THE REPUBLIC vs. NANA ASEIDU AGYEMANG II & 3 OTHERS EX PARTE: NANA AMMA FREMPONG AND ANOTHER [2018]DLCA4681

THE REPUBLIC vs. NANA ASEIDU AGYEMANG II & 3 OTHERS EX PARTE: NANA AMMA FREMPON... [2018]DLCA4681

Date	2018-07-24
Suit No.	SUIT NO. H1/16/2018
Citation No.	[2018]DLCA4681

K. A. ACQUAYE J.A (PRESIDING)

SAEED K. GYAN J.A

M. M. AGYEMANG (MRS.) J.A

MR MARTIN AMEYAW FOR THE RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS

MR. KWAKU BAAH FOR THE APPLICANTS/APPELLANTS

[2018]DLCA4681
																																						<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" >THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>NANA ASEIDU AGYEMANG II &amp; 3 OTHERS<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p>EX
PARTE: NANA AMMA FREMPONG AND ANOTHER (APPLICANTS/APPELLANTS)<o:p></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:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>SAEED
K. GYAN, J.A<o:p></o:p>In the case of the Republic v. High Court, Kumasi; Ex Parte Atumfuwa
and Another (2000) SCGLR 72, at page 78, Hayfron-Benjamin, JSC affirmed the
settled principle of law when he declared as follows:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>“The principle, as clearly laid down in civil
matters, is that the Plaintiff or applicant must lose where no evidence is led
by either party; for, it is the Plaintiff or the applicant who is seeking
relief from the Court or tribunal.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>This is obviously in accord with the
provisions of the evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323). It is however trite that the
burden on the prosecution in a criminal matter is so much higher and more onerous.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Thus Section 11 of the Evidence Act,
1975 provides as follows:<o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;">1)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
For
the purposes of this Act, the burden of producing evidence means the obligation
of a party to introduce sufficient evidence to avoid a ruling on the issue
against that party.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;">2)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
In
a criminal action, the burden of producing evidence, when it is on the
prosecution as to a fact essential to guilt, requires the prosecution to
produce sufficient evidence so that on the totality of the evidence a
reasonable mind could find the existence of the fact beyond a reasonable doubt.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Section 13(1) of the Evidence Act
emphases that: “In a civil or criminal
action, the burden of persuasion as to the commission by a party of a crime
which is directly in issue requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>