GH - KUMA v. THE REPUBLIC

JUDGMENT OF AMISSAH J.A.

In spite of Mr. Adjetey's usual persuasive advocacy, I am not in the least bit impressed that there is any substance in this appeal. It is in my view an appeal without merit whatsoever. A case against the accused was first brought for committal before J. F. S. Hansen, Esquire, on an indictment which charged the accused with two counts of stealing. The learned magistrate after an adjournment gave his considered view that the facts supported fraud by false pretences and not stealing and therefore discharged the accused. The prosecution appealed on the point that having regard to the view he took of the facts the magistrate was not entitled to discharge the accused because whether the facts supported the charges preferred or any other offence for which the accused on his trial could be convicted, and fraud by false pretences was one such offence, the magistrate was bound to commit. This court (in Republic v. Kuma [1968] G.L.R. 532) ruled in their favour. In making my order at p. 537 in that appeal I remitted the case to the magistrate

"with instruction to commit the respondent for trial if in his opinion there is evidence on the summary which supports the offences charged in the indictment or any other offences for which he, as an accused, could be convicted on those charges at his trial."

Knowing of the magistrate's already considered view that the case on the summary supported some such offence, there was not much doubt in my mind as to what this order meant. The case went back to the magistrate's court and was eventually dealt with by Mr. Hansen again. I do not know, what happened. Perhaps it was due to Mr. Adjetey's persuasiveness referred to but in another considered opinion, the learned magistrate said the case did not now even support a charge of fraud by false pretences or any other offence and he discharged the accused again. Having regard to this unexpected course that the case took I regret that I did not make my order more specific and request the magistrate to commit the accused on that indictment.

The unsatisfactory order which I made was on 24 June 1968. Another indictment, dated 2 August 1968 charging the accused with the same stealing was filed against the accused after his discharge. This time the accused appeared before M. Abakah, Esquire, district magistrate. Objection was taken to his proceeding with the committal on the ground that the accused had once been discharged by the magistrate’s court on the same f

JUDGMENT OF AMISSAH J.A.

KUMA v. THE REPUBLIC

Areas of Law

JUDGMENT