ADOMAKO vs. THE REPUBLIC [1986]DLHC822

Date	1986-10-21
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1986]DLHC822

MENSAH AG. J.

KOFI GYAMBRAH FOR THE APPELLANT.

OWOO FOR THE REPUBLIC.

[1986]DLHC822
																																						<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">

ADOMAKO <o:p></o:p>

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

[1984-86] 2 GLR 766<o:p></o:p>

DATE:
21 OCTOBER 1986<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">

KOFI GYAMBRAH FOR THE APPELLANT. <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">

MENSAH AG. J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF MENSAH AG. J.<o:p></o:p>This is
an appeal lodged against sentence by the appellant. The appellant was arraigned
before the District Court Grade II, Nkoranza charged on two counts of unlawful
entry and stealing contrary to sections 154 and 124 of the Criminal Code, 1960
(Act 29), respectively. Count two showed that the items stolen by the appellant
were a pair of canvas shoes, one bedsheet, pillow case, and one tape recorder,
all totalling ¢7,800.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>When the
appellant pleaded guilty to both charges, the trial magistrate convicted him
and sentenced him to twelve months’ imprisonment with hard labour on count one
and 24 months’ imprisonment with hard labour on count two, sentences to run
consecutively. Accordingly the accused was sentenced to a total of three years’
imprisonment with hard labour.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It is the
second sentence of two years’ imprisonment with hard labour which counsel for
the appellant argues is in excess of the magistrate’s jurisdiction since by
section 39 (2) (b) of the Courts Act, 1971 (Act 372), the magistrate’s
jurisdiction is limited to twelve months. Counsel further submitted that since
the acts of the appellant were made in execution of one criminal purpose or
design, the sentence should have been concurrent and not consecutive as ordered
by the trial magistrate. Finally counsel submitted that since the appellant is
a young first offender, the magistrate should have imposed a fine on the
appellant instead of a straight jail sentence and accordingly invited the court
to deal leniently with his client.<o:p></o:p>In reply
counsel for the Republic associated himself with the points or submission made
by counsel for the appellant.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On the
question of jurisdiction of the magistrate to impose 24 months on an accused
person, I entirely agree with counsel that the trial magistrate grade II has no
jurisdiction to impose a term of 24 months on the appellant in view of the
provisions of section 39 (2) of Act 372 which mandatorily limits the said
district court grade II to the imposition of twelve months’ imprisonment.
Accordingly since the trial magistrate lacked jurisdiction to impose the said
24 months’ imprisonment, it seems the said sentence is null and void and it is
accordingly set aside.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Let me
now address myself to the query raised by counsel to the effect that the
sentences should have been made concurrent and not cumulative since the acts of
the appellant formed one continuous action done in execution of the same
design.<o:p></o:p>After
carefully reading the particulars of the charges and after perusing the facts
recorded by the trial magistrate grade II, I am convinced that the acts of the
appellant were done in the execution of one and the same design or that the
criminal acts of the appellant formed one continuous transaction and therefore
the sentences imposed on the appellant in respect of the two counts should have
been concurrent and not consecutive as ordered by the trial court.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>