IDDI DAGOMBA vs. THE STATE [1961]DLSC5396

Date	1961-02-17
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1961]DLSC5396

VAN LARE JSC

SARKODEE-ADOO JSC

AKIWUMI J.S.C.

B. K. TAMAKLOE FOR THE APPELLANT.

K. DUA SAKYI FOR THE RESPONDENT (THE STATE).

[1961]DLSC5396
																																						<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" ><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#548DD4">IDDI DAGOMBA<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#548DD4">&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#548DD4">THE STATE<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#548DD4">&nbsp;[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:center;
mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">[1961] GLR 100&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:<span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:
115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;color:#00B0F0"> 17TH FEBRUARY, 1961.<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid black 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

B.
K. TAMAKLOE FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

K.
DUA SAKYI FOR THE RESPONDENT (THE STATE).<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM: <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid black 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

VAN LARE JSC, SARKODEE-ADOO
JSC, AKIWUMI J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF VAN
LARE J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>Van Lare, J.S.C. delivered the Judgment of the court. We are of
the opinion that in this appeal the learned trial judge did not adequately
consider the question of matters of extreme provocation to which the
prosecution witnesses have testified. The learned judge disbelieving the story
of the appellant that he had the weapon on him at the time of the violent
assault and battery committed on him by the deceased, failed to consider
adequately the question of the effect of provocation on the prisoner when, as
he found, the prisoner went to his house and fetched the knife. The judge has
omitted to find that the prisoner had cooled down or that at the time the
prisoner fetched the knife from his house he had murderous intent.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>We think, however, that on the evidence as a whole the prisoner
might have been still labouring under the violent and extreme provocation
caused him by the deceased and that when he went out to attack the deceased, he
was still deprived of the power of self-control. We think that had the learned
trial judge considered the point now raised, he would have found the appellant
not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter only.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In the result the appeal is allowed. The verdict of guilty of
murder entered at the trial is set aside and one of guilty of manslaughter is
substituted therefor. The appellant is sentenced to five years I.H.L.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><a name="_gjdgxs"></a>DECISION<o:p></o:p>Appeal allowed.<o:p></o:p>

Conviction for manslaughter substituted.<o:p></o:p></main>