OSEI TUTU AND ANOTHER vs. THE STATE [1965]DLHC1843

Date	1965-10-04
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1965]DLHC1843

KORANTENG-ADDOW J.

R. A. DARKO ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE STATE.

HAYFRON FOR THE APPELLANT.

[1965]DLHC1843
																																						<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" >OSEI TUTU AND ANOTHER <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>THE STATE <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, SEKONDI]<o:p></o:p>[1965] GLR 593<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:
4 OCTOBER 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">

R. A. DARKO, ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY, FOR THE
STATE.<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">

KORANTENG-ADDOW J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF KORANTENG-ADDOW J.<o:p></o:p>This is
an appeal from the judgments of the District Magistrate, Sekondi. The judgments
appealed from are in three separate cases (cases Nos. 25, 26 and 27 of 1965)
tried at Half Assini on the same day. The charges in case No. 25, case No. 26
and count 1 of case No. 27 were all under section 237 of the Criminal Code,
1960,1 and the facts are almost identical save that the three offences took
place at different times and at different places. The first took place at
Half-Assini on 28 January 1965 (case No. 26), the second on 29 January 1965 at
Bonyere (case No. 27) and the last on 30 January 1965 at Takinta (case No. 25).<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
staple in the charges was that the two accused persons pretended to be public
officers and under that assumed character did obtain certain articles from the
complainants in these matters. The articles involved are ordinary daily needs,
e.g. reels of black cotton thread, Atwood Bitters, bottles of lavender, pieces
of cotton prints, shirts and spectacles. The total value of the goods obtained
in the first of the cases was; £G10 15s., in the second £G6 and in the third
12s.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
second count in case No. 27 charged the appellants with extortion contrary to
section 151 (1) of the Criminal Code, 1960.<o:p></o:p>Under
their assumed character the accused were said to have:<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">“threatened
one Mozu Kwame of Bonyere as having sold one piece of cloth above control price
and as such were making a case against him and under such assumed colour
obtained for yourselves the sum of £G8 from the said Mozu Kwame . . . which you
knew you were not lawfully authorised to obtain.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
accused persons who are described in the charges as labourers seem to have gone
on a spending spree in the locality of Half-Assini after receiving their pay
for the month of January 1965. The explanation of the accused persons as
appearing in case No. 25, and which the prosecution regarded as “unreasonable”
was that “the traders deliberately reduced the price of their commodities for
them as they resembled policemen.” The accused pleaded guilty to all the
charges and were convicted and sentenced accordingly. They appealed against
their sentences. The second ground of their appeal reads:<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">“That the
exhibits, the articles bought or purchased on sale from the various traders
were paid for and as such was invested with ownership and possession upon
delivering of goods and transaction completed: essence of fact which was
neglected or concealed at trial.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
grounds of appeal put me on my mettle and I therefore looked at the appeal
twice. The fact that the articles involved were bought and paid for appears in
the statements made to the police by the accused persons. I therefore granted
the appellants leave to appeal against both their convictions and sentences
rather than against their sentences as they prayed.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>At the
hearing of the appeal Mr. Hayfron, learned counsel for the appellants, argued
as regards the counts charging “pretending</main>