SAGAH AGBODZAVU vs. THE REPUBLIC [2015]DLCA8329

Date	2015-05-27
Suit No.	SUIT NO:H2/34/2012
Citation No.	[2015]DLCA8329

ADJEI J.A. (PRESIDING)

SOWAH J.A. KWOFIE J.A.

MAJOR DARTEH FOR THE APPELLANT

EMILY ADDO OKYIRE CSA FOR THE RESPONDENT

[2015]DLCA8329
																																						<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" >SAGAH AGBODZAVU<o:p></o:p>(APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-GB" 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><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, KOFORIDUA]<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:H2/34/2012&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;DATE: 27TH MAY, 2015<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MAJOR DARTEH FOR THE
APPELLANT<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">

EMILY ADDO
OKYIRE CSA FOR THE RESPONDENT<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">

ADJEI J.A.
(PRESIDING), SOWAH J.A. KWOFIE J.A.<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">

JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>ADJEI,J.A:<o:p></o:p>This
appeal is against the judgment of the High Court, Koforidua delivered on 19th
July, 2001. The jurors unanimously found the accused person (the Appellant
herein) guilty of murder and were sentenced to suffer death.<o:p></o:p>The
brief undisputed facts of this case were that one Amos Gadzo, then ten years, was
murdered at the outskirts of Adakope village on 6th December, 2007.
A search party scoured the bush at Adakope village for three days but could not
find the body. Later on libation was poured by the accused person who is a
fetish priest after which he proceeded with three other people to the bush to
search for the deceased person. The Appellant and the other three people found
the body of Amos Gadzo decapitated at the outskirts of Adakope village. The
accused person and his team who found the body of Amos Gadzo were arrested by
the police. <o:p></o:p>The
Appellant confessed to the commission of the crime with Agbanu Raphael alias
Tselko, Kosivi Galino and Kwadwo Kubadjev, that is the other members of his
search party. The Appellant in his confession statement stated that he and the
aforementioned persons conspired to murder the deceased. The deceased went to the
bush to cut Nim trees and they followed him, gripped him, put him on the ground,
snatched his cutlass and used it to decapitate him. They did not take any part
of the deceased body, but they abandoned the body in the bush.<o:p></o:p>At
the end of the trial, the jury found the accused person guilty of murder. The
Appellant dissatisfied with the verdict of the High Court filed a petition of
appeal against it to this Court. The four grounds of appeal set out in the
petition of appeal filed on 11th August, 2011 are as follows:<o:p></o:p>“1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; That the
verdict of the jury cannot be supported having regard to the evidence.<o:p></o:p>2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; That
the trial Judge erred in law when he admitted an alleged confession statement
in the face of conflicting evidence from the Prosecution as to the language in
which the alleged statement was given as it offends the standard set by section
120 of NRCD 323.<o:p></o:p>3.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The
trial Judge misdirected the jury on the accused alibi which as the evidence
showed was not investigated at all.<o:p></o:p>4.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; That
the prosecution failed to call material witnesses whose evidence would have
tilted the case either way but the trial Judge did not adequately direct the
jury on the issues”.<o:p></o:p>We
shall address the ground 1 of appeal, which is to the effect that the judgment
of the jurors is unreasonable having regard to the evidence on record. This ground
of appeal requires this Court to review the entire evidence on record and
satisfy ourselves that the judgment is either reasonable or unreasonable and
should be set aside, reversed or affirmed. This omnibus ground of appeal enjoins
this Court to consider misdirection,
non-direction, and misdirection by non-direction by the trial Court and
come to the conclusion that the judgment of the trial Court is unreasonable. By
misdirection, the Court is to consider facts which were either misapplied or
distorted by the trial Court and correct same. By non-direction, the Appellate
Court is to consider all possible defences that were available to the accused
person at the trial as well as important evidence that the trial Court ought to
have brought to the notice or the attention of the jurors but failed to do.
Non-direction also includes the loopholes or the weaknesses in the
prosecution’s case which the Court should have brought to the notice of the jurors.
Misdirection by non-direction is another serious flaw in a summing up which is
likely to occasion miscarriage of justice. <o:p></o:p>The
law is that for misdirection, non-dir</main>