AXIM v. THE REPUBLIC

JUDGMENT OF APALOO J.

The issue involved in this criminal appeal appears to be novel in the sense that my researches through our law reports have not revealed any reported case on it, although the principle by which the issue is to be determined may be deduced from two seemingly conflicting decisions of the Court of Appeal. The issue is this: Has the High Court jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against the conviction of a circuit court in its summary jurisdiction, in respect of which conviction the High Court had earlier on allowed an appeal against the sentence founded on this very conviction?

The background of this appeal is that sometime in the first half of 1987 the Ho township was panic-striken by a series of organised thefts into people's stores and houses. In the midst of this panic two people in possession of some stolen items were arrested in a room hired by the appellant herein. They were prosecuted for stealing before the Circuit Court, Ho, convicted and sentenced to three years' imprisonment with hard labour. Thereafter, one Alex Kumah who was staying in that room and the appellant who admitted hiring that room for this Alex Kumah, were charged before the same circuit court for abetting the two who had already been convicted. The particulars of the charge read:

"Alex Kumah: Lotto seller, Paul Kodzo Axim: Lotto receiver: For that you on 22 June 1987 at Ho in the Volta Circuit and within the jurisdiction of this court did abet one Godwin Dartey and Edem Savi Kwasi, both convict and remand prisoners respectively in the commission of a crime, to wit: stealing."

The facts as presented by the prosecution and recorded in the proceedings are these:

''The first and the second accused are lotto sellers and receivers. The second accused is the master to the first accused. The second accused rented a room for the first accused near the Civic Centre, Ho. The first accused resides there. On 19 June 1987, one Joseph Kwami's room was broken into and his items stolen. Investigations carried the police to the room of the first accused. In the room of the first accused the culprits were found with the stolen items. According to the police, the room had no door keys. It is an open place where convict Godwin Dartey and accused Savi were found with the stolen drinks. After investigations, the accused then not present in the room were confronted as to why the accused were there. They could give no satisfactory answer. Hence the charge."

[p.448]

Both of the