REPUBLIC vs. AMADU FULANI [1970]DLSC2150

Date	1970-12-19
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1970]DLSC2150

SOWAH JA

ANIN JA

ARCHER J.A.

KISSEIH SENIOR STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE APPELLANT.

D. K. AFREH FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1970]DLSC2150
																																						<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" >REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;AMADU FULANI<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL]<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] 1 GLR 44<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:
19 OCTOBER 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">

KISSEIH, SENIOR STATE ATTORNEY, FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

D. K. AFREH 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">

SOWAH, ANIN AND ARCHER JJ.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF SOWAH J.A.<o:p></o:p>Sowah
J.A. delivered the judgment of the court. Amadu Fulani was on the 20 January
1967 after a summary trial by the Circuit Court, Accra, convicted of the
offences of conspiracy, unlawful entry and stealing property valued at
¢3,462.00 and was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment with hard labour after
the prosecution had given his antecedents of previous convictions and
sentences.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>He
appealed to the High Court, Accra, on both conviction and sentence but the
appeal on conviction was dismissed whereupon the learned judge of the High
Court called upon the senior state attorney to support the sentence of seven
years’ imprisonment since the trial of the appellant was summary. The arguments
advanced by counsel for the State did not particularly impress the learned
judge and, with respect, we do not consider them impressive. In a long and
reasoned judgment, the learned judge held that the circuit judge was wrong in
imposing a sentence of seven years after a summary trial; further, that a
circuit court trying a case summarily and for that matter, a High Court had no
jurisdiction to impose a sentence higher than a court of summary jurisdiction
and accordingly reduced the sentence to two years’ imprisonment.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The State
has appealed on the grounds which may be compendiously stated, namely, that the
learned judge erred in his interpretation of the jurisdiction of the circuit
court and the High Court in relation to their powers of sentence after a
summary trial. We had the benefit of the reasoned judgment of the judge and of
arguments of Mr. Afreh who was invited to assist the court in support of the
judgment and of Mr. Kisseih, senior state attorney, for the appellant.<o:p></o:p>[p.46] of
[1971] 1 GLR 44<o:p></o:p>It is not
out of disrespect that we do not repeat counsel’s argument in full. Mr. Afreh,
in the main, sought to support the reasoning of the learned judge that our
machinery of criminal justice envisages some correlation between the mode of
trial and the sentencing powers of the courts and that under our system,
indictable offences carry with them heavier sentences than summary ones. From
this premise, learned counsel drew the court’s attention to the old Criminal
Code, Cap. 9 (1951 Rev.), and the Criminal Procedure Code, Cap. 10 (1951 Rev.),
and undertook a comparative analysis of their provisions with the present
Criminal Code, 1960 (Act 29), and Criminal Procedure Code, 1960 (Act 30). Mr.
Afreh first referred to the titles of the new Codes which read: “AN ACT to
consolidate and amend the law relating to criminal offences” and “An Act to
consolidate and amend enactments providing for the procedure to be followed in
criminal cases” and submitted that it is a principle of interpretation that
where words and provisions from a repealed enactment are repeated in a new
enactment is in pari materia, then the legislature would be deemed to intend to
retain the meaning and effect of those words or provisions as had hithertofore
been placed upon them. This comparative analysis is also contained in the
judgement and we think it would be repetitious to state the argument herein in
full.<o:p></o:p>My
Kisseih submitted, and in our view, correctly, that the court ought first to
focus its attention on the provisions of the Criminal Code, 1960 (Act 29), and
Criminal Procedure Code, 1960 (Act 30), and not on any nostalgia of former
times and past practices. Nevertheless, he adverted to the fact that even under
the old law, the High Court had greater powers of sentence when exercising its
summary jurisdiction in criminal case.<o:p></o:p>Under the
old law the criminal jurisdiction of the magistrate’s court was contained in
section 49 of the Courts Ordinance, Cap. 4 (1951 Rev.). It provided that the
magistrate shall </main>