STATE vs. YANKEY [1966]DLHC11004

Date	1966-02-25
Suit No.	[1966] GLR 208
Citation No.	[1966]DLHC11004

ARCHER J.

P. V. A. ADJETEY STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE APPELLANT.

I. G. CARSON FOR THE RESPONDENT

[1966]DLHC11004
																																						<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" ><div class="WordSection1">

STATE<o:p></o:p>

vs.<o:p></o:p>

YANKEY<o:p></o:p>

[HIGH COURT,
CAPE COAST]<o:p></o:p>

[1966] GLR 208&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;&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: 25 FEBRUARY 1966<o:p></o:p>

</div>

<h2 style="margin-left:0cm">COUNSEL<o:p></o:p></h2>

P. V. A.
ADJETEY, STATE ATTORNEY, FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

I. G. CARSON
FOR THE RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>

<h2 style="margin-left:0cm;text-align:justify">CORAM:<o:p></o:p></h2>

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

</div>

&nbsp;

JUDGMENT OF ARCHER J.<o:p></o:p>

The
respondent was charged with careless driving under section 18 (1) of the Road
Traffic Ordinance, 1952.1 The
particulars of the charge or offence were that on 1 July 1965 at University Road,
Cape Coast, in the Cape Coast
magisterial district, he did drive a certain motor vehicle No. GE 6449 on the
road without due care and attention.<o:p></o:p>

At
the trial the respondent pleaded not guilty and his counsel raised the point
which according to the record of proceedings reads:<o:p></o:p>

“Counsel raises the point
that the ‘University Road’ is not a public road and cites Buchanan v. Motor Insurers’ Bureau [1955] 1 All E.R. 607.
This court could not agree less than what McNair J. has said in that case. This court is bound to follow.”<o:p></o:p>

In
the circumstances the accused was acquitted and discharged. The State has
appealed against the acquittal of the
respondent on the ground that the learned magistrate erred in holding that the
University College of Cape Coast
roads are not roads for the purposes of the Road Traffic Ordinance. The learned state attorney submitted that the roads at
the University College at Cape Coast come within the definition of road in the Road Traffic Ordinance, and
that the learned district magistrate was not bound by the decision in the English case of Buchanan
v. Motor Insurers’ Bureau.2 Moreover the facts in that case are distinguishable from the facts in the
present appeal and the learned magistrate misapplied the decision. The accident happened after a dance at the University College to which the public
had been invited.<o:p></o:p>

For
the respondent, his learned counsel argued that unauthorised persons are not
allowed at the University College
and that the people who attended the dance were there at the express invitation
of the university, and the public as such have no access to these roads
except by permission.<o:p></o:p>

Before
I deal with these arguments, I wish to remark that in the particulars of
offence, the road is described as
“University Road” as if there is such a road. The learned trial magistrate
appears also to have in mind the “University Road” in his ruling. I have been in this town only a few months and I have not yet come across any road known as the
University Road. Nevertheless the ground of appeal seems to throw some light on the matter and I
therefore take it for granted that the road in question is one of the many roads in the area occupied by the
University College. The word “road” is defined in our Road Traffic
Ordinance. [His lordship here read the definition of<o:p></o:p>

&nbsp;

“road” in section 2 (1)
of the Road Traffic </sp</main>