KUNGUA AND OTHERS vs. THE REPUBLI [1985]DLHC933

Date	1985-05-01
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1985]DLHC933

ADJABENG J.

JAMES MERCER FOR THE APPELLANTS.

ACQUAH ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE REPUBLIC.

[1985]DLHC933
																																						<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">

KUNGUA AND OTHERS <o:p></o:p>

{HIGH COURT, SEKONDI} <o:p></o:p>

[1984-86] 2 GLR 489<o:p></o:p>

DATE:
1 MAY 1985<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">

JAMES
MERCER FOR THE APPELLANTS. <o:p></o:p>

ACQUAH,
ASSISTANT 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">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF ADJABENG J.<o:p></o:p>This is
an appeal against the judgment of the District Magistrate Grade I, Sekondi
dated 28 September 1984 convicting the appellants. The first appellant was
convicted of the offence of assault on count one and sentenced to three months’
imprisonment with hard labour. The first, second and third appellants were each
convicted of the offence of offensive conduct conducive to a breach of the
peace on count two and sentenced to a fine of ¢200 each or two months’ imprisonment
with hard labour, and also bonded over to be of good behaviour for six months
and in default, two months’ imprisonment with hard labour. The fourth appellant
was convicted of the offence of aiding and abetting crime on count three and
sentenced to a fine of ¢200 or two months’ imprisonment with hard labour and
was also bonded over. The appeal is against both the conviction and the
sentences.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The facts
giving rise to the prosecution in this case were stated by the trial magistrate
in his judgment. The facts are that since the death of the chief of Butre, the
first prosecution witness, Kobina Asuonam, had been appointed caretaker at
Butre. As such caretaker or regent he became the caretaker of Asemko. As the
first prosecution witness lived at Asemasi, he appointed the second prosecution
witness, Ekow Biren, to stand in his stead at the village. By this arrangement,
anybody who wanted to do anything at Asemko contacted the second prosecution
witness who would inform the first prosecution witness. On 10 September 1984 in
the morning at about 11 o’clock the second prosecution witness heard that a
gong-gong was being beaten at Asemko village. Apparently he became startled as
he had not authorised it. He sent for the third prosecution witness, Kwame, the
gong-gong beater, to find out if he had any idea. The third prosecution witness
informed him that he had no idea. They, therefore, together with the fifth
prosecution witness, Maame Abrokwa, went to find out those who were beating the
gong-gong. They met them at a place near the market. Here they asked them under
what authority they were beating the gong-gong. They were told. Apparently they
were not satisfied so they tried to take the gong-gong from the second
appellant. The first appellant in the process pushed down the fifth prosecution
witness who fell down and became unconscious. Some water was poured on her to
revive her. She was taken to the house and she collapsed a second time. The
first, second and third appellants were consequently detained by the people.
Later they were taken to the police station. Maame Abrokwa was taken to the
hospital and was treated and discharged.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
appellants were later charged, tried, convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.
They therefore appealed to this court. The appellants filed the following
grounds of appeal:<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">“(1) The
convictions cannot be supported having regard to the evidence. <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">(2) The
convictions are wrong law in that the interpretation of section 207 of the
Criminal Code, 1960 (Act 29), by the trial judge, namely that ‘behaviour’ in
the said section is not related to any statutory qualification, is contrary to
law, reason and precedents.<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">&nbsp;(3) The charge under section 207 of Act 29
does not disclose any triable offence. <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">(4) That
the sentences are harsh, unconscionable and vindictive.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>