KINI vs. THE REPUBLIC [1979]DLHC1077

Date	1979-07-13
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1979]DLHC1077

TAYLOR J.

G. K. MENSA-ETSI FOR THE APPELLANT.

J. O. AMUI PRINCIPAL STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE REPUBLIC.

[1979]DLHC1077
																																						<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" >KINI <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, TAMALE] <o:p></o:p>[1978] GLR 412<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:
13 JULY 1979<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">

G. K. MENSA-ETSI FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

J. O. AMUI, PRINCIPAL 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 1.0pt 0in">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF TAYLOR J.<o:p></o:p>The
appeal in this case has already been allowed. I did this to put an end at once
to the continued stay of the appellant in prison. I now proceed to give the
reasons why in my opinion the appeal should be allowed.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
charge in this case is causing damage contrary to section 172 (1) (b) of the
Criminal Code, 1960 (Act 29), and the particulars of offence supporting the
charge were: “Ahojo Kini, farmer: For that you on 10 March 1978 at Yendi in the
Northern Magisterial District and within the jurisdiction of this court did
kill one cow valued ¢1,200 the property of one Dagbanga Kpawuli.”<o:p></o:p>Section
172 (1) (b) of the Criminal Code, 1960, the section under which the accused was
charged, reads:<o:p></o:p>“172. (1)
whoever intentionally and unlawfully causes damage to any property by any means
whatsoever: . . .<o:p></o:p>(b) To a
value exceeding [£100 i.e. ¢200], shall be guilty of a second degree felony.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
relevant facts led by the prosecution in support of the charge are that the
complainant is a cattle owner in the village of Ngani. The appellant is a farmer
in the village of Sabari. One evening after the complainant’s herd of cattle
had returned from pasture, he noticed that one cow was missing when he
inspected his kraal. On investigation two persons who gave evidence said they
saw the appellant slashing a cow at a certain place and that when they
confronted him he explained that the cow was in his farm. The complainant was
then taken to the scene and he found a dead cow. He identified it as his and he
reported to the police. His investigation cautioned statement and a further
statement when he was charged, in both of which he denied the offence, were
tendered in evidence as exhibits A and B respectively—the only two exhibits in
the case. It is therefore upon these facts that the appellant was arraigned before
the district court, grade II, for the offence for which he stood trial.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
appellant when called upon for his defence denied slashing and killing the cow
of the complainant. He said he knew nothing about the dead cow. In the course
of the prosecution’s case when the two witnesses for the prosecution gave
evidence that they saw him slash and kill the cow he cross-examined them and
challenged their evidence and denied killing the said cow.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In the
course of the trial the district court moved to the locus in quo. At the close
of the case for the defence the district magistrate adjourned the case for one
week to deliver judgment. On the adjourned date, i.e. 13 April 1978, when the
case was called the district magistrate recorded:<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">&nbsp;“Case is for mention and not for judgment as a
sister of accused had alleged she killed the cow in question but not the
brother, who is the accused in this case and I am going into it for proof of
the actual cause of this offence. Case is adjourned to 18 April 1978.<o:p></o:p>