REPUBLIC vs. ESHUN AND ANOTHER [1999]DLCA460

Date	1999-01-28
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1999]DLCA460

WOOD JA

BROBBEY JA

BENIN JA

P K E DONKOR FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

M K AFRIYIE PRINCIPAL STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE REPUBLIC APPLICANT.

[1999]DLCA460
																																						<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" ><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">vs.<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">ESHUN AND ANOTHER<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1999-2000] 1 GLR 324<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: 28
JANUARY 1999<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>M K AFRIYIE, PRINCIPAL STATE ATTORNEY, FOR THE REPUBLIC APPLICANT.<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 K E DONKOR FOR THE
RESPONDENTS. <o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGMENT OF WOOD JA.<o:p></o:p>By this motion, the Republic-applicant seeks an extension of time
within which to appeal against the decision of the Western Regional Tribunal
delivered on 23 June 1993 by which the respondents were acquitted and
discharged on the offences of conspiracy to steal and stealing the sum of ¢1.6
million, property of their employers—the State Insurance Corporation.<o:p></o:p>The affidavit in support of the application, which is brought
under section 11(6) of the Courts Act, 1993 (Act 459) discloses the reason for
the delay. The said reason as is contained paragraph (5) of the said affidavit
states: “that the result of the trial was not brought until 2 August 1993.”
That still does not explain why the delay for almost four years. It is when one
reads the affidavit in opposition that one gets the full facts, particularly
the reason for the inordinate delay.<o:p></o:p>Frankly, I think counsel for the Republic had not been candid to
this court. It is the duty of counsel in applications of this kind to make a
full and frank disclosure of all essential facts related to the application in
order that the court may, particularly since this is a criminal matter, do
justice to all the parties, especially the respondents who have after a full
trial been acquitted and discharged by a court of competent jurisdiction.<o:p></o:p>Indeed, I am of the view that in applications such as the instant
case, an onerous responsibility rests on the applicant. What then are these
crucial matters which the applicant as an officer of this court ought, in all
fairness to the court, to have laid before this court? They are contained in
paragraphs (6), (7), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12) and (13). I would for my part
reproduce them:<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">“(6) That soon after the judgment was given, Mr Anthony Rexford
Wiredu, then assistant state attorney, Attorney-General’s Department, Sekondi
who was at the tribunal when the judgment was given on 23 June 1993 applied for
a copy and indicated his intention to appeal against same. <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">(7) That he went to sleep and later on 2 August 1993 filed a
petition of appeal to that effect. (A copy of the petition of appeal is
attached and marked as exhibit El.)<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">(8) That on 22 May 1996 Mr M K Afriyie, Principal State Attorney,
and the deponent herein filed additional grounds of appeal to that effect (copy
is attached and marked as exhibit VE 1). <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">(9) That the appeal came off for hearing on 3 March 1997, coram
Wood, Benin and Baddoo JJA . . . <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">(10) That at the hearing of the appeal my counsel, P K E Donkor
Esq raised a preliminary point in law that the appeal was filed out of time and
that the appellants ought to have sought leave before filing the appeal in
accordance with section 11(6) of the Courts Act, 1993 (Act 459) and since no
leave was sought there was no appeal pending before the court and therefore the
case should be dismissed. <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">(11) That the judgment having been given on 23 June 1993 and the
appeal filed on 2 August 1993, the appellants were out of time and therefore
the appeal filed without leave was bad in law. <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">(12) That the submission by my counsel was upheld and the appeal
was dismissed in limine. (A copy of the order of the court is attached and
marked as exhibit VE 3). <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"><</main>