JUDGMENT OF QUASHIE-SAM J.
On 12 February 1971 I allowed the appeal against the conviction of the appellant by the District Court Grade II, Nkawkaw, on a charge of stealing contrary to section 124 of the Criminal Code, 1960 (Act 29). Originally the appellant faced two other charges of undermining the power of a chief, contrary to section 3 (1) (b) of the Chieftaincy Act, 1961 (Act 81), and offensive conduct conducive to breach of the peace, contrary to section 207 of Act 29.
At the close of the prosecution's case, the appellant was acquitted and discharged on the two other charges, and he was called upon to enter upon his defence in respect of the first charge, which he did and he gave evidence and called witnesses. He was convicted on the charge of stealing and sentenced to six months' imprisonment with hard labour. It is from this conviction that he has appealed.
The stealing charge arose from the destoolment of the accused as the odikro or chief of Awenade stool. According to the evidence of the second prosecution witness, the accused was destooled by the Okyeman on 5 December 1969 and was ordered to release all stool properties; the record of proceedings shows clearly that one of the properties involved was a cocoa farm known as Subresu which the complainants in the stealing charge claim to be Awenade stool property but which claim is disputed by the appellant. With this background, the appellant who was already in possession harvested six loads of 10 lb. weight of cocoa from the said cocoa farm and this is the subject-matter of the stealing charge.
Counsel for the appellant filed two grounds of appeal in addition to the five original grounds filed by him. Of the total grounds of appeal, the most effective are in my opinion the fifth of the original grounds and the two additional grounds of appeal. These are, in their order of filing:
"(a) It was wrong for the trial magistrate to have considered this case and accused's claim of right as not falling within the purview of section 180 of Act 30/1960;
(b) That the conviction for stealing was wrong since no dishonest appropriation was established on the evidence;
[p.78]
(c) It was wrong and woefully against the ends of justice for the trial magistrate to have restrained the accused from entering the farm and to have placed the farm under the caretakership of opanin Kofi Aniagyei, regent to the rival but hitherto sister stool to the accused's stool when the accused was also claiming ownership of th
