KWASHIVI GAZE NUKPORFE v. THE REPUBLIC
November 16, 2022
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE NAANA BEDU-ADDO HIGH COURT JUDGE
Areas of Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
- Evidence Law
- Constitutional Law
November 16, 2022
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
On appeal from the Circuit Court at Denu, the High Court, per Justice Naana Bedu-Addo, reviewed a no case to answer ruling in a prosecution for defilement against 76-year-old mason Kwashivi Gaze Nukporfe. The complainant, teacher Isaac Elloh, reported on behalf of his 12-year-old cousin, primary pupil Elorm Adeve, alleging five instances of carnal knowledge, with a medical examination finding hymenal tears but no pregnancy. The defence argued the prosecution failed to prove an essential element 14Elorms age under sixteen 14while pointing to contradictions in her testimony. Applying Section 173 of Act 30, the Evidence Acts reasonable-doubt standard, and authorities including Republic v Yeboah and Tsatsu Tsikata v Republic, the High Court held the prosecution did not establish age and that inconsistencies created reasonable doubt, set aside the trial courts ruling, and upheld the submission of no case.
JUDGMENT
Before this Court is an appeal against the ruling of the Circuit Court,
Denu dated 11/1/2022 presided over by His Honour Joseph Ofosu Behome.
APPELLANT’S CASE
The Appellant herein was charged with the offence of defilement of a child under 16
years of age contrary to Section 10(1) of the Criminal and other offences Act, 1960 (Act
follows:
’’ (1) For the purpose of this Act, defilement is the natural or unnatural carnal
knowledge of a child under sixteen years of age.’’
The Appellant contends that sufficient and reliable evidence was not adduced
by the prosecution to call on the accused person to answer the charge of defilement.
Appellant further contends that the prosecution had failed to lead any evidence to
prove an essential element of the alleged offence, which is the age of the child. Based
on that, counsel for the Appellant made a submission of ’’ no case to answer’’ before
the Court below. The Court however ruled that the prosecution had led sufficient
evidence to prove the age of the alleged victim. The Appellant is appealing against the
said ruling.
The Appellant contends that the ruling is not supported by the evidence and the law
on defilement. He contends that there was no mention of the age of the victim in the
evidence adduced by the four prosecution witnesses.
He cited Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Act (Act 30) where the law provides
that; ’’if at the close of the evidence in support of the charge, it appears to the Court
that a case is not made out against the accused sufficiently to require him to make a
defence, the Court shall, as to that particular charge, acquit him.’’
They also relied on the case of the State Vrs. Ali Kassena 1962 1GLR 144 at page 149
where the Supreme Court held that ’’………. Submission that there is no case to answer
may properly be made and upheld:
a) Where there has been no evidence to prove an essential element of the alleged
offence;
b) Where the evidence adduced by the prosecution has been so discredited as a
result of cross-examination or is so manifestly unreliable that no reasonable
Tribunal could safely convict upon it.
In the instant case, the Accused/Appellant is alleged, sometime between January, and
February, 2021 to have defiled the victim on five different occasions.
The Appellant submits that the fact that no evidence was led to determine the age of
the alleged vic