REPUBLIC vs. MAIKANKAN AND OTHERS [1973]DLCA2267

Date	1973-05-18
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1973]DLCA2267

KOI LARBI JSC

CHARLES CRABBE J.S.C

ANNAN J.A.

GYEKE-DAKO DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS FOR THE REPUBLIC.

PETER ADJETEY PETER SWANIKER AND JAMES QUASHIE-IDUN FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[1973]DLCA2267
																																						<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>vs. <o:p></o:p>MAIKANKAN AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<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;[1973]
2 GLR 384<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

DATE:
18 MAY 1973.<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">

GYEKE-DAKO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS, FOR
THE REPUBLIC.<o:p></o:p>

PETER ADJETEY, PETER SWANIKER AND JAMES
QUASHIE-IDUN FOR THE RESPONDENTS.<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">

KOI LARBI AND CHARLES CRABBE JJ.S.C.
AND ANNAN J.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF CHARLES CRABBE J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>The
accused persons, ten of them, had been charged on 516 counts. The offences,
alleged to have been committed between January and December 1969, range from
defrauding by false pretences and uttering forged documents to forgery of
documents. At the trial the prosecution sought to tender in evidence a
document. Mr. Peter Swaniker, one of the defence counsel, objected to the
document being tendered in evidence.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
ground for the objection was that it had not been stated in the summary of
evidence of that witness that he would tender any document in evidence. Counsel
contended that the object of an accused person being supplied with the summary
of evidence was to enable him or his counsel to know in advance what the
witness was going to do so as to avoid a surprise.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Mr.
Gyeke-Dako, the Director of Public Prosecutions and prosecuting counsel, argued
that all that the Criminal Procedure Code, 1960 (Act 30), required was that a
summary of the witness’s evidence should be made and a list of the documents
which were intended to be tendered in evidence should be attached to that
summary. The summary of evidence was not expected to contain a statement that
the witness should be asked to tender the documents.<o:p></o:p>Mr. Peter
Adjetey, another defence counsel, also objected to the document being tendered,
supporting the contention of Mr. Peter Swaniker. He added that under paragraph
(b) of subsection (1) of section 182 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1960, (Act
30), if an accused person should be kept in the dark as to who was to tender
any document, then it would be putting the accused person in difficulty in preparing
against the witness for the prosecution.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
learned trial judge gave a ruling as follows:<o:p></o:p>“I uphold
the objection raised by learned counsel for the defence. The purpose of section
182 (1) of Act 30 is to enable an accused person or his counsel to know in
advance what charge or charges he is to face and what evidence is to be adduced
against him. He is to know in a nutshell what each witness for the prosecution
is to say or do in the witness box. Since the witness is not expected, by the
summary of his evidence, to tender any document it is improper for him to be
allowed to tender any document to surprise the accused persons or their
counsel. I further uphold counsel’s argument that once the document sought to
be tendered has not been listed it cannot be tendered by the witness.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Prosecuting
counsel then gave notice of his intention to appeal against the ruling. He
applied for the hearing to be adjourned sine die pending the hearing of the
appeal by this court. Mr. Swaniker, defence counsel, contended that the hearing
could proceed with the remaining witnesses who would not tender any document.
Prosecuting counsel felt, however, that the ruling went far enough, meaning
that a witness could not give evidence on what had not been stated in his
summary of evidence. And as some of the witnesses were expected to give
e</main>