owner of the
property described<o:p></o:p>in the
lease?.<o:p></o:p>(2) if
so, was the appellant aware of the illegal purpose for which the lease was to
be used?<o:p></o:p>The
Senior Magistrate in effect answered both these questions in the affirmative.
As to the first question, it is to be noted that the evidence of the Chief and
his elder differed very considerably from that of the appellant. If the Chief
and his elder were believed, as they were, the appellant had told a number of
untruths.<o:p></o:p>An
important question was whether the lease was read over to the Chief by the
appellant, since, if it had been, the Chief would have realised that it was not
a lease of the 1st accused’s plot of land. As to this, the appellant said in
his statement to the police that he did read the lease over. In his evidence he
modified this by saying that he read it over, but omitted to mention the
building. It is difficult to see how he could have done this inadve</main>