REPUBLIC vs. JACKSON [1981]DLHC2184

Date	1981-04-06
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1981]DLHC2184

QUASHIE-SAM J.A.

AGBANU FOR THE REPUBLIC.

J. K. BEMPAH FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1981]DLHC2184
																																						<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>JACKSON <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, KUMASI]<o:p></o:p>[1982-83] GLR 86<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:
6 APRIL 1981<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">

AGBANU 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 0in 0in">

QUASHIE-SAM J.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF QUASHIE-SAM J.A.<o:p></o:p>The
respondent, R. W. Jackson, Area Manager of Tractor and Equipment, U.A.C.,
Kumasi, was charged with failure to report an accident which occurred at the
workshop on or about 29 May 1979 contrary to sections 10(1) (b) and 63 of the
Factories, Offices and Shops Act, 1970 (Act 328). Section 10(1) (b) of the Act
reads:<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">“10. (1)
Where an accident in any factory, office or shop—<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">(b) Disables
any such person for more than three days from earning full wages at work at
which he was employed, the occupier shall forthwith send written notice of the
accident, in the prescribed form and containing the prescribed particulars, to
the Chief Inspector or the Inspector for the district.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
punishment for defaulting is contained in section 63 of the Act which makes
provisions for a fine not exceeding N¢100 or imprisonment not exceeding one
month or both such fine and imprisonment.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>At the
District Court, Grade 1, Kumasi, the respondent pleaded not guilty to the
charge. Opening the case for the prosecution, the facts, as the prosecution
alleged, were that failure of factories to report accidents led to a circular
being sent out by the Factory Inspectorate to all occupiers warning against
contravention of section 10(b) of Act 328. In spite of that it was alleged the
respondent failed to report an accident which injured Wundua Mingire, a
caterpillar mechanic at his workshop, disabling him from his normal work for
more than three days. Investigations revealed that the respondent had reported
the accident to the District Labour Officer, Kumasi, pursuant to the Workmen’s
Compensation Act, 1963 (Act 174), but not as required under Act 328, hence the
charge.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>At the
hearing counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary point of law which he
centered on the interpretation of the offending section under which the
respondent had been charged, arguing that on a proper interpretation of the
section, the respondent was bound to make a report to the inspectorate only
where the injured person was disabled from earning full wages for more than
three days, and that where the injured person received his full monthly wages,
such as in the present case, there was no offence committed if no report was
made and therefore the respondent should not have been charged. This submission
was rejected by the lower court on stated grounds in its ruling, and hearing
proceeded.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
prosecution called two witnesses: Peter Kwaku Moses, a district labour officer,
testified that he received from the respondent on 11 June 1979 a report of the
accident which was made to him in accordance with Act 174 under which he dealt
with the report and closed the case. This Act, he said, is different from the
Factories, Offices and Shops Act, 1970 (Act 328), under which the respondent
had been charged; but to a question by the court he said, “I do act as a
conduit pipe for the inspectorate”; whatever this means was not explained to
the court, in the face of his evidence that the two Acts are different from
each other. Wundua Mingire, the victim of the accident, gave evidence that the
accident which injured him was on 29 May 1979. He was treated and discharged
and given sick leave. He was away for about three weeks and reported back at
work on 22 June, 1979. He received his full salary from April to July, 1979. In
other words, he received full salary for the three weeks he was not at work.
The prosecution closed its case.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>