THE REPUBLIC vs STEPHEN KWABENA OPUNI &2 OTHERS [2019]DLCA6373

Date	2019-04-08
Suit No.	SUIT NO: H3/32/2019
Citation No.	[2019]DLCA6373

P. K. GYAESAYOR JA (PRESIDING)

TANKO AMADU JA

AMA ABUAKWAA GAISIE JA

BENSON NUTSUKPUI FOR APPLICANTS

STELLA OHENE APPIAH (SSA) FOR RESPONDENT

[2019]DLCA6373
																																						<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>(RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs<o:p></o:p>STEPHEN
KWABENA OPUNI &amp;2 OTHERS<o:p></o:p>(APPELLANTS/ APPLICANTS)<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:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

SUIT NO:
H3/32/2019&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; DATED: 8TH APRIL, 2019<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL<o:p></o:p>BENSON NUTSUKPUI FOR APPLICANTS<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">

STELLA
OHENE APPIAH (SSA) FOR RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>P. K. GYAESAYOR JA (PRESIDING), TANKO AMADU JA, AMA
ABUAKWAA GAISIE JA<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNoSpacing" align="center" style="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">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>GYAESAYOR, JA<o:p></o:p>This is a repeat application seeking a Stay of proceedings
in a criminal trial which is ongoing at the High Court, Accra. The Applicants, are
second and third persons being tried for various offences in the High Court.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In the course of the trial, the Appellants/Applicants
sought to tender certain documents through the 2nd Prosecution
witness one Dr. Alfred Arthur (PW2).<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>An objection was raised by the Director of Public
Prosecution for various reasons amongst which is the fact that Dr. Alfred
Arthur is the witness for the prosecution and that it is not appropriate for
them to tender the document through him and further that he is not the author
of the document or a member of the committee set up to investigate the loss of
that document. Furthermore, that the document sought to be tendered had nothing
to do with the trial.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On the other hand, the Applicant argued that the
document sought to be tendered is in the official custody of Cocoa Research
Institute of Ghana (CRIG) where the witness works and that being so he can
testify on it. It was also argued that the document will clarify the issues in
controversy as to the nature of the chemical in question.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The learned trial judge in his ruling dated the 25th
February, 2019 refused the application on the grounds that;<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>‘I must state that although PW2 is an
official from CRIG he has not been served (and noticed) sic to testify as to
the document in that capacity and in any case he was neither a party nor
appeared before that Committee and or testified. I think that it would be most
unfair to tender the document through the witness who does not know anything
about the document’<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Dissatisfied with the decision of the Trial Judge,
the Appellants/Applicants filed a notice of appeal on the 1st day of
March, 2019 seeking ‘to set aside the ruling of the High Court dated 25th
day of February, 2019 and to admit the said report together with its attachment
as an exhibit in the trial at the Court below.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Since an appeal does not operate as a stay of proceedings,
the appellants/applicants followed it up with an application for stay of
proceedings in the High Court which application was refused. The Trial Judge
refused the application for stay of proceedings on the ground that he found no
exceptional circumstances for the application to be granted.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The grant of the application of this nature is an
invitation to the court to exercise its discretionary powers and this must be
done according to law and in the interest of justice.<o:p></o:p>