QUANSAH vs. THE REPUBLIC [1979]DLHC1098

Date	1979-04-30
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1979]DLHC1098

OSEI-HWERE J.

E. F. SHORT FOR THE APPELLANT.

NO APPEARANCE BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT.

[1979]DLHC1098
																																						<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" >QUANSAH<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, CAPE COAST] <o:p></o:p>[1978] GLR 263<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:
30 APRIL 1979<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>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">

E. F. SHORT FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

NO APPEARANCE BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT.<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">

OSEI-HWERE J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF OSEI-HWERE<o:p></o:p>The
appellant was jointly charged with two others for conduct conducive to the
breaches of the peace, contrary to section 207 of the Criminal Code, 1960 (Act
29). The particulars stated, inter alia, that the appellant and the two
co-accused persons at Otuam did behave in a way likely to cause breaches of the
peace in that they did beat gong-gong to state that Nana Kow Otuam, the head of
Aboradzie family of Otuam had been destooled and that they did so with intent
to provoke a breach of the peace. The appellant was charged as the first
accused and the two others as the second and third accused persons. The
prosecution’s case was that the appellant was at the time of the alleged
offence the destooled chief of Otuam and the first prosecution witness is the
head of his family. On the instructions of the appellant, the second and third
accused persons went to the frontage of the first prosecution witness’s house
and there beat a gong-gong and announced that the first prosecution witness was
no longer the head of family and that he had been destooled as such head. They
further said that the appellant had come back as the chief. All the family
members in the first prosecution witness’s house are alleged to have rushed out
and they had wanted to snatch the gong-gong but the first prosecution witness
restrained them. The first prosecution witness caused the arrest of the second
and third accused and later they were charged along with the appellant. The
appellant admitted that he sent the second and third accused to go and beat the
gong-gong to make the announcement. At the time he sent these two men he had
been restored as the chief of Otuam by the judgment of the judicial committee
of the Central Regional House of Chiefs. The trial was before the District
Court Grade I, Saltpond (his Worship J. K. Osei presiding), where the court
found the charge proved against the appellant and his co-accused persons and
they were accordingly convicted and sentenced. The appellant was sentenced to
one week imprisonment and the second and third accused cautioned and
discharged.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In his
judgment the trial magistrate found that it was uncustomary to destool a head
of family the way the appellant sought to do and that the conduct of the second
and third accused incensed members of the first prosecution witness’s family
which, in the words of the first prosecution witness, nearly brought a “civil
war” but for his restraining influence. He again found that as there was a long
standing dispute between the appellant and members of his family, he ought to
have known (he being a chief himself) that taking that uncustomary way to
purport to destool the first prosecution witness would naturally bring possible
riot in the town. He accordingly found that the appellant caused the gong-gong
to be beaten with intent to cause a breach of the peace. In summary, the points
advanced by the appellant’s counsel on his behalf are these:<o:p></o:p>(a) Under
general principles of criminal law the appellant could not have been charged
with the substantive offence but rather he could have been charged as an
abettor.<o:p></o:p>(b) There
was no positive proof that the gong-gong was beaten in “any public place.”<o:p></o:p>(c) The
gravamen of the prosecution’s case was that the appellant had been destooled
and he could not cause gong-gong to be beaten. The finding that he had been
restored to the stool should have knocked off the bottom of the prosecution’s
case.<o:p></o:p>(d) The
matters disclosed were of a constitutional nature which could ground no charge
under section<o:p></o:p>207 of
Act 29.<o:p></o:p>(e) The
complainant only wanted to get the appellant imprisoned and then subsequently
use that against him to get him destooled.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>