OHENE-DJAN vs. ATTORNEY-GENERAL [1978]DLHC1160

Date	1978-06-19
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1978]DLHC1160

AMUA-SEKYI J.

PETER ADJETEY AND D.O. LAMPTEY FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

F.E. CREPPY PRINCIPAL STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT.

[1978]DLHC1160
																																						<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" >OHENE-DJAN <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>ATTORNEY-GENERAL<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[1979] GLR 213<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:
19 JUNE 1978<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">

PETER ADJETEY AND D.O. LAMPTEY FOR THE PLAINTIFF.<o:p></o:p>

F.E. CREPPY, PRINCIPAL STATE ATTORNEY, FOR THE
DEFENDANT.<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">

AMUA-SEKYI J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF AMUA-SEKYI J.<o:p></o:p>The writ
issued by the plaintiff, Dr. Ignatuis Lawrence Ohene-Djan, is endorsed with the
following relief:<o:p></o:p>“The
plaintiff’s claim is for: an order of declaration that the plaintiff’s trial
for murder and subsequent conviction of manslaughter on 11 August 1975 is a
nullity, void or voidable at the instance of the plaintiff as being contrary to
law and fair trial; and constitute such legal irregularity which has occasioned
a substantial miscarriage of justice, thus such conviction, sentence and
warrant of imprisonment be declared null and void, cancelled and set aside.”<o:p></o:p>It was
accompanied by a statement of claim in the material parts of which the
plaintiff averred as follows:<o:p></o:p>“(3) That
the plaintiff states that on or about 9 May 1975, the plaintiff was arrested at
Sunyani by the police and subsequently accused of an offence of murder together
with one other person. <o:p></o:p>(4) The
plaintiff states that the then Chief Justice transferred the case from Sunyani
to be tried in the Accra High Court. <o:p></o:p>(5) The
plaintiff states that at the trial in the High Court in Accra, the plaintiff
was put in charge of a jury of seven men to try and give a true verdict in the
case as required by section 255 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1960 (Act 30),
on 30 July 1975. <o:p></o:p>(6) That
on 6 August 1975, when the prosecution closed their case after tendering a
statutory statement made by the plaintiff, the trial High Court judge failed to
consider and make a ruling whether the plaintiff had a case to answer as
required by section 271 of Act 30.<o:p></o:p>(7) That
on 8 August 1975, after the close of the case for the prosecution, counsel for
the plaintiff asked the court to allow the plaintiff to rely on section 239 (2)
of Act 30. (8) The plaintiff states that after the trial judge had had
discussions with the Director of Public Prosecutions and defence counsel, and
without asking the plaintiff personally to plead guilty to a charge of
manslaughter, the judge said: ‘Dr. Ohene-Djan, so you are convicted of
manslaughter of an unknown man . . .’ <o:p></o:p>(9) The plaintiff
states that at that stage of the trial, the judge had no right in law to allow
the plaintiff to rely on section 239 (2) of Act 30. <o:p></o:p>(10) That
again if the judge had such right at all, it was his legal responsibility to
take the formal verdict of the jury emplanelled to try the plaintiff before
formally convicting the plaintiff. <o:p></o:p>(11) That
failure by the trial judge to take the verdict of the jury occasioned a
fundamental miscarriage of justice to the plaintiff. <o:p></o:p>(12) That
the judge also failed to acquit the plaintiff of the charge of murder before
convicting the plaintiff of manslaughter, and that such an unorthodox procedure
occasioned a fundamental miscarriage of justice to the plaintiff. <o:p></o:p>(13) That
while still facing a charge of murder which carries the death penalty, it was
contrary to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure (Amendment) A</main>