TSATSU TSIKATA vs. THE REPUBLIC [2004]DLSC2473

Date	2004-11-08
Suit No.	CRIMINAL APPEAL No. J3/4/2004
Citation No.	[2004]DLSC2473

W. A. ATUGUBA J.S.C (PRESIDING)

S. A. B. AKUFFO J.S.C

G. T. WOOD J.S.C

BROBBEY J.S.C

PROF. T. M. OCRAN J.S.C.

MR. OSAFO SAMPONG D.P.P (WITH HIM AUGUSTINE OBOUR A.A.S) FOR RESPONDENT.

PROF. E.V.O DANKWA (WITH HIM MAJOR (RTD) AGBENOTO) FOR APPELLANT.

[2004]DLSC2473
																																						<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" >TSATSU TSIKATA<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME
COURT]<o:p></o:p>CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. J3/4/2004<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">

8TH NOVEMBER, 2004.<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MR.
OSAFO SAMPONG, D.P.P (WITH HIM AUGUSTINE OBOUR A.A.S) FOR RESPONDENT. <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">

PROF.
E.V.O DANKWA (WITH HIM MAJOR (RTD) AGBENOTO) FOR APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>W.
A. ATUGUBA J.S.C (PRESIDING), S. A. B. AKUFFO J.S.C, G.&nbsp; T. WOOD J.S.C, S. A. BROBBEY J.S.C<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">

</div><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:Arial;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT<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;Times New Roman&quot;;
mso-bidi-font-family:Arial;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">&nbsp;&nbsp;PROFESSOR
MODIBO OCRAN, JSC.<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;Times New Roman&quot;;
mso-bidi-font-family:Arial;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">&nbsp;INTRODUCTION.<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;Times New Roman&quot;;
mso-bidi-font-family:Arial;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">This case came before us
by way of an appeal from the Judgment of the Court of Appeal, delivered on 27th
November 2003, in which the latter court upheld the rejection by a High Court
of a motion of submission of no case made after the close of the prosecution’s
case. The appellant was arraigned before the High Court on three counts of
wilfully causing financial loss to the state, contrary to section 179A(3)(a) of
the Criminal Code, 1960(Act 29), as amended; and on a fourth count of
intentionally misapplying public property, contrary to section 1(2) of the Public
Property Protection Decree, 1977(SMCD 140).<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;Times New Roman&quot;;
mso-bidi-font-family:Arial;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">Counsel for the Appellant
and the Director of Public Prosecution have obliged us respectively with
“Submissions On Behalf of Appellant” and “Statement of Case by the
Prosecution/Respondent”, along with a string of local and foreign judicial
opinions to buttress their cases. The submissions by Appellant’s Counsel were
rather detailed, and actually amounted to submissions within submissions.
Nonetheless, because the liberty of his client is at stake, we will accord them
the detailed consideration they deserve. <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;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:Arial;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">&nbsp;GROUNDS
OF APPEAL ;<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;Times New Roman&quot;;
mso-bidi-font-family:Arial;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">The Appellant has filed
nine grounds of appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal delivered on
27 November 2003. By regrouping and dealing with some of the grounds of appeal
together in the Submission on Behalf of the Appellant, his Counsel implicitly
acknowledges that there is some overlap between the various grounds.
Nonetheless, we will attempt as far as possible to deal with all aspects of the
Grounds of Appeal raised by Counsel under one head or another. Rather than
setting out the grounds of appeal seriatim, we state each ground or
related grounds of appeal separately, followed immediately by our consideration
and holding on the matters raised therein, before moving on to deal with the
next ground of appeal. <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;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:Arial;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">GROUND(A).<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;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:Arial;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">In
Ground (a)<span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:
&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:
Arial;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">, Appellant’s Counsel states that “the Court
of Appeal erred in using a repealed law as the basis for its failure to enforce
Article 19(5) of the Constitution when the charges against the accused were not
brought under that law.”<o:p></o:p>