MAMAH HAUSAH vs. THE REPUBLIC [1973]DLHC2321

Date	1973-07-16
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1973]DLHC2321

EDWARD WIREDU J.

CARSON FOR THE APPELLANT.

TURKSON STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1973]DLHC2321
																																						<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" >MAMAH HAUSAH<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>THE REPUBLIC <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, CAPE
COAST]<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 293<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:
16 JULY 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">

CARSON 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">

EDWARD WIREDU J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF EDWARD WIREDU J.<o:p></o:p>On 31 May
1972 the appellant was tried and convicted in the District Court Grade I, Cape
Coast, for an offence under section 71 of the Criminal Code, 1960 (Act 29), and
was bound over in the sum of ¢200.00 with one surety to be of good behaviour
and to keep the victim of the offence, his own child, under proper care for a
period of twelve months or in default of which he was to serve three months’
imprisonment with hard labour. The information laid against him reads as
follows:<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">“For that
you on the 3rd day of March 1972 at Bakano Cape Coast in the Central
Magisterial District and within the jurisdiction of this court, then being the
father of Dawuda Hausa, aged five and half years, did expose the said child to
moral and physical danger.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It is
against his conviction that he has appealed to this court on the following
grounds:<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) That
the judgment cannot be supported having regard to the evidence adduced.<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) That
the learned trial magistrate misdirected himself on the law and gave an
erroneous decision.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The facts
of this case may be briefly stated as follows: The appellant is the father of a
five-year male child attending a Muslim school in Cape Coast. On the day in
question the mother of the boy left him with the appellant when she was going
to the market. The evidence shows that the appellant left the child alone in
the compound of the court’s premises where he works as a caretaker and went out
to buy a newspaper. In his absence the boy strayed into the streets and was
knocked down by a taxi cab. He was immediately rushed down to the hospital
where he was treated for the injuries he sustained. The matter was later
reported to the police and the appellant was charged with the offence of
unlawfully exposing the child under section 71 of Act 29 of 1960. The appellant
in his defence testified as follows:<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">“On that
morning, I was sent by one of the judges. I left the child in the compound. I
was sent to go and buy the Graphic. When I came back I went to give water to
some of the visitors who came to the court. I was later told that the child had
been hit by a vehicle. When I was going to buy the Graphic, my son was in the
yard. My son attends school. He is able to go to school on his own and he
sometimes goes with his brothers and sisters. He attends Arabic school. It was
a few minutes after my return, that I was told of the accident. This was the
only occasion I had left my son alone in the compound. It is not correct that I
did expose the child to moral or physical danger. Occasionally my son used to
play with one Mr. Ampaw’s sons in the yard.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Cross-examination:<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">“My son
is aged five years ten months. My wife went to sell, she could not take him up
so she broug</main>