NSUO vs. THE REPUBLIC [1974]DLHC2301

Date	1974-02-26
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1974]DLHC2301

OSEI-HWERE J.

AKOTO FOR THE APPELLANT.

C. S. K. AGBANU SENIOR STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1974]DLHC2301
																																						<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" ><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:
115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:Times;
mso-bidi-font-family:Times;color:#548DD4;mso-themecolor:text2;mso-themetint:
153">NSUO<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:
115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:Times;
mso-bidi-font-family:Times;color:#548DD4;mso-themecolor:text2;mso-themetint:
153">&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:
115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:Times;
mso-bidi-font-family:Times;color:#548DD4;mso-themecolor:text2;mso-themetint:
153">THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH COURT, SUNYANI]<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;[1974] 1 GLR 309<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:
26 FEBRUARY 1974.<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">

AKOTO 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">

OSEI-HWERE J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF OSEI-HWERE J.<o:p></o:p>The
appellant appeals against his conviction and sentence by the District
Magistrate Grade I, Berekum, on one count for careless driving, eleven counts
for negligently causing harm and on one count for using an uninsured vehicle.
The prosecution’s case against the appellant, briefly, was that at about 7 p.m.
on the day in question the appellant was in charge of a timber truck No. AN
8748 which was conveying a caterpillar vehicle from the Nsoatre direction
towards the Berekum direction. Between miles 95 and 96 the first prosecution
witness, who was also in charge of a vehicle conveying some passengers, sighted
the appellant’s vehicle coming from the opposite direction. The appellant gave
him the high beam sign and he signalled with the dim beam three times but the
appellant left his high beams on as he approached. As the first prosecution
witness was dazzled by the appellant’s high beams he applied his brakes and
swerved to the nearside and when he was in the process of by-passing the
appellant’s vehicle the blade of the caterpillar vehicle hooked his vehicle and
caused it to tip over whereby some of the passengers were injured. It was later
discovered that the appellant’s vehicle was not covered by any policy of
insurance.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
appellant denied the charges of careless driving and negligently causing harm.
His defence was that he ran short of fuel at about 5.30 p.m. whilst he was
heading towards Berekum and that he had stopped and parked his vehicle at the
nearside of the road near to the edge of the drain. He then sent one of his men
on the vehicle to go to the next village to get some fuel. When it turned dark
he switched on the parking lights and the danger light. At the same time he
caused one Gyamfi to stand some distance ahead to warn approaching vehicles to
slow down. As the first prosecution witness was approaching at a terrific speed
Gyamfi warned him to slow down by signalling with his torch light but he paid
no heed to him and sped on. As a result the first prosecution witness’s vehicle
drove into the blade of the caterpillar.<o:p></o:p>The
appellant’s counsel argued three grounds of appeal, namely:<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) The
learned magistrate was wrong in arriving at the conclusion that the accused’s
vehicle was in motion at the time of the accident. <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) The
learned magistrate erred in relying on the police sketch which was never
tendered in evidence by the prosecution. <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">(3) The
magistrate failed to consider the strong evidence of the defence.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In ground
(1) learned counsel for the appellant sought to challenge the trial
magistrate’s finding of fact that the appellant’s vehicle was in motion at the
time of the impact. The duty of an appellate tribunal called upon to review a
decision of a trial court on a finding of fact is not only well-known but well
established. The law affecting that duty has been re-stated with clarity by
Akufo-Addo C.J. in Republic v. Asafu-Adjaye (No. 2), Court of Appeal, 1 July
1968, unreported; digested in (1968) C.C. 106, 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">“Where
there is evidence before the tribunal of first instance and where in particular
t</main>