MAXWELL KOFI GYASI vs. THE REPUBLIC [2015]DLCA8406

Date	2015-10-28
Suit No.	SUIT NO: H2/14/2015
Citation No.	[2015]DLCA8406

ADJEI JA – PRESIDING

CECILIA H. SOWAH JA

HENRY KWOFIE JA

APPELLANT IN PERSON

MRS. EMILY ADDO-OKYIRE (CSA) FOR THE

RESPONDENT WITH HER IS EMMANUEL OPARE WIREDU (ASA)

[2015]DLCA8406
																																						<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>(ACCSUED
/ 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: H2/14/2015&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 28TH OCT, 2015<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>APPELLANT IN PERSON <o:p></o:p>MRS. EMILY ADDO-OKYIRE (CSA) FOR THE <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">

RESPONDENT WITH HER
IS EMMANUEL OPARE WIREDU (ASA)<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 JA – PRESIDING,
CECILIA H. SOWAH JA, HENRY KWOFIE 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">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>ADJEI,
J. A:<o:p></o:p>Charges of conspiracy to commit robbery and
robbery contrary to sections 23(1) of Act 29 and 149 of Act 29 as amended by
Act 646 respectively were preferred against the appellant herein and two other
persons. They were arraigned before the High Court, Kumasi. The trial High Court
heard the matter in the absence of the 3rd accused person who absconded
and never appeared before the said trial court. The 1st accused
person who is the appellant in this appeal and the 2nd accused
person pleaded ‘not guilty’ to both counts.<o:p></o:p>The brief facts of the case presented before the
trial High Court were that the complainant who testified as PW1 was the driver
of Nissan Primera Taxi cab with Registration mark GT 3738 T on 9th
May 2005. At midnight, he took the three accused persons as passengers from
Asafo Neoplan Station to Ahimadiyya Secondary School in Kumasi. The accused
persons styled themselves as students of Ahimadiyya Secondary School and did
not want its tutors to see them and would therefore not use the main gate. The
first and second accused persons sat at the back of the taxi cab while the
third accused person sat on the passenger seat in front.<o:p></o:p>On reaching the gate of the school, the accused
persons told the complainant to drive beyond it but he resisted. The third
accused person then removed the ignition key from the Taxi and the 1st
and 2nd accused persons alighted from the back seats. The 2nd
accused person pulled out a pistol and ordered the complainant to come out from
the Taxi cab. The 2nd accused person then gave a warning shot and
threatened to kill the complainant if he remained in the taxi cab. He came out
of the taxi for fear of his life.<o:p></o:p>The complainant on seeing the third accused person
removing the ignition key attempted to prevent him. The second accused person
pulled out his pistol and shot the complainant on the right arm and further
pushed him into a nearby gutter. The accused person then drove off the taxi and
left the complainant to his fate.<o:p></o:p>At the trial, the prosecution called three witnesses.
The two accused persons testified but did not called witnesses. After the close
the case of the accused persons case the trail High Court Judge convicted all
the accused persons including the third accused person who was at large.&nbsp; The trial High Court did not discuss and
evaluate the evidence on record which a trial Judge is mandated to do. The entire
judgement is as follows:<o:p></o:p>“By court the accused persons are charged with conspiracy contrary to
section 23 of Act 29 and robbery contrary to Section 149 of Act 29. At the end
of the trail I do find the accused person guilty of the two offences charged
and each accordingly convicted”.<o:p></o:p>A trial Judge must discuss the facts of the case
together with relevant laws and the required standard burden of prove before he
can convict or acquit. Sections 11 and 13 of the Evidence Act, 1975 (Act 323)
enjoin the courts both trial and appellate to satisfy themselves that before
they can convict in criminal matters, the prosecution shall produce sufficient
evidence to establish that on the totality of the evidence adduced by it a
reasonable mind could find the existence of the fact beyond a reasonable doubt.<o:p></o:p>In the instant case, the trial judge failed to
discuss the facts adduced and measured them against the standard burden of
proof in criminal matters. It will always leave the accused persons in doubt as
to the basis and reasons for their conviction. The basis upon which an accused
person is convicted should not be kept by the judge to himself but rather he
must explain it on paper for the accused person or anyone who lays his hand on
the judgment to appreciate the reasoning or otherwise.<o:p></o:p>