FREMPONG vs. THE REPUBLIC [1970]DLHC2112

Date	1970-05-28
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1970]DLHC2112

QUASHIE-SAM J..

DARKO FOR THE APPELLANT.

ISAAC ODOI STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1970]DLHC2112
																																						<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" >FREMPONG <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>THE REPUBLIC <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT,
KOFORIDUA]<o:p></o:p>&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;[1971] 2 GLR 76<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:
28 MAY 1970.<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">

DARKO 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">

QUASHIE-SAM J..<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF QUASHIE-SAM J.<o:p></o:p>On 12
February 1971 I allowed the appeal against the conviction of the appellant by
the District Court Grade II, Nkawkaw, on a charge of stealing contrary to
section 124 of the Criminal Code, 1960 (Act 29). Originally the appellant faced
two other charges of undermining the power of a chief, contrary to section 3
(1) (b) of the Chieftaincy Act, 1961 (Act 81), and offensive conduct conducive
to breach of the peace, contrary to section 207 of Act 29.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>At the
close of the prosecution’s case, the appellant was acquitted and discharged on
the two other charges, and he was called upon to enter upon his defence in
respect of the first charge, which he did and he gave evidence and called
witnesses. He was convicted on the charge of stealing and sentenced to six months’
imprisonment with hard labour. It is from this conviction that he has appealed.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
stealing charge arose from the destoolment of the accused as the odikro or
chief of Awenade stool. According to the evidence of the second prosecution
witness, the accused was destooled by the Okyeman on 5 December 1969 and was
ordered to release all stool properties; the record of proceedings shows
clearly that one of the properties involved was a cocoa farm known as Subresu
which the complainants in the stealing charge claim to be Awenade stool
property but which claim is disputed by the appellant. With this background,
the appellant who was already in possession harvested six loads of 10 lb.
weight of cocoa from the said cocoa farm and this is the subject-matter of the
stealing charge.<o:p></o:p>Counsel
for the appellant filed two grounds of appeal in addition to the five original
grounds filed by him. Of the total grounds of appeal, the most effective are in
my opinion the fifth of the original grounds and the two additional grounds of
appeal. These are, in their order of filing:<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) It
was wrong for the trial magistrate to have considered this case and accused’s
claim of right as not falling within the purview of section 180 of Act 30/1960;
(b) That the conviction for stealing was wrong since no dishonest appropriation
was established on the evidence;<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">(c) It
was wrong and woefully against the ends of justice for the trial magistrate to
have restrained the accused from entering the farm and to have placed the farm
under the caretakership of opanin Kofi Aniagyei, regent to the rival but
hitherto sister stool to the accused’s
stool when the accused was also claiming ownership of the farm.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The last
ground (c) above arises from the circumstances that at the close of the case
for the prosecution, when the trial magistrate called upon the appellant to
open his defence on an adjourned date, he proceeded to order, further, that,
“accused is not to pluck or do anything to the farm. Opanin Kofi Aniagyei,
regent, is to act as caretaker of the farm.” At the hearing counsel for the
respondent did not support the conviction nor did he oppose the appeal by
virtue of paragraph 66 of the Courts Decree, 1966 (N.L.C.D. 84), and I think he
was right in not supporting the conviction.<o:p></o:p>