HOMENYA v. THE REPUBLIC
1991
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- ACQUAH J
Areas of Law
- Criminal Law
- Property Law
- Evidence
1991
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The appellant was convicted of causing unlawful damage but the conviction was quashed on appeal because the prosecution did not establish that the damage was unlawfully caused or prove the ownership and value of the damaged property. The trial judge's judgment included irrelevant and extraneous matters, leading to a miscarriage of justice.
JUDGMENT OF ACQUAH J.
The appellant herein was arraigned before the Circuit Court, Hohoe charged with the offences of causing unlawful damage contrary to section 172(1) (b) and threat of harm contrary to section 174 of the Criminal Code, 1960 (Act 29) respectively. He pleaded not guilty to both charges and was tried and acquitted of threat of harm but convicted of causing unlawful damage. He was then sentenced to a fine of ¢100,000 or two months' imprisonment with hard labour and in addition he was ordered to execute a bond of ¢400,000 with one surety to be of good behaviour for one year or two months' imprisonment with hard labour.
The facts of the case are that the first prosecution witness, an elderly [p.308] woman, had put up her house on a portion of a stretch of land at Kpando Gadza, while the appellant farms on the adjoining portion. There are apple trees on this land which the first prosecution witness claims she planted to fence her building. On 6 September 1989, while the first prosecution witness was in her house, she heard an unusual noise outside and so she came out with her daughter, the second prosecution witness, to find out what it was. She saw the appellant cutting down the apple trees. She confronted him but the appellant claimed ownership of both the land and the trees and further directed her to report him to the chief, if she was not satisfied with his answer. The first prosecution witness also alleged that the appellant further threatened her life. She therefore rather reported him to the police and the appellant was arrested.
While under cross-examination the first prosecution witness stated that her land shares a boundary with the farmland of the appellant who had for a considerable number of years been farming on the land. The first prosecution witness further stated that although she and the appellant are boundary owners, their boundary had not been demarcated. She further pointed out that on the day in question the appellant was clearing the area to plant corn. She then admitted that she did not know whether she was first to the area before the appellant came to do his farming. The evidence of the second prosecution witness, her daughter, was on the charge of threat of harm in respect of which the appellant was acquitted.
The police investigator who testified as the third prosecution witness said that on receipt of the complaint of the first prosecution witness he went to the scene and saw that seven apple trees had been c