DANIEL ABODAKPI v. THE REPUBLIC

ARYEETEY, J.A.

On the 5th of February 2007, the applicant was convicted by the Fast Track High Court and sentenced to concurrent terms of ten years imprisonment in respect of various counts of Conspiracy to commit crime namely Causing Financial loss to the state, contrary to Section 23(1) and Section 179A(3)(a) of the Criminal Code, 1960 (Act 29), Wilfully Causing Financial Loss to the State, contrary to Section 179A(3)(a) of the Criminal Code, Conspiracy to commit crime namely; Defrauding by False Pretences contrary to Section 23(1) and section 131 of Criminal Code and Defrauding by False Pretences contrary to Section 131 of the Criminal Code.

After filing an appeal against both conviction and sentence he applied to the court below for bail pending appeal.

Since that application did not receive a favourable response he has made a similar application for bail before this court.

Counsel for the applicant contended in the main that the trial court failed to discharge its duty of giving consideration to the defence of the applicant which consisted not only of the denial of the charges which he faced at the trial court but also the evidence of credible witnesses.

Failure to give due consideration to the defence of the applicant represents a clear case of error which makes the judgment bad in law.

He argued further that several issues were raised by the case presented by the prosecution and failure by the trial judge to make findings of fact on the evidence that the prosecution relied on manifested a clear error on the face of the record which vitiates the judgment of the trial court.

Counsel for the applicant further referred to the grounds of appeal and contended that mere disbelief in the case of the accused cannot legitimately form the basis of conviction.

Counsel for the respondent on the other hand argued that the conviction of the applicant was by a court of competent jurisdiction which is valid until set aside on appeal.

She submitted further that unless it can be shown that the judgment is clearly indefensible the application for bail should fail.

It is only when we have a look at the record of appeal, which is not available at the moment, that we would be in the position to ascertain whether there has been miscarriage of justice or not.

According to counsel for the respondent there is evidence on record to support the conviction which the court would not be in the position to verify in the absence of the record of appeal.

It is only when t