AMUKYI vs. THE REPUBLIC [1983]DLHC2086

Date	1983-03-01
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1983]DLHC2086

AMUKYI vs. THE REPUBLIC

O. K. BRENU FOR THE APPELLANT.

AHLIJAH CHIEF STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1983]DLHC2086
																																						<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" >AMUKYI <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>THE REPUBLIC <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, SEKONDI]<o:p></o:p>[1987-88] GLR 1010<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:
1 MARCH 1983<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">

O. K. BRENU FOR THE APPELLANT. <o:p></o:p>

AHLIJAH, CHIEF STATE ATTORNEY, 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 0in 0in">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF TWUMASI J.<o:p></o:p>TWUMASI
J. The appellant and his wife and one other now at large, were jointly charged
with conspiracy to defraud and defrauding by false pretences contrary to
sections 20 and 131 respectively, of the Criminal Code, 1960 (Act 29). Before
the Circuit Court, Sekondi, only the appellant and his wife were jointly tried.
The trial terminated in the conviction of the appellant and the acquittal of
his wife.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
salient facts of the prosecution’s case as I was able to assemble from the
testimonies of the first and second prosecution witnesses (hereinafter referred
to as the complainants) are as follows: The man at large went all the way from
Agona Junction to Shama to inform the complainants, both being fishermen, that
the appellant had imported some outboard motors and intended to sell them to would-be
purchasers at ¢20,000 each. He arranged a meeting in the house of the appellant
at Agona Junction at which the complainants were present for the purpose of
negotiating for the purchase of the outboard motors. At this meeting the
appellant made a representation that he had imported outboard motors for sale
at ¢20,000 each and they were at the Takoradi Harbour. An agreed price of
¢16,000 was reached. The complainants had sufficient money to pay for the
outboard motors but they felt hesitant of what the appellant told them. At that
juncture, the appellant’s wife appeared on the scene and added her voice to the
story that the appellant had imported outboard motors from overseas and they
had arrived at the Takoradi Harbour. The complainants testified that by what
the appellant’s wife said they believed the story and right on the spot they
paid the sum of ¢32,000 to the appellant’s wife who in turn gave the whole
money to the appellant.<o:p></o:p>The
complainants did not receive the outboard motors. On the day appointed by the
appellant for the delivery of the outboard motors, the appellant brought some
men in fake military uniform who upon seeing the complainants in the
appellant’s house beat them severely using their belts and accused the
complainants of conspiracy with the appellant to steal outboard motors from the
harbour. The story that the appellant framed was that while he was bringing the
outboard motors from the harbour he was intercepted by military personnel who
accused him of having stolen the outboard motors for the complainants to buy.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Subsequent
investigation by Apremdu military personnel revealed that in actual fact those
men in military uniforms could not have been genuine military men. A search was
mounted for the appellant and the man at large. The latter took to his heels
upon seeing the Apremdu soldiers. Later the appellant and his wife were
arrested. Each of them denied the charges both in their cautioned statements to
the police and at the trial in their evidence on oath by setting up the plea of
alibi, the appellant saying he was on his way to Abidjan and the wife saying
she had gone to a village called Asani on the day and time the offences were
alleged to have been committed.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>At the
close of the prosecution’s case the learned trial circuit court judge overruled
defence counsel’s submission of no case but, curiously enough, he found reasons
to reject the appellant’s plea of alibi while he accepted that of his wife.
Having regard to the facts, the verdicts were patently inconsistent and have been
a target of a virulent attack by counsel for the appellant in this court. And I
entirely share counsel’s reaction to the verdict because it runs counter to the
decision of the Court of Appeal in Lodonu v. The Republic [1973] 2 G.L.R. 355,
C.A. which counsel cited where the Court of Appeal speaking through Annan J.A.
said at p. 363 that:<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">“In our
view where two or more accused persons are tried on the same charge and the
evidence adduced before the court with regard to all the accused persons is
substantially the same the conviction of some and the acquittal of others of
the accused persons would be an inconsistent result unless it be shown that the
apparent inconsistency in the result of the trial is attributable to some
significant difference either as to matter of fact or law which affects some
and not the others of the accused persons. Where there are no such matters of
difference the results are inconsistent and cannot stand together. Where a
person convicted in such circumstances appeals against his conviction the
proper decision we think is that the conviction is unreasonable or that it cannot
stand having regard to the evid</main>