STATE vs. DJABA [1966]DLSC1758

Date	1966-06-20
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1966]DLSC1758

SARKODEE-ADOO C.J

MILLS-ODOI JSC

BRUCE-LYLE J.S.C.

S. M. BOISON PRINCIPAL STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE APPELLANT.

P. A. ADJETEY FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1966]DLSC1758
																																						<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>DJABA <o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT]<o:p></o:p>[1966] GLR 575<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:
20 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">

S. M. BOISON, PRINCIPAL STATE ATTORNEY, FOR THE
APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

P. A. ADJETEY FOR THE RESPONDENT.<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">

SARKODEE-ADOO C.J., MILLS-ODOI AND BRUCE-LYLE
JJ.S.C.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF SARKODEE-ADOO C.J.<o:p></o:p>Sarkodee-Adoo
C.J. delivered the reasons for the judgment of the court. We dismissed this
appeal on 6 May 1966 indicating that we would give our reasons later, and
accordingly we now give the reasons. The appeal is from the ruling of Wiredu J.
dated 22 April 1966 reported at p. 327 supra admitting the respondent to bail,
and is set out in extenso:<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">“The
applicant was convicted on 10 May 1965 with two others of conspiracy and
stealing an amount of £G512,000 and he was sentenced to 24 years’ imprisonment
with hard labour. He has filed an appeal and applied to this court for bail.
The main grounds of the application are that he has a reasonable chance of
success in the appeal which may take a long time before it is heard and that
his being kept in custody would work hardship and be unjust to him should the
appeal succeed. This point was canvassed exhaustively in the analysis of the 97
page judgment of Akainyah J. (as he then was) sitting in the High Court, Accra.
The respondent dwelt mainly on the question of jurisdiction and on authorities
showing that there must be special or exceptional circumstances before bail
should be granted. I have therefore to decide: <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">(1)
Whether or not I have jurisdiction to entertain this application. <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">(2)
Conditions governing granting of bail pending appeal. <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">(3)
Whether this application should be entertained. The application was originally
brought under section 332 (1) and later amended to include section 96 (1) to
(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1960 (Act 30), and section 22 (2) of the
Courts Act, 1960 (C.A. 9). Section 332 (1) as amended by the Criminal Procedure
Code (Amendment) (No. 2) Act, 1962 (Act 116), reads: ‘After the filing of a
petition of appeal by any person entitled to appeal, and pending the hearing,
the High Court may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, order that the
execution of a sentence or order appealed against be suspended and also, if he
is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond.’ The
respondent contends that this section comes under Part VIII of the Act and
therefore refers to appeals from district courts that being that sub-heading.
The reply to that was that that sub-heading cannot control the section because
subsequent sections reveal that though the sub-title refers to appeals from
district courts there is mention of juvenile and circuit courts and that shows
that Part VIII is not restricted to district courts. Besides section 4 of the
Interpretation Act, 1960 (C.A. 4), states that “titles placed at the head or
beginning of any subdivision of an enactment . . . are intended for convenience
of reference only and do not form part of the enactment.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Section
336 as amended by Act 116, s. 9 and section 8 of the criminal Procedure Code
(Amendment) Act, 1965 (Act 261), provides that, “Every appeal made under
section 335 shall be entered within one month of the order appealed against,
and, subject to Rules of Court made by the Supreme Court, the provisions of
sections 326 to 334 shall apply mutatis mutandis to appeals from the High Court
to the Supreme Court.” Section 332 (1) is within section 336. I am of the
opinion that despite the interpretation of section 4 of the Interpretation Act,
1960, that the heading of the subdivision Part VIII referring to district courts
is for convenience and also the fact that despite that subdivision references
are made to juvenile and circuit courts, the provisions are not limited by the
heading of the subdivision, otherwise juvenile and circuit courts which are
distinct courts in themselves under C.A. 9 would not be mentioned in the
provisions under Part VIII of Act 30.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>To avoid
any further confusion section 336 is clear that ‘provisions of sections 326 to
334 shall apply mutatis mutandis to appeals from the High Court to the Supreme
Court.’ Mutatis mutandis High Court must then read Supreme Court in appeals to
Supreme Court and I have no jurisdiction under that section.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>