YEBOAH AND ANOTHER vs. THE REPUBLIC [1999]DLCA496

Date	1999-03-18
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1999]DLCA496

OFORI-BOATENG JA

BADDOO JA

GBADEGBE JA

KWAME ASIEDU BASOAH FOR THE APPELLANTS.

MRS BARBARA ACQUAH SENIOR STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE REPUBLIC.

[1999]DLCA496
																																						<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">YEBOAH AND ANOTHER<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">THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1999-2000] 1 GLR 149<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: 18 MARCH 1999<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>KWAME ASIEDU BASOAH FOR THE APPELLANTS.<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">

MRS BARBARA ACQUAH, SENIOR
STATE ATTORNEY, FOR THE REPUBLIC. <o:p></o:p>

OFORI-BOATENG, BADDOO AND GBADEGBE
JJA<o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGMENT OF GBADEGBE J<o:p></o:p>Gbadegbe J delivered the first judgment at the invitation of
Ofori-Boateng JA. On 3 September 1996, the appellants were arraigned before the
Circuit Tribunal, Kumasi on a single count of causing unlawful damage. The particulars
of the offence laid under section 172 of the Criminal Code, 1960 (Act 29) were
that: “. . . For that you on 21 January 1996 at Abrefo in the Ashanti circuit
and within the jurisdiction of this court, did unlawfully cause damage to a
building plot being the property of one Akwasi Afriyie.” Upon their arraignment
the appellants pleaded not guilty whereupon the case proceeded to a trial. The
prosecution tendered its evidence and at the end of its case, learned counsel
for the appellant submitted that there was no case to answer, which submission
not having found favour with the trial court was overruled and the appellants
called upon to enter into their defence.<o:p></o:p>Following the said ruling of the trial court, the appellants
claiming that they were aggrieved lodged an interlocutory appeal against the
same to the Regional Tribunal, Kumasi which has appellate jurisdiction in such
matters. Unfortunately, on the several occasions that the matter came up before
the Regional Tribunal, counsel for the appellant for reasons not apparent from
the record never turned up, with the result the appellate court was compelled
to examine the appeal and have the same dismissed. In dismissing the appeal,
the Regional Tribunal expressed itself in the following words:<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">“On a thorough perusal of the record of proceedings, so far, the
tribunal is of the view that there is no merit whatsoever in this interlocutory
appeal. It is indeed, time wasting and frivolous and it is hereby dismissed.
The appellants are to open their defence before the trial circuit tribunal on
Wednesday, 5 August 1998 or any date that may be convenient to the trial
tribunal.” The said delivery was on 30 July 1998.<o:p></o:p>On August 1998, the appellants appealed therefrom to the Court of
Appeal. Although the notice of appeal as filed is one which departs from the
known precedents, one may discern the grounds of appeal from paragraph (11) as
follows:<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) It was wrong in law in that<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:1.5in;mso-add-space:auto;
text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;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">(i)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
because of the claims of right raised, the tribunal ought to have
at least stayed the proceedings pending the hearing of the civil matter. <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:
5.0pt;margin-left:1.5in;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;
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">(ii)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
That in the nature of this case the circuit tribunal had no
jurisdiction to hear and determine the issue of claim of right raised and
consequently, the questions of title and ought therefore, to have stayed the
proceedings pending the determination of the issuesic(1) and upheld the
submission of no as answer”<o:p></o:p>In his submission filed under the Court of Appeal Rules, 1997 (CI
19) learned counsel for the appellant contended that the offence took place on
the self-acquired property of the appellants and that they had before the
commission of the offence put up a building on the plot. It was also said that
the appellants are still living there. It was his contention that based on the
said facts, the trial circuit tribunal ought not to have called upon the appellants.<o:p></o:p>