STATE vs. NINSIN AND OTHERS [1966]DLHC1759

Date	1966-03-03
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1966]DLHC1759

ARCHER J.

QUARTEY FOR THE APPELLANT.

[1966]DLHC1759
																																						<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" >STATE <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>NINSIN AND OTHERS <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, CAPE COAST]<o:p></o:p>[1966] GLR 451<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 1966.<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">

QUARTEY 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">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF ARCHER J.<o:p></o:p>The
fourteen respondents were prosecuted by the State for refusing to provide
communal labour lawfully demanded, contrary to section 113 of the Labour
Ordinance,1 and were convicted in the Asikuma-Ajumako-Enyan Local Court. They
appealed to the Cape Coast Circuit Court and their convictions and sentences
were set aside. The learned circuit judge then awarded ¢60.00 (sixty cedis)
costs against the complainant and added that the costs would have been awarded
against the trial magistrate, had the court any power so to do. The State
appealed against the award of costs against the complainant. When the appeal
was summarily heard, I decided to treat it as a hearing of the substantive
appeal because it was obvious that the learned circuit judge had no power to
award costs against the complainant.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Section
60 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1960,2 allows complaints to be made either
by making a complaint to a district magistrate and applying for the issue of
either a warrant or a summons and secondly by bringing a person arrested by a
warrant before the court upon a charge. Section 57 then provides that a person
who makes a complaint before a district court may conduct the prosecution of
the cause or matter to which the complaint relates in person or by a legal
practitioner. It follows therefore that criminal cases may be prosecuted by
private prosecutors as complainants or by public prosecutors authorised by the
Attorney-General.<o:p></o:p>However,
section 139 (3) of Act 30 also provides that:<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">“A Court
that acquits or discharges a person accused of an offence, if the prosecution
for such offence was originally instituted on a summons or warrant issued by a
Court on the complaint of a private prosecutor, may order the private
prosecutor to pay to the accused such reasonable costs as the Court thinks
fit.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Private
prosecutor is defined in subsection (7) of section 139 to mean “any person who
is not prosecuting as public prosecutor.” This section means that no costs can
be awarded against a public prosecutor and this would include the State. Costs
can only be awarded against a complainant who himself conducts the prosecution
or by a legal practitioner on his behalf.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In the
present appeal, the respondents were prosecuted by the sanitary officer who is
a public prosecutor on behalf of the State and it follows that no costs could
be awarded against the person who lodged the complaint but did not prosecute
the complaint himself as a private prosecutor.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>I note
that under section 141 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 19603:<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">“If on
the discharge or acquittal of an accused the Court is of opinion that the
charge was frivolous or vexatious the Court may order the complainant to pay to
the accused a reasonable sum not exceeding ten pounds as compensation for the
trouble and expense to which such person may have been put by reason of the
charge in addition to his costs.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The words
“in addition to his costs” in section 141 (1) in my view must be read in
conjunction with section 139 (6) which reads that:<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">&nbsp;“The costs awarded under this section</main>