Try asking the following...
Try asking the following...
June 6, 1986
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
JUDGMENT OF SOWAH C.J.
The facts of the appeal are simple and straightforward. The appellant and the complainant are a brother and a sister and live in their family house which has in it a water tap from which the family draws water.
On the day in question, the appellant's wife and another sister of his were drawing water from the tap when the complainant went to fetch water. According to her after her sister and the brother's wife had drawn six buckets of water, she connected a water hose to the tap to start drawing her share of water. Their younger sister started insulting her then their brother, the appellant, came out and started beating her up.
The appellant's version was that his two sisters were fighting over whose turn it was to fetch water when he came out to separate them. Unfortunately the complainant bit his finger and a fight ensued. Before he could report to the police, she had preceded him and made a report.
There are two aspects of this case which are disturbing. First, before the magistrate had heard the evidence the prosecution had disclosed a previous conviction of the appellant for a similar offence. There is the following record in the proceedings:
"By court: The prosecutor has explained to this court that the accused had been in a similar case involving the same complainant and the accused was convicted and sentenced to a bond to be of good behaviour for a period of six months and in [p.477] default one year’s imprisonment with hard labour on 31 July 1985 and also a fine of ¢1,000 was imposed on him."
The disclosure of the previous record of the appellant is wrong in principle and unacceptable. It was intended to prejudice the decision of the learned magistrate and it appears that it had that effect.
The issue as to whether the assault was initiated by the appellant or the complainant was hotly contested; the appellant maintaining that the complainant bit his finger and he had to defend himself, while the complainant stated that she was assaulted without just cause. Both sides adduced evidence. For the prosecution there were the complainant and her husband; for the defence, were the appellant, his sister and their father. There is no question of counting heads, that is the number of witnesses called by each side but there was a vital witness, that is the father of both the complainant and the appellant, whose evidence should have been considered credited or discredited as the case may be by the learned magistrate. All things
AI Generated Summary
Chief Justice SOWAH reviewed an appeal arising from a domestic altercation between siblings in their family home over access to water from a shared tap. The complainant said that after six buckets had been drawn, she connected a hose and was then insulted by a younger sister before the appellant emerged and beat her. The appellant maintained he was separating his sisters when the complainant bit his finger, a detail recorded in his first police statement and supported by their father. Before any testimony, the prosecution informed the magistrate of a prior conviction in a similar matter. The magistrate’s terse judgment pronounced the case proved and imposed a fine, imprisonment in default, and a good‑behaviour bond. Finding the prior‑conviction disclosure improper and prejudicial, and the magistrate’s appraisal of contested evidence inadequate, the appellate court set aside the conviction and ordered an acquittal and discharge.