THE REPUBLIC vs NANA YAW KYEREMEH, MOHAMMED IDDRISU AND 3 ORS [2021]DLCA16147

Date	2021-04-01
Suit No.	SUITNO.H2/02/2017
Citation No.	[2021]DLCA16147

AMADU TANKO JSC (PRESIDING)

HENRY KWOFIE JA

ANTHONY OPPONG JA

ESTHER KUMAH

MICHAEL BARFI (SSA)

[2021]DLCA16147
																																						<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>NANA YAW KYEREMEH, MOHAMMED IDDRISU AND 3 ORS<o:p></o:p>(APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>[COURT
OF APPEAL KUMASI]<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

SUITNO.H2/02/2017&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 1ST APRIL, 2021<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>ESTHER KUMAH FOR THE APPELLANT<o:p></o:p>MICHAEL
BARFI (SSA) FOR THE REPUBLIC/RESPONDENT&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="border-top-width: 1.5pt; border-top-color: windowtext; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 0cm;">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">CORAM:&nbsp;
<o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">AMADU
TANKO JSC (PRESIDING), HENRY KWOFIE JA, ANTHONY OPPONG JA<o:p></o:p>

</div><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

<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;mso-border-between:1.5pt solid windowtext;
mso-padding-between:1.0pt">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>HENRY A. KWOFIE JA:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;This is an appeal by the appellant herein against
his conviction and sentence on charges of conspiracy to commit crime to wit
stealing contrary to sections 23 and 124 of the Criminal Offences Act 1960;
(Act 29) Stealing Contrary to Section 124 of the Criminal Offences act 1960 and
causing unlawful damage contrary to section 172(1)(b) of the Criminal and Other
Offences Act 1960 Act 29 and the consequent sentence of 12 years I.H.L on the
charge of stealing and 3 years I.H.L. on the conspiracy to steal and causing
unlawful damage charges with the sentences to run concurrently. These
convictions and sentence were imposed on the appellant by the High Court
Sunyani on the 30th of November 2015 Dissatisfied with the
conviction and sentence imposed on him, the appellant on the 30th of
December 2015 filed the instant appeal on the following grounds:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;1)<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-feature-settings: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
That
the conviction of the 2nd and 3rd accused
person/appellants cannot be supported by the evidence on record.<o:p></o:p>2)<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-feature-settings: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
That
the conviction of the 2nd and 3rd accused/appellants on
charges of conspiracy to wit stealing was wrongful and without any legal basis<o:p></o:p>3)<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-feature-settings: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The
trial judge misdirected himself on the burden of proof in criminal cases and
hence the erroneous conclusion that the appellants had stolen money belonging
to Chambees stores<o:p></o:p>4)<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-feature-settings: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
That
the sentences imposed on the 2nd and 3rd accused
persons/appellants are overly excessive having regard to the circumstances of
this case<o:p></o:p>5)