AMPAH AND ANOTHER vs. THE REPUBLIC [1976]DLHC352

Date	1976-12-19
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1976]DLHC352

ABBAN J.

U. V. CAMPBELL (N. AKUFO-ADDO WITH HIM) FOR THE FIRST APPELLANT. V. BUCKLE FOR THE SECOND APPELLANT.

KALEO BIO PRINCIPAL STATE ATTORNEY (WITH HIM OPOKU KANKAM ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY) FOR THE REPUBLIC.

[1976]DLHC352
																																						<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" >AMPAH AND ANOTHER<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 403<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:
19 DECEMBER 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">

U. V. CAMPBELL (N. AKUFO-ADDO WITH HIM) FOR THE
FIRST APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

V. BUCKLE FOR THE SECOND APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

KALEO BIO, PRINCIPAL STATE ATTORNEY (WITH HIM
OPOKU KANKAM, ASSISTANT 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">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF ABBAN J.<o:p></o:p>This is
an appeal from the judgment of the Circuit Court, Accra. The appellants were
employed by the Chamber of Mines, hereinafter referred to simply as the Chamber,
and they were based in Accra. The first appellant was the executive-director of
the Chamber, while the second appellant was the accountant. The appellants and
one Colonel Bean, a director and consultant of the Chamber, were the
signatories to the cheques of the Chamber. The second appellant was the first
signatory, the first appellant was the second and the said Colonel Bean was the
third signatory.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>According
to the standing orders which the Chamber gave to the banks of the Chamber, any
cheque signed by the second appellant as the accountant and counter-signed
either by the first appellant, as the executive-director, or by Colonel Bean
was to be accepted as genuine. In other words, any cheque of the Chamber with
the signatures of the appellants on it was to be considered valid. The
authority to sign cheques for and on behalf of the Chamber was exercised by the
two appellants, to the exclusion of Colonel Bean, during the period covered by
the offences and that was between 1 July 1971 and April 1973. By virtue of
being the authorised signatories, the appellants were able, during the said
period, to convert various sums of money, totalling about ¢142,321.74 and
belonging to the Chamber, to their own use.<o:p></o:p>The
method employed by the appellants looked rather simple but ingenious. They used
two agents in the operation, namely, a Mr. E. Q. Hammond and a firm known as
Kweks Agencies. Cheques coming from outside and drawn in favour of the Chamber
were endorsed by the appellants and made payable into the accounts of either
Kweks Agencies or E.Q. Hammond. I should observe that Kweks Agencies was a
private firm registered in Ghana by the first appellant in the name of a Mr.
Alfred Martin. So that, officially and on record, the proprietor of the firm
was the said Alfred Martin; but in reality the first appellant was its owner.
E. Q. Hammond was a pensioner who was personally employed by the first
appellant as a foreman to supervise the construction of a private
dwelling-house of the first appellant.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>After the
cheques which were intended for the Chamber had been diverted into the
respective banking accounts of the said Kweks Agencies and E. Q. Hammond, the
first appellant then got hold of cheque books supposed to belong to Kweks
Agencies and E. Q. Hammond and issued cheques therefrom for the collection of
the sums of money which they had channelled into the said accounts. By the time
the offences were discovered the two appellants, as I have said, had managed to
appropriate the said amount of ¢142,321.74.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Consequently,
they were charged with twenty counts of stealing, contrary to section 124 (1)
of the Criminal Code, 1960 (Act 29), and put before the Circuit Court, Accra.
At the close of the case for the prosecution, it was submitted on behalf of the
appellants that no case had been made out for the appellants to answer. The
submission was based mainly on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove
lack of consent of the Chamber of Mines which ought to have been established
before it could be held that there was dishonest appropriation. After reviewing
the evidence of the prosecution, the learned trial judge came to the conclusion
that quite apart from the evidence aliunde that the Chamber did not consent,
there was also sufficient evidence of intent to defraud and that the “whole
exercise was tainted with fraud or dishonesty.” He accordingly held that a
prima facie case of stealing had been made out and called upon the appellants
to answer the charges.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>