ASAMOAH AND OTHERS vs. THE REPUPLIC [2002]DLCA1167

Date	2002-10-23
Suit No.
Citation No.	[2002]DLCA1167

ANSAH JA

ANINAKWAH JA

ASIAMAH JA

NELSON COFIE FOR THE FIRST APPELLANT.

E VA ADJETEY FOR THE FOURTH APPELLANT.

A GYAMBIBY PRINCIPAL STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[2002]DLCA1167
																																						<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">ASAMOAH AND OTHERS<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 REPUPLIC<o:p></o:p>[COURT
OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[2001-2002]
1 GLR 123<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: 23 OCTOBER 2002<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>NELSON
COFIE FOR THE FIRST APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>E
VA ADJETEY FOR THE FOURTH 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">

A
GYAMBIBY, PRINCIPAL STATE ATTORNEY, FOR THE RESPONDENT. <o:p></o:p>

ANSAH,
ANINAKWAH AND ASIAMAH JJA<o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>Ansah JA. <o:p></o:p>On
13 July 2001 Philip Asamoah alias Agingo, No 28473 Gen/CpI James Doli, Alhaji
Seikh Seidu Mohammed Bebli alias RSM Jack Bebli and four others were found
guilty by a jury of several offences. They were convicted by the High Court,
Accra and sentenced according to law.<o:p></o:p>Thereafter,
the first accused at the trial filed a notice of appeal against the verdict,
conviction and sentence seeking an order from this court to quash same. So did
the sixth and fourth accused at the trial though on different dates and
independently of each other. When the appeals came to be heard by this court,
all three were lumped together on the same docket. This evoked an objection
from counsel for the first accused. The gravamen of his submission was that by
consolidating the three appeals for hearing on the same docket prejudice would
be caused his client for in the event of he succeeding in convincing the
appellate court in his submission in support of his appeal, his client would be
denied the benefit of an acquittal and the restoration of his liberty and he
would rather have to wait for the appeal of the others to be completed. In the
event of an unforeseen circumstance, his client would have to suffer all the
more. Counsel deprecated the idea of consolidating all the three appeals for
hearing when they were not filed on the same date but rather independently of
each other. Counsel for the fourth and sixth accused persons readily associated
themselves with the above submission. Counsel for the respondent took a
contrary view and rather urged upon this court to hear all the appeals together
on the same docket.<o:p></o:p>The
issue raised by this objection is of a far-reaching consequence and may simply
be formulated as follows: Where separate appeals are filed against a conviction
and sentence in one trial should they be heard pari passu and should they be
made to appear on the same docket for that purpose? There is a dearth of
authority on this issue from the appellate courts and I have to rely on a case
or two not emanating from this court in particular. The general statement of
the criminal law and procedure on appeals is that separate appeals could not be
included in one petition of appeal. It was held by Taylor J (as he then was) in
Forson v The Republic [1976] 1 GLR 138 at 143 that this view was supported by
the case of Prempeh v Commissioner of Police, Court of Appeal, Cyclostyled
Judgments, July–December 1958, p 87 and Commissioner of Police v Sencherey
[1959] GLR 225, CA. This applies fully well in the case where a convict in two
cases files an appeal against each case but brings them in one petition.<o:p></o:p>In
a case such as the present where there was just a trial of two or more persons
upon one or more offences with each of them having been convicted and sentenced
according to law, some or all of them may decide to exercise their undoubted
right of appeal. Apparently, their appeal may be separate but in effect it is
only one appeal against the one judgment emanating from one trial on one charge
sheet. In those circumstances, at the hearing, it cannot be right that the
appeal of each appellant should be taken separately.<o:p></o:p>