Try asking the following...
Try asking the following...
August 29, 1968
CORAM
JUDGMENT OF EDUSEI J.
The appellant in this case was charged with, and convicted of, driving a motor vehicle without due care and attention, contrary to section 18 (1) of the Road Traffic Ordinance, 1952 (No.55 of 1952). Against this conviction the appellant has appealed to this court.
On 23 April 1968, the first prosecution witness who was in charge of a Bedford commercial truck No. WR 9337 was travelling from Takoradi towards the Cape Coast direction. The appellant was also driving in the same direction and following the first prosecution witness.
According to the first prosecution witness, he indicated by his trafficator and by hand that he was intending to turn to the right where there was a petrol filling station and that he gave this indication when he was about 63 yards away. No sooner had the first prosecution witness attempted to negotiate the bend to the filling station when he heard a bang at the rear of his vehicle. He got out of his vehicle and realised that it was the accused who had done this. This evidence was materially supported by the second prosecution witness, a mate apprentice of the first prosecution witness. This witness added that at the time the first prosecution witness was turning to the right he "heard the shouts of Lord! Lord! from a woman on my right side."
[p.763]
The appellant's version of the story was that the first prosecution witness never at any time gave a signal of his intention to turn to the right either by his trafficator or by his hand. He continued to say that a taxi driver overtook him and the first prosecution witness. He also attempted to overtake the leading vehicle and as he was doing so the first prosecution witness suddenly turned to the right without indicating that he was so turning and damage was caused to the off-side front door of the first prosecution witness's vehicle.
It is interesting to observe that while the first prosecution witness testified that damage was done to the rear portion of his vehicle the appellant said the damage was to the off-side front door of the first prosecution witness's vehicle. The impression the appellant thus created by this evidence was that he had almost passed the first prosecution witness when he, the first prosecution witness, suddenly turned to the right and that if any one was careless it was the first prosecution witness who did not observe the rules of the road by his failure to signal that he was turning to the right. It is unfortunate that there was
AI Generated Summary
EDUSEI J. allowed the appeal of driver Christian Klutse from a conviction for careless driving under section 18(1) of the Road Traffic Ordinance, arising from a 23 April 1968 collision near the Inchaban Petrol Filling Station on the Takoradi–Cape Coast road. The prosecution’s case—based on the lead driver’s allegation that he signalled before turning right and that Klutse struck the rear—was countered by Klutse’s account that no signal was given, a taxi had overtaken both vehicles, and the lead driver suddenly turned right as Klutse began overtaking, with damage at the off‑side front door. The magistrate convicted on the grounds that Klutse overtook at a T‑junction and failed to sound his horn. On appeal, EDUSEI J. held there is no rule barring overtaking at a T‑junction on a straight road, horn‑use is not invariably required, and the decisive issue is whether the lead driver properly signalled and ensured observation. The magistrate failed to make specific findings on signalling; coupled with evidential weaknesses and authority such as Sorrie v. Robertson, the conviction was quashed, Klutse acquitted and discharged, and any fine ordered refunded.