ISSIFU MALI vs. THE REPUBLIC [1975]DLHC396

Date	1975-11-03
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1975]DLHC396

MENSA BOISON J.

NO APPEARANCE BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT.

OSEI STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE REPUBLIC.

[1975]DLHC396
																																						<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" >ISSIFU MALI <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH
COURT, SUNYANI]<o:p></o:p>[1976] 1 GLR 65<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:
3 November 1975.<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">

NO APPEARANCE BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

OSEI, STATE ATTORNEY, FOR THE REPUBLIC.<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">

MENSA BOISON J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF MENSA BOISON J.<o:p></o:p>The appellant,
a Malian, was found to have bought a quantity of maize of about 22 cocoa
sackfuls besides a sizeable quantity of drying mats, at Abesim, a village six
miles from Sunyani. There was evidence that the maize had been bought by the
appellant with the intention to re-sell at some later time.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On his
conviction and sentence by the Circuit Court, Sunyani, “for being as an alien
engaged in petty trading on about 19 August 1973,” he has by counsel appealed
to this court. The offence was contrary to the Ghanaian Business (Promotion)
Act, 1970 (Act 334), s. 15 (a), which provides 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">“Notwithstanding
anything in this Act, it shall not be lawful for any alien to engage in or be
concerned with— (a) petty trading, (b) hawking, or (c) selling from a kiosk, in
any place in Ghana.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>First to
be argued was that the evidence adduced could not support the conviction. It is
said that “to trade” or “trading” means buying and selling and that the
appellant would only offend the enactment if besides “buying the maize” he had
proceeded to sell. Without evidence of sale the charge was not made out.<o:p></o:p>I have
referred to Fowler’s, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English (5th
ed,.)—which I think enjoys some respectability in our courts. Of the several
meanings of the word “trade” I find those which come nearest to the context of
section 15 (a) are 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">“Exchange
of commodities for money or other commodities; commerce as foreign trade,
exportation &amp; importation of goods . . . of different countries; domestic
or home trade (carried on within a country).”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Again in
Saunder’s Words and Phrases Legally Defined (2nd ed.), Vol. 5, at p. 203,
“trade” is defined thus:<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">“Trade in
its primary meaning is the exchanging of goods for goods or goods for money;
and in a secondary meaning it is any business carried on with a view to profit,
whether manual or mercantile, as distinguished from the liberal arts or learned
professions and agriculture.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It
follows then that even on the concession of counsel when the appellant bought
the maize it was “in exchange of goods for money,” and that in my opinion is
covered by the word trade in the context of the section.<o:p></o:p>But it is
also said that in any case the section did not cover the subject-matter of the
crime. “Petty trading”’ in the enactment must apply to trading on a small-scale
in a variety of miscellaneous manufactured goods such as sugar, cotton thread,
matches, etc. It was therefore contended that maize being a produce of the land
is not such a commodity as is prohibited under the section. For what seems to
be a novel proposition counsel was co</main>