BAAH v. THE REPUBLIC
1991
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- KPEGAH J.A
Areas of Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
- Civil Procedure
1991
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The appeal challenged the trial court’s order to pay the balance of ¢311,900 or serve additional imprisonment after the appellant failed to repay the stolen amount despite multiple adjournments. The appellate court found that under section 147B of the Criminal Procedure Code, civil jurisdiction is invoked only at the sentencing stage, and repayment orders are subject to civil enforcement procedures. The trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by tacking an immediate imprisonment default clause to its order. The appeal was allowed, and the contested order was set aside.
JUDGMENT OF KPEGAH J.A.
This is an appeal against sentence. On 11 May 1988 the appellant was put before the Circuit Court, Agona Swedru presided over by his Honour Judge Julius Ansah on a charge of stealing contrary to section 124(1) of the Criminal Code, 1960 (Act 29). The appellant, who was represented by counsel, pleaded guilty.
The brief facts are that the appellant was an employee of International Tobacco Co. (Ghana) Ltd., a cigarette manufacturing company. The appellant worked under a sales supervisor stationed in Agona Swedru as a salesman. Over a certain period, the appellant was given quantities of cigarettes for distribution to customers. He gave them out on credit. The total amount involved was ¢511,900. After a certain time, the appellant informed the sales supervisor that he had collected ¢50,000 but had made use of same. He was given time by his supervisor to refund the whole amount of ¢511,900 and when he failed to do so a report was made to the police. The appellant was charged after investigations.
Although from the facts on record the prosecution did not directly say the appellant embezzled the whole amount, learned counsel, in his plea of ad misericordiam, admitted this. He then pleaded the appellant's efforts to repay the whole amount. The learned trial judge did not proceed to convict but granted the appellant bail and ordered him to refund the amount in two weeks before being dealt with.
Then followed several adjournments in an effort to get the amount out of the appellant before he was convicted and dealt with. The propriety or otherwise of such a procedure will be considered. On some of the adjourned days the appellant paid to the court some amount; on other days he could pay nothing. On each occasion that the case was adjourned to enable the appellant find and pay the amount the court notes ended to the effect that "case adjourned for sentence." This was so even though the appellant had not been formally convicted after he registered a plea of guilty.
When the court finally lost patience with, or was disappointed by the appellant's failure to refund the amount, it remanded him in custody for a period before later proceeding to deal with him. The court’s note for that day reads:
"By court : I convict the accused on his own plea and sentence him to a fine of ¢15,000 or twelve months’ imprisonment with hard [p.486] labour. The accused is to pay the balance of ¢311,900 or serve five years' imprisonment with hard labour."
It is