LODONU vs. THE REPUBLIC [1973]DLCA2399

Date	1973-03-30
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1973]DLCA2399

SOWAH JA

KINGSLEY-NYINAH JA

ANNAN J.A.

APPELLANT IN PERSON.

ASAMOAH SENIOR STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE REPUBLIC.

[1973]DLCA2399
																																						<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" >LODONU<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;THE REPUBLIC <o:p></o:p>[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 355<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:
30 MARCH 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">

APPELLANT IN PERSON.<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, KINGSLEY-NYINAH AND ANNAN JJ.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF ANNAN J.A.<o:p></o:p>The
appellant and four others were charged with manslaughter. At the close of the
case for the prosecution the trial judge ruled that there was no evidence
against the second and the third accused persons and he directed the jury to
return a formal verdict of not guilty. The appellant, the fifth accused, and
two others (the first and fourth) were accordingly called upon. All of them
gave evidence. Their evidence in the main was the same and the gist of their
defence was that the deceased had attacked the first and the fourth accused
persons in the bush with a cutlass in the course of a search for the deceased
and these two persons had struck back in self-defence. The appellant who was also
a member of the search party had come on the scene later and had gone to the
aid of his friends. It was the contention of all the three accused persons at
the trial that whatever injuries were inflicted on the deceased were in
self-defence. On this aspect of the defence there was substantial unanimity in
the evidence of the three accused persons.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>By their
verdict the jury found two of the accused persons not guilty of manslaughter or
of any other offence. They, however, found the appellant guilty of manslaughter.<o:p></o:p>The
complaint of the appellant against that verdict is based on three grounds of
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">(a) The conviction cannot be
supported having regard to the evidence adduced before the court. <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">(b) The learned High Court judge
failed to direct adequately or at all the defence of the appellant to the jury.
<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) The learned High Court judge
failed to put the appellant’s defence to the jury and therefore did not consider
whether the appellant’s defence was reasonably probable.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>With
regard to the first ground of appeal perhaps the real gravamen of the complaint
of the appellant is not so much that his conviction cannot be supported having
regard to the evidence adduced before the court but that his conviction ought
not to stand having regard to the evidence accepted and presumably acted upon
by the jury in the case of the other two accused persons and upon which they
were found not guilty by the jury and acquitted and discharged by the judge.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
prosecution called ten witnesses. None of them was present in the bush when the
fatal injuries were inflicted on the deceased and none of them witnessed any
attack of any kind on the deceased. The prosecution also tendered in evidence
the dying declaration of the deceased. In it he gave a graphic account of the
cause of his injuries and the events which led to that state of affairs. The
three accused persons also gave their respective accounts of the events of that
day. It is clear from the record that the only evidence of the cause of death
of the deceased, and the circumstances immediately surrounding that act, was
given for the prosecution by the deceased in his dying declaration and for the
defence by the three accused persons.<o:p></o:p>