SARIMBE ALIAS OLALA vs. THE REPUBLIC [1984]DLCA998

Date	1984-04-11
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1984]DLCA998

FRANCOIS JA

EDUSEI JA

MENSA BOISON J.A.

HEWARD MILLS (WITH HIM BOTSIO) FOR THE APPELLANT.

SAM BADDOO CHIEF STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE REPUBLIC.

[1984]DLCA998
																																						<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" ><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

SARIMBE ALIAS OLALA <o:p></o:p>

{COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA} <o:p></o:p>

[1984-86] 2 GLR 13<o:p></o:p>

DATE:
11 APRIL 1984<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">

HEWARD
MILLS (WITH HIM BOTSIO) FOR THE APPELLANT. <o:p></o:p>

SAM
BADDOO, CHIEF STATE ATTORNEY, 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">

FRANCOIS, EDUSEI AND MENSA BOISON JJ.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF FRANCOIS J.A.<o:p></o:p>Francois
J.A. he delivered the judgment of the court. On 28 February 1984 we dismissed
this appeal and fixed 11 April 1984 for the delivery of our reasons. We
accordingly do so now.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Before
setting out our reasons, however, we must dispose of a preliminary objection
raised by the respondent, the Republic, on the competency of the appeal. It has
been a constant theme of the Republic to deny any viability to interlocutory
appeals of this nature. The Republic appears not to accept that article 122 (2)
of the Constitution, 1979, saved by the Provisional National Defence Council
(Establishment) Proclamation, 1981 has reserved an unfettered right of appeal
in a dissatisfied party. We do not wish to go over old ground, but we expressed
this view in Nkansah v. The Republic, Court of Appeal, 17 February 1981,
unreported and Republic v. The Accra Circuit Court; Ex parte Appiah [1982-83]
G.L.R. 129, C.A. These decisions have had more illustrious precursors.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>We repeat
that an appeal lies to this court from any matter determined by the High Court,
and it does not matter whether the decision is given at the end of the case or
in the course of it. The inconvenience to the courts and the whole
administration of justice in the suspension of proceedings while unpalatable
rulings are tested during the course of a trial, is clearly regrettable and we
may echo the sentiments expressed in Seldon v. Davidson [1968] 1 W.L.R. 1083 at
1089, C.A. that a chaotic state of affairs may well result from the practice.
But the supreme law which has not been abrogated by any P.N.D.C. law, has
conferred the right of appeal and that cannot be whittled down. Administrative
or other convenience has never been held sufficient justification for depriving
a person of his rights: see Armah v Government of Ghana [1968] A.C. 192, H.L.
And as Lord Diplock expressed it in the Guyanese case of Jaundo v. Attorney
General of Guyana [1971] 3 W.L.R. 13 at 16, P.C., “€ the Constitution€...will
have a hollow ring unless the fundamental rights which it bestows upon every
person in Guyana’ are buttressed by an effective legal remedy<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Now,
turning to the appeal, the main thrust of counsel for the appellant’s argument
was that the High Court failed “to direct the jury to return a verdict of ‘not
guilty’ at the close of the case for the prosecution”, and consequently erred
in not acquitting and discharging the appellant. For an appreciation of the
merits or demerits of this contention the facts must be briefly narrated. They
are these: A quarrel between a husband and wife ended in the husband locking up
his wife in a room and pummelling her mercilessly. She could only be rescued
when soldiers rammed the door open. The woman was sent to the hospital where
she died shortly after. The husband is the appellant and the deceased, his
wife. The sad but important aspect of the prosecution’s story is that the
deceased was heavy with child at the time she received that severe beating.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>One would
have thought that on these facts there was sufficient material for the case to
go its full length at a trial to allow a jury to bring in its verdict one way
or the other, but counsel for the appellant thinks otherwise and accordingly
filed this interlocutory appeal after the failure of his submission of no case.
He raises several issues to justify a short termination of the matter.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>First,
counsel argued at</main>