MAXWELL KOFI GYASI vs. THE REPUBLIC [2012]DLCA8106

Date	2012-10-10
Suit No.	SUIT NO. H3/108/2012
Citation No.	[2012]DLCA8106

APALOO JA (PRESIDING)

DUOSE JA

HONYENUGA JA

MR. AUGUSTINE OBOUR FOR APPELLANT/APPLICANT

MR. MATTHEW AMPONSAH (CHIEF STATE ATTORNEY) FOR THE REPUBLIC

[2012]DLCA8106
																																						<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" >MAXWELL KOFI
GYASI<o:p></o:p>(APPELLANT/APPLICANT)<o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">vs.<o:p></o:p>THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

SUIT
NO. H3/108/2012&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE: 10TH OCTOBER, 2012<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MR.
AUGUSTINE OBOUR FOR APPELLANT/APPLICANT<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

MR.
MATTHEW AMPONSAH (CHIEF STATE ATTORNEY) FOR THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

APALOO
JA (PRESIDING), DUOSE JA, HONYENUGA JA<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>APALOO JA;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>The
Appellant/Applicant invoked the jurisdiction of the court for leave to adduce further
evidence pursuant to Rule 26 of CI 19, the Court of Appeal Rules as
amended.&nbsp; For emphasis we shall reproduce
the Rule 26 herein.<o:p></o:p>“26.&nbsp; New evidence on appeal.<o:p></o:p>(1)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
It
is not open as of right to any party to an appeal to adduce new evidence in
support of his original case but in the interest of justice, the Court may
allow or require new evidence to be adduced; such evidence shall be in the form
of oral examination in Court, an affidavit or a deposition taken before an
examiner or commissioner as the Court may direct.<o:p></o:p>(2)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
A
party may by leave of the Court, allege any facts essential to the issue that
has come to his knowledge after the decision of the court and adduce evidence
in support of the allegation.”<o:p></o:p>When
the applicant first appeared before the panel differently constituted with
Kanyoke JA presiding, a preliminary objection was raised by the State that Rule
26 of CI 19 was applicable to civil appeals only but after hearing arguments
from both sides, we came to the conclusion that fairness and justice would
demand that the opportunity/and or discretion to lead fresh or further evidence
ought to be extended to the convict on appeal before the Court.&nbsp; Having opened the door to the applicant to
move his motion for leave to adduce the new evidence, we reserved our ruling on
the applicant for delivery today.<o:p></o:p>The
facts in support of the application are simple.&nbsp;
The applicant was arrested by the Police for the crime of Robbery.&nbsp; On 11th May, 2005 he gave an
investigation caution statement to the Police in which he gave his age as 18
years.&nbsp; That statement was admitted as
Exhibit C on 26/2/08 during his trial for Robbery by the High Court
Kumasi.&nbsp; The trial ended with a
conviction and sentence of 21 years imprisonment against him on 29/7/2009.<o:p></o:p>In
this application, Learned Counsel for the applicant had exhibited applicant’s
birth certificate, weighing card and Register of admissions in applicant’s
preparatory school.&nbsp; The target of these
exhibits was to show, that as at the date of the commission of the crime the
applicant was 17 years 10 months 11 days and therefore a juvenile and ought to
have been tried by a Juvenile Court.&nbsp;
Counsel submitted that by the Juvenile Justice Act, Act 653 the High
Court lacked jurisdiction to try the applicant.&nbsp;
Counsel relied heavily on the decision of the Court of Appeal in Abena Serwah Vrs The Republic
(unreported) delivered by this Court on 28th July 2011.&nbsp; Mr. Augustine Obour was kind enough to make
copies available to us.&nbsp; In the lead judgment
by Agnes Dordzie JA, certain strong assertions made by Mr. Obour in respect of
Act 653 were roundly condemned as misleading by the Court.&nbsp; Unfortunately for our jurisprudence he
repeated some of these assertions before us, knowing very well that the Court
of Appeal had rejected them as untenable and misleading. &nbsp;A suggestion that the High Court lacked
jurisdiction to try a juvenile is highly mischievous, where in particular the
crime for which the juvenile w</main>