TINIEYE AND ANOTHER vs. THE REPUBLIC [1979]DLHC1119

Date	1979-08-15
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1979]DLHC1119

TAYLOR J.

L. BIMI FOR THE APPELLANTS.

MRS. SOPHIA ADENYIRA STATE ATTORNEY FOR V. Y. AGUDETSE

SENIOR STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE REPUBLIC.

[1979]DLHC1119
																																						<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" >TINIEYE AND ANOTHER<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, BOLGATANGA] <o:p></o:p>[1978] GLR 565<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:
15 AUGUST 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">

L. BIMI FOR THE APPELLANTS.<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
appellants here were jointly charged with stealing farm equipment valued at
¢2,833.95; building materials valued at ¢2.789.50 and personal effects valued
at ¢1,070 all to the total value of ¢6,693.45 the property of one Idana Asigri.
When they were arraigned before the circuit court presided over by his Honour<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Judge
Adadevoh, they pleaded not guilty and the prosecutor gave the following facts:<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">“Complainant
is the elder brother of the accused persons. During October 1977, the complainant
who is a farmer locked up his room and went to the farm at Waga. The first and
the second accused persons went to the house of the complainant and opened his
room with a duplicate key and stole the articles mentioned in the charge sheet.
They sold the articles in Togo and in Ghana. Later some of the articles were
traced to those who bought them from the accused persons. The accused persons
were arrested and charged with the offence.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>If the
prosecutor had led evidence to substantiate these facts, there would have been
no difficulty at all. Unfortunately the only evidence led was that some of the
articles specified in the charge sheet were sold by the first appellant to the
second prosecution witness and others were sold by the second appellant to the
third prosecution witness. Furthermore, the first appellant when he was in
police custody and was charged made a statement in his own handwriting in
which, in effect, he admitted that he found the articles in the bush and with
his companion they took them and sold them. Having regard to the confession and
the fact that the stolen articles were found with the accused persons soon
after they had been stolen and that they were found disposing of them and were
unable to offer satisfactory explanations about how they came by the articles,
the learned circuit court judge found the charge proved and convicted them of
the offence of stealing with which they were charged. Expressing the view that
stealing was rampant in the Bawku area and therefore a deterrent sentence was
called for, he sentenced the appellants to three years’ imprisonment with hard
labour each. It is against these convictions and sentences that the appellants
appeal to this court.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Mr. L.
Bimi, counsel for the appellants, filed on their behalf four grounds of appeal
which he argued very vigorously before me. The said grounds are:<o:p></o:p>“(1) The
judge erred in admitting the confession statements of the accused persons and
thereafter basing his findings of fact on such inadmissible statements. <o:p></o:p>(2) The failure
of the prosecution to call as a witness one Adinko, mother of the first
prosecution witness who in all respects was a material witness, is fatal to the
case of the prosecution. (3) The sentence is excessive having regard to the
evidence and the circumstances of the appellants.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(4) The trial judge erred in law when he meted
out a harsh sentence because stealing is rampant in the<o:p></o:p>