KOFI AYIVI YESU v. THE REPUBLIC
2013
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- Kusi-Appiah, J.A. (Presiding)
- Aduama-Osei, J.A.
- Sowah (Mrs.), J.A.
Areas of Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
- Evidence Law
2013
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The appellant, convicted of robbery and sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment by the High Court, Ho, appealed on grounds including identification discrepancies, lack of confrontation with a witness, and procedural issues. The appellate court upheld the conviction, ruling that multiple witness identifications were credible, minor discrepancies in clothing description were insignificant, and the deceased co-accused's statements did not result in a miscarriage of justice. The court found sufficient evidence supporting the conviction despite the appellant's claims.
SOWAH JA
The appellant was charged at the High Court, Ho on one count with‘Robbery contrary to section 149 of Act 29 of 1960 as amended by Act 646 of 2003”. He was convicted on16th June 2004 and sentenced to 20 years IHL.
Being aggrieved with his conviction, the appellant filed a notice of appeal against conviction pursuant to an Order extending time within which to appeal.
The grounds of appeal are as follows: 1. The judge erred in holding that the discrepancies as to what the appellant wore on the day of the robbery was minor, itwas indeed very major.
2. The judge erred by in relying on the identification of the appellant by Prince Emena when he did not have the opportunity to confront him which occasioned a substantial miscarriage of justice and against the rules of naturaljustice.
3. The judge erred in not telling the appellant of his right of filing a notice of alibi, which was the defence and whichtherefore was not investigated by the prosecution 4. There was lack of clarity as to whether Prince Emena stated that he knew the appellant just because they were in thesame cells or that he took part in the robbery.
5. There were doubts in the case of the prosecution.
6. There was mistaken identity of the appellant, thus there was the need for a critical and thorough description of the appellant which was very necessary and crucial.
7. The judge erred in not addressing the issue of the effect of the Keta Sea Defence Project case on the minds of theprosecution witnesses and which therefore prejudiced theirminds.
8. The issue of visibility as to darkness, light and illumination as at the time of the robbery was not addressed by theprosecution and the court.
The appellants’ lawyer did not proffer any submissions in respect of grounds 3 and 7 in the statement of case.
These grounds are therefore taken to have been abandoned.
The grounds of appeal actually relates to two main issues.
The first being the issue of a “co-accused” who is alleged to have identified the appellant as having taken part in the robbery but who died in custody before the trial.
Grounds 2 and 4 of the appeal cover this issue, and were argued together by appellant’s lawyer.
The second issue is about the identification of the appellant by the other prosecution witnesses.
This is set out as grounds 1, 6 and 8 of the appeal.
I shall consider these grounds of appeal together.
I shall finally consider the multiplicity of issues raised in the 5th ground of appeal.
However