AKWASI OPPONG VRS THE REPUBLIC

INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before us on an interlocutory appeal from the ruling of the High

Court, Kumasi, dated 20 December 2022, dismissing the Accused Person/Appellant’s (Accused Person) submission of no case to answer. Aggrieved by the said ruling, the Accused Person invoked our jurisdiction by a Notice of Appeal filed on 6 January 2023 on the following grounds:

a) The ruling/decision of the High Court cannot be supported in view of the evidence (sic) at the trial.

b) The learned judge erred in not giving reasons for his decision.

c) The evidence on record does not support the ruling of the High Court that the prosecution was able to establish a prima facie case against the Accused Person to open his defence.

d) The learned High Court Judge erred in holding that the prosecution was able to establish a prima facie case against the Accused Person to open his defence.

THE ANTECEDENTS

On 19 December 2019, the prosecution filed a charge sheet in which the accused person is being held for the offence of stealing, contrary to section 124(1) of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29). The particulars of offence are as follows:

“AKWASI OPPONG: PASTOR. For that you in the year 2018 at Pankrono in the

Ashanti Circuit and within the Jurisdiction of this Court you stole (sic) Kia Pride

Taxi Cab No. AW 349 X valued at GH₵7,000.00 the property of Yaw Manu Transport Limited.”

The facts of the case as attached to the charge sheet and presented at the beginning of the trial are that, in the year 2018, the complainant who is a businessman resident at Asenua detected the theft of their company car Kia Pride Taxi Cab No. AW 349 X valued at GH₵7,000.00. Investigations revealed that the car was stolen by the Accused Person. Upon his arrest, the Accused Person stated in his cautioned statement that the car was given to him as a gift by his late father who was the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Company in the year 2013. After investigations, the accused was charged with the offence of stealing.

At the trial, the prosecution called three witnesses. Upon closure of the prosecution’s case, counsel for the Accused Person made a submission of no case. In a reasoned ruling which is at page 73 of the record of appeal, the trial court dismissed the submission of no case on the basis that a prima facie case had been made against the Accused. The trial court then called up