ARTHUR v. THE STATE
April 16, 1961
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- VAN LARE
- SARKODEE-ADOO
- AKIWUMI
- JJ.S. C
Areas of Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
- Evidence Law
April 16, 1961
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
VAN LARE J.S.C., writing for the court, upheld the lower courts decision in a case stemming from a property sale in which the appellant misrepresented his ownership of a house to a complainant buyer. The house had previously been sold at public auction to Ama Serwa at the instance of the mortgagee, Bassil, and the High Court ordered Bassil to convey title to Ama Serwa, superseding the appellants claim. Despite knowledge of these facts, the appellant withheld them and represented himself as the absolute owner during negotiations, inducing the complainant to pay a large sum. The court reasoned that such withholding evidenced intent to defraud, and articulated that a knowingly false representation, relied upon by the payer, suffices to prove obtaining money by false pretences. Finding no merit in any grounds of appeal, the court dismissed the appeal.
JUDGMENT OF VAN LARE J.S.C.
(His lordship referred to the facts and continued:) The trial court properly in our view rightly rejected the alleged claim of right in good faith and it is clear to us upon a consideration of all the surrounding circumstances that the appellant could not have acted in good faith when he represented to the complainant that he was the absolute owner of the house. There is no doubt that the appellant knew that his title was superseded when the house was purchased by Ama Serwa at a public auction at the instance of the mortgagee, Bassil. He also knew that Bassil had been ordered by the High Court to convey title in the house to the purchaser Ama Serwa in defeat of any claim of title which he might put forward in respect of the property. Notwithstanding all this the appellant withheld such knowledge from the complainant during the negotiations for the sale of the house by him. We are of opinion that the withholding of such material facts from the complainant is evidence from which clear intent to defraud must be inferred. This, therefore, completely destroys the defence of a claim of right in good faith which is the main ground of appeal seriously argued before us.
The law as we understand it is that if a false statement or representation to the knowledge of the person making it, is made, and by this means money is obtained and the person who gives that money does so in reliance on the false statement or representation, then that would be sufficient to support a charge of obtaining money by false pretences. In the instant case we find the necessary ingredients present in that the appellant falsely represented that he was the rightful owner of the house at the time he purported to convey to the complainant from whom he obtained a [p.318] large sum of money, and as the complainant believing such false representations paid to the appellant such amount in the purported purchase of the house, the appellant thereby brought himself within the mischief contemplated by the charge preferred against him.
We find no substance in any of the other grounds of appeal and in the result we dismiss the appeal.
DECISION
Appeal dismissed