TIDURI vs. THE REPUBLIC [1988]DLHC2320

Date	1988-03-16
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1988]DLHC2320

BENIN J.

SAIBU FOR NUHU FOR THE APPELLANT.

AGBOLOSO PRINCIPAL STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE REPUBLIC.

[1988]DLHC2320
																																						<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" >TIDURI<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>THE
REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
COURT, TAMALE]<o:p></o:p>[1991] 1
GLR 209<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">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="right" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:right;
mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">Date: 16 MARCH 1988, <o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>SAIBU FOR
NUHU FOR THE APPELLANT.<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">

AGBOLOSO,
PRINCIPAL STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE REPUBLIC.
<o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGMENT
OF BENIN J.<o:p></o:p>The
accused was arraigned before the District Court Grade II, Walewale on a charge
of causing harm, contrary to section 69 of the Criminal Code, 1960 (Act 29).
The facts of the case as can be gathered from the entire record were as
follows: The accused has a son who was married by custom to one Maria, the
daughter of one Sulemana Wudana who testified for the defence at the trial.
This girl Maria, the story continues, was abducted by the complainant who now
lives with her. To cap it all, the defence alleged that the complainant has
made the accused’s son whose wife he had snatched mad. Apparently, as he
himself said on oath, the accused became aggrieved at the agony of his son
losing his lawful wife and getting mad to boot. The last straw that broke the
camel’s back was that the complainant has been beating the children of the
accused at school. This is the background to this case. However, the
prosecution witness did not accept these facts. The prosecution’s story was
that prior to the day of this incident the complainant had mistakenly touched
the accused and for this he apologised to the accused who apparently did not
accept it, going by the evidence of the second prosecution witness that the
accused’s reply to the apology was that “sorry is not medicine.” On the fateful
day, the complainant and his brother, the second prosecution witness, were
returning home from their farm when they came upon the accused standing on the
road all alone. Without the least provocation from the complainant, the accused
hit him twice with a cutlass. Hence, the complaint. The court reviewed the
facts in evidence as well as the caution statement of the accused which went in
evidence without objection and which appeared to be a confession statement, and
came to the conclusion that the accused was guilty, not of the offence of
causing harm with which he was charged, but of the offence of assault under
section 84 of Act 29. The magistrate then sentenced the accused to a fine of
¢10,000 or in default ten months’ imprisonment. He also ordered the accused to
compensate the complainant in the sum of ¢20,000. It is against these
conclusions and orders that the accused has appealed against both the
conviction and sentence.<o:p></o:p>A close
look at the record indicates that the first three grounds of appeal were filed
after the conviction but before the reasons for conviction were given and
sentence passed. After passing judgment and convicting the accused, the court
put the accused into prison custody and adjourned to a future date to deliver
the reasons and to pass sentence. This led to the first three grounds of appeal
formulated thus:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:5.0pt;margin-left:.75in;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;
text-indent:-.25in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;border:none;
mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(1). “The judgment cannot be supported
having regard to the evidence. <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:5.0pt;margin-left:.75in;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;
text-indent:-.25in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;border:none;
mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(2). The learned trial magistrate erred in
convicting the accused solely on his own statement. <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:5.0pt;margin-left:.75in;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;
text-indent:-.25in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;border:none;
mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(3). The remand of the accused in custody
for two weeks for sentence is unjustified.”<o:p></o:p>On
receipt of the record after the sentence was passed, the following additional
grounds of appeal were filed:<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
no reasons whatsoever were given for the conviction of the accused. <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">(5) That
the fine of ¢10,000 or ten months’ imprisonment with hard labour was rather too
harsh and far above the criminal jurisdiction of the district court, grade II. <o:p></o:p>