MAMOUD MOHAMMED AND RICHARD BOAHENE QUAYE vs. THE REPUBLIC [2014]DLCA2785

Date	2014-03-27
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. H2/45/2012
Citation No.	[2014]DLCA2785

KANYOKEJ.A. (PRESIDING)

OWUSU (MS.) J.A.

SOWAH (MRS.) J.A.

MRS. ELIZABETH SACKEYFIO FOR THE RESPONDENT

MR. ERIC DELANYO ALIFO FOR THE 1ST APPELLANT AND NANA ASANTE BEDIATUO FOR THE 2ND APPELLANT

[2014]DLCA2785
																																						<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" >MAMOUD MOHAMMED AND
RICHARD BOAHENE QUAYE<o:p></o:p>&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;vs.<o:p></o:p>THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<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">

CIVIL
APPEAL NO. H2/45/2012&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;DATE: 27TH MARCH, 2014<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&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; <o:p></o:p>MRS. ELIZABETH SACKEYFIO FOR
THE RESPONDENT,<o:p></o:p>MR.
ERIC DELANYO ALIFO FOR THE 1ST APPELLANT AND <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">

NANA ASANTE BEDIATUO FOR THE 2ND APPELLANT<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:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

</div>JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>KANYOKE, J.A.:&nbsp;
On the 14th of October 2011 the appellants
herein were tried and convicted for the offences of conspiracy to rob and
robbery contrary to Sections 23(1) and 149 of the Criminal and Other Offences
Act, 1960 (Act 29).&nbsp; Each of them was
sentenced on each count to 40 years I.H.L. to run concurrently.&nbsp; Dissatisfied with their conviction and
sentence, each of the appellants filed an appeal against his conviction and
sentence.&nbsp; The 1st appellant
filed the notice of appeal on the 4th November 2011 whilst the 2nd
appellant filed his notice of appeal on the 16th day of November
2011.&nbsp; The 1st appellant
initially filed four grounds of appeal and subsequently filed thirty (30) additional
grounds of appeal pursuant to leave granted by this court on 5th September
2012.&nbsp; On the 26th of March
2013, counsel for the 1st appellant, with the leave of the court,
withdrew all the previously filed original and additional grounds of appeal and
replaced same with the following new grounds of appeal:<o:p></o:p>“a.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The
basis for the appellant’s arrest was information allegedly provided to a police
informant by one Marcus Tekpah described as the ringleader of the robbery.&nbsp; Marcus Tekpah had been prosecuted and
convicted earlier by the same trial court, but the trial judge ruled
erroneously that Marcus Tekpah was unavailable to be cross-examined by the
appellant.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>b.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; During
the trial of appellant, the trial judge relied solely on the identification of
appellant by Pw1 and Pw2 at police identification parades.&nbsp; However, the trial judge failed to take into
account that both Pw1 and Pw2 had had the opportunity to take a close look at
appellant while in police custody before the said identification parades were
arranged.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>c.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The
trial judge failed to take into account the evidence of appellant’s alibi,
given in court by appellant’s girlfriend and erroneously stated in his judgment
that the appellant had failed to call a witness to prove his alibi.” &nbsp;<o:p></o:p>In
his Notice of Appeal, the 2nd appellant also filed eleven (11)
grounds of appeal as follows at pages 461-462 of the ROA:<o:p></o:p>“1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; That
the conviction and sentence is against the weight of evidence.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The
trial judge erred in failing to consider the key evidence of the complainant
exculpating the convict.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>3.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The
prosecution concealed evidence that it admitted would have exculpated the
convict. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>4.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Additional
grounds shall be filed upon the receipt of the entire record of proceedings.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>5.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; As
a result of prosecutorial misconduct, the accused was framed up, sentenced and
convicted.<o:p</main>