GH - DANIEL YAW & ORS v. THE REPUBLIC

Baffour J.A:

INTRODUCTION

This appeal to this court against the refusal of bail pending a substantive appeal before the High Court by the convicted prisoners/Appellants challenges us to review the limited grounds available for the grant of bail pending appeal. And it is out of the review of the grounds upon which a convicted prisoner may be admitted to bail that would provide a clearer picture as to whether the exercise of the discretion of the High Court in refusing bail was capricious and would result in manifest injustice to the prisoners. The convicted prisoners/Appellants would simply be referred to as Appellants in this appeal.

FACTS

On the 13th of November, 2020, the Appellants were convicted and sentenced to various prison terms by the District Court, Dodowa after trial. They had been arraigned before the District Court, Dodowa on the 27th of April, 2018 on three counts. The first Appellant alone faced a charge of threat of harm contrary to section 74, the three Appellants under second count faced the offence of causing unlawful damage contrary to section 76 (sic) and a third count of trespass contrary to section 157, all of the Criminal Offences Act, Act 29 of 1960. They all pleaded not guilty to the charges. The second count of causing unlawful damage contrary to section 76 is obviously wrong as section 76 of Act does not create any offence but defines unlawful harm. The correct section should have been section 172 of Act 29. The failure alone to cite the correct section under which an accused has been charged is not fatal enough to defeat the charge or count as long as the offence charged is known to the law. See Darkurugu v. The Republic [1989-90] 1 GLR 308, a judgment of Benin J (as he then was).

The facts that underpinned the charges leading to their incarceration was to the effect that there was a dispute that related to about fifty acres of land at Glamour farms, Shai Hills to which the complainant claimed to have purchased from a family known as Sansi Clan. The Appellants belonged to the camp of a rival claimant, being in the person of Nene Tei Djahene Korabo IV, the paramount chief of Manya Jorpanya, who also asserts ownership and possession of the land. It was the case of the Republic that one Patrick Tetteh Doku, a surveyor, who testified as PW2 and his men were surveying the land for the complainant when they were confronted by the Appellants who asked them to stop work as the land did not belong to the party that sold it to the

Baffour J.A:

INTRODUCTION

FACTS

DANIEL YAW & ORS v. THE REPUBLIC

Areas of Law

JUDGMENT