BULLEY-NEEQUAYE vs. THE STATE [1965]DLHC1789

Date	1965-06-03
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1965]DLHC1789

BOISON J.

S. S. OKUNOR STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE STATE.

OSAFO BUABENG FOR THE APPELLANT.

[1965]DLHC1789
																																						<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" >BULLEY-NEEQUAYE<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>THE STATE <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1965] GLR 424<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">

DATE:
3 JUNE 1965.<o:p></o:p>

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

S. S. OKUNOR, STATE ATTORNEY, FOR THE STATE.<o:p></o:p>

OSAFO BUABENG FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

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

BOISON J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF BOISON J.<o:p></o:p>Before
the District Court, Labadi, Accra, the appellant was charged and convicted of
the offence of allowing ferocious dogs to be at large contrary to section 296
of the Criminal Code, 1960.1 The learned district magistrate who tried the case
made an order in respect of the dogs. The appellant has appealed to this court
against of the dogs was unreasonable.her conviction and the order of the
learned district magistrate. The particulars of offence read as follows:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“For that
you, Bulley Neequaye, Teacher, on 14 December 1964 at Nyaniba Estate, Accra, in
the Accra Magisterial District and within the jurisdiction of this court did
suffer to be at large unmuzzled a certain ferocious dog of which you have the
charge.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Later on
in the course of the prosecution, the charge was amended to include “September
and another dog.” Although the intention of the amendment was, I surmise, to
include “September 1964” as to the date of the alleged offence and instead of
“a certain ferocious dog” to “have two ferocious dogs,” it is observed that the
amendment was inelegantly worded. It would have been better if the amendment
should have been in this form: “In the particulars of offence insert the words
‘and September 1964,’ between ‘December 1964,’ and ‘at Nyaniba Estate’ in the
second line of the particulars, delete ‘certain ferocious dog,’ appearing on
the last line and substitute therefore ‘two ferocious dogs’. That would have
better achieved the purpose of the amendment.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The case
for the prosecution, supported by two material witnesses, was that the
appellant is a tenant at Nyaniba Estate at Accra. The appellant has two dogs
and in the month of September 1964, the two dogs bit the first prosecution
witness who was returning home after selling bread. This took place about 25
yards from the house of the appellant. The first prosecution witness shouted
and started to bleed and the appellant applied milton to the wounds of the
first prosecution witness who later reported the matter to her father. She was
later given some injections. The evidence of the second prosecution witness was
that on 14 December 1964, he visited one Mr. Binney. Whilst waiting for Mr.
Binney a certain big dog bit him and the dog ran into the house of the
appellant after the bite. Both prosecution witnesses reported the matter to the
police. The second prosecution witness was also given some injections. The dogs
are exhibits B and C. The explanation of the appellant was that she is the
owner of the two dogs, exhibits B and C; that there are several similar dogs in
the neighbourhood; and that she left Ghana on 1 February 1964 and returned on
20 September 1964. She denied the charge.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Learned
counsel for the appellant filed two additional grounds of appeal in addition to
the two original grounds already filed. The first original ground of appeal was
that the conviction was unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to
the evidence adduced. Learned counsel argued that if, indeed, the dogs of the
appellant bit the first prosecution witness in or about September 1964, why was
no report made to the police then? There was no medical report about the first
prosecution witness. The medical report of the second prosecution witness
exhibit A, does not show if, indeed, a dog had bitten the second prosecution
witness. The second prosecution witness contradicted himself when he said a
“certain big dog” bit him for he identified “a small dog.” As there were
similar dogs in the area it is possible it could be any of the dogs in the
neighbourhood which bit the complainants.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Original
ground (b) was that the order to destroy the two dogs was unreasonable in that
only one dog was in issue as per the particulars of offence. Additional ground
(a) reads as follows:<o:p></o:p>