REPUBLIC vs. SAFFOUR II [1979]DLHC1112

Date	1979-01-23
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1979]DLHC1112

OKUNOR J.

J. E. K. APPIAH SENIOR STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE REPUBLIC.

E. M. AMPONSAH-DADZIE FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1979]DLHC1112
																																						<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" >REPUBLIC <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>SAFFOUR II<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, CAPE COAST] <o:p></o:p>[1978] GLR 193<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:
23 JANUARY 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">

J. E. K. APPIAH, SENIOR STATE ATTORNEY, FOR THE
REPUBLIC.<o:p></o:p>

E. M. AMPONSAH-DADZIE FOR 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">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF OKUNOR J.<o:p></o:p>This is
an appeal from the decision of His Honour, Judge Twumasi sitting in the Circuit
Court, Cape Coast, on 29 August 1977. The respondent, then accused, was, in
that judgment, acquitted and discharged on four counts of “unlawful receipt of
stool land revenue” contrary to sections 17 (1) and 27 of the Administration of
Lands Act, 1962 (Act 123).<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
prosecution had alleged that on diverse dates in 1975, the respondent who was,
and I believe, still is, the chief of Assin Bereku, had collected various sums
of money from persons to whom he granted portions of Assin Bereku stool lands
for farming and that such moneys were “revenue” as contemplated by the Act, and
collectable only by the minister; receiving the moneys therefore without the
authority of the minister amounted to an offence for which the court was
requested to convict the appellant. This request the learned trial judge
refused to accede to; after examining the evidence and the law on the matter he
came to the conclusion that “there was no offence committed by the accused for
which he could be lawfully convicted.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It is
against this decision that the Republic has appealed to this court. Two
original grounds of appeal were filed on 30 August, i.e. one day after the
aforesaid judgment was delivered. They read:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>“(1) That
the learned circuit judge was wrong in holding that the moneys collected by the
accused were ‘customary drink’ moneys and not ‘revenue’ as defined in section
17 (2) of the Administration of Lands Act, 1962 (Act 123). (2) That having
regard to the provisions of section 17 (2) of Act 123, the learned circuit
judge was wrong in holding that the prosecution has a duty to prove that the
moneys collected by the accused were not ‘customary drink’ moneys.”<o:p></o:p>On 15
February 1978, the prosecution filed eight additional grounds, formulated as
follows:<o:p></o:p>“(1) The trial judge confused the main issue which fell for
determination by undue consideration of the case of Poku v. Akyereko [1963] 2
G.L.R. 285 which had no relevance to the case before him. <o:p></o:p>(2) The trial judge gave undue consideration to the meaning
of the phrase ‘valuable consideration’ when the sections under which the
respondent was tried do not use the phrase. He thus failed to consider the main
question which he had to determine viz., whether or not what the respondent
collected or received was ‘revenue’ as defined under Act 123.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(3) The trial judge
confused the issue to be decided by considering the effect of sections 72 and
75 of the Local Government Ordinance, Cap. 64 (1951 Rev.), when those provisions
had nothing to do with the case before him. <o:p></o:p>(4) The trial judge failed to distinguish the civil and
criminal aspects of the case before him, and thus judged the criminal case
before him on the basis of those provisions of Act 123 which deal with the effect
in civil law of the transactions which were the subject-matter of the criminal
trial. <o:p></o:p>