THE STATE vs. KOFI ADABO [1961]DLSC1320

Date	1961-06-16
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1961]DLSC1320

KORSAH JSC

C.J. JSC

SARKODEE-ADOO JSC

AKIWUMI JSC

W.N.A. BOSSMAN FOR THE APPELLANT

K. DUA SAKYI FOR THE RESPONDENT

[1961]DLSC1320
																																						<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" >

&nbsp;[SUPREME COURT]

[1961] GLR 321

DATE: 16TH JUNE, 1961.

</div>

COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp;

W.N.A.
BOSSMAN FOR THE APPELLANT.

</div>

KORSAH, C.J., SARKODEE-ADOO
AND AKIWUMI, JJ.S.C.

</div>

&nbsp;

The appellant stood his trial at the Criminal Sessions held at
Sunyani on Wednesday, the 1st March, 1961, on a charge of murder alleged to
have been committed by him on the 21st November, 1960, and was on the 8th day
of March, 1961, convicted of the said charge. He has appealed to this court and
at the hearing counsel on his behalf has raised a preliminary objection to the
information which was filed on the 22nd February, 1961, by which the appellant
was charged with murder contrary to section 238 of the Criminal Code, Cap. 9.
It is contended on his behalf that on that date the Criminal Code, Cap. 9 of
the Laws of the Gold Coast (1951 Rev.) had been repealed and replaced by Act 29
of the Parliament of the Republic of Ghana, the Criminal Code, 1960, which came
into effect on the 1st February, 1961, and therefore this court should hold
that the trial and conviction of the appellant was null and void.

In support of this contention, counsel argued that all proceedings
taken after the new code came into force should have complied with the
provisions of that new code.

Counsel relied on the Criminal Code, 1960, (Act 29) section 318
(2) by which the Criminal Code, Cap. 9, is repealed; and also section 318 (4)
of the Criminal Code, 1960, which provides thus:

“Notwithstanding any enactment, no person shall, after the
commencement of the Code, be charged with any crime under any enactment hereby
repealed or declared to be no longer in force in Ghana but any person who has
been so charged before the commencement of the Code, may be proceeded against
as though the enactment had not been repealed or declared to be no longer in
force.”

In answer to this submission the Senior State Attorney contended
that the whole intendment of the legislation should be given due consideration;
that with the view of meeting such difficulties which may arise in consequence
of new legislation, the Interpretation Act, 1960, was passed; hence the
provision in section 6 (1) thus:

“A reference in an enactment to any enactment shall be construed
as a reference to it as for the time being amended by any provision, including
a provision contained in the enactment in which the reference is made or in a
later enactment.”

He also referred to section 8 of the Interpretation Act, 19601(1),
which deals with the effect of repeal, revocation or cesser as follows:

(e) Affect any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in
respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty,
forfeiture or punishment. And any such investigation, legal proceeding or
remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced, and any such penalty,
forfeiture, punishment may be imposed, as if the enactment had not been
repealed or revoked.