ALPHA ZABRAMA vs. THE REPUBLIC [1976]DLHC347

Date	1976-01-22
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1976]DLHC347

TAYLOR J.

ARTHUR FOR THE APPELLANT.

FLORENCE OKINE ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE REPUBLIC.

[1976]DLHC347
																																						<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" >ALPHA ZABRAMA<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH
COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1976] 1 GLR 291<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:
22 JANUARY 1976.<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">

ARTHUR 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">

TAYLOR J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF TAYLOR J.<o:p></o:p>The
appellant in this case and one other as the first accused were arraigned before
the district court grade I charged on two counts with the offences of
conspiracy to steal contrary to section 23 of the Criminal Code, 1960 (Act 29),
and stealing contrary to section 124 (1) of the said Act 29. He was the second
accused and he and his co-accused pleaded guilty to these charges, after which
the prosecutor gave to the court the facts of the case 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">“The
complainant is a cattle dealer at Ashaley Botwe village. On 5 May 1975, his
cattle attendant told him of the loss of two of his cows. They searched around
their area and later saw one of the cows tied to a tree some distance away. At
7 p.m. that day, the first accused was seen at the area untying the cow. With
the help of the others in the area, he was ambushed and apprehended. He then
said he and the second accused agreed to steal two cows for the second accused,
a butcher at Nima. He added that it was the second accused who asked him to
untie the second cow for him. The second accused was arrested later and he
confirmed that he had actually agreed to commit the offence with the first
accused. He produced ¢180.00 being part payment of the first cow which is worth
¢600.00 and promised to pay the balance later on. The police went round with
the accused’s relatives to give the second accused the chance to pay the money.
For two weeks, neither the second accused nor his relatives paid anything. The
two accused persons were charged after investigations.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Before
proceeding to conviction and sentence, the district magistrate obtained from
the appellant the following explanation:<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">“I am a
cattle dealer. The first accused brought the cows for sale and I bought them. I
killed one. He said he was going to bring me a second one. But I did not pay
him before I was arrested. I offered to pay ¢300.00 for it. I know that the
first accused does not own any cattle. He told me he is a farmer. But once he
was selling I bought it. I pleaded for leniency. I realised ¢520.00 from the
sale of the first cow.<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">Although
I did not pay the first accused, I gave the police ¢180.00 when I was
arrested.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
district magistrate thereupon convicted the appellant and although he was not
obliged to give reasons for his decision having regard to the provisions of
section 121 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1960 (Act 30), he nevertheless
proceeded to give reasons in a short ruling 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">“Each
accused is convicted on his own plea. While the first accused admits the
offence and adds that he and the second accused planned together to steal the
cow the second accused is now creating the impression that he merely bought the
cows as they were offered for sale. If the second accused merely bought them,
he should at least have made part-payment for the first cow after re-selling
it. But on his own showing no payment was made to the first accused after the
sale of the first cow. I am satisfied that the two accused are guilty of the
offences because from their explanations it is apparent that they both planned
and did go for the first cow and were indeed going to get the second cow, but
for their arrest, knowing very well that the cows were not for them.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
district court obtained further information about the appellant showing that
the appellant is a Nigerian who had resided in Ghana since 1965. He has a
Ghanaian wife with three children, aged six, tw</main>