Try asking the following...
Try asking the following...
June 13, 1986
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
JUDGMENT OF FRANCOIS J.S.C.
The appellant questions the legitimacy of his conviction based on his alleged failure to exercise due care and attention on the Dodowah road, when clear findings for such a conclusion were not made by the trial magistrate.
The facts are not complex. The appellant was negotiating a curve near Dodowah Zongo when his bus came into collision with a Peugeot caravan which was proceeding in the opposite direction. The caravan sped on and could only come to a stop when its progress was halted by a telegraph pole which was providentially in its way.
The prosecution led evidence that the appellant had hogged the road. This evidence 'was partisan in the sense that it came from occupants of the Peugeot caravan whose non-neutrality could not be concealed. But the magistrate did not expressly rely on that evidence nor did he set it against the appellant's contention that the excessive speed of the Peugeot caravan was the sole cause of the accident.
Though a sketch of the scene was available showing the dimensions of the road and the width occupied by both vehicles, and the magistrate had reinforced his mental image with a personal inspection of the locus in quo, it does not appear that much profit was derived either from the [p.729] wealth of material available or the exercise of inspection. The topography of a curve on a hillock just at the approaches of a town, would itself call for care and circumspection from vehicular road users, and one expected the magistrate to be unhesitant in the cataloguing facts that would support his conclusions on a finding of carelessness. On the contrary, however, the magistrate concerned himself with general observations whose tenor was a blanket condemnation of bus drivers. His ex cathedra pronouncement that municipal bus drivers vaunted the size of their vehicles and would therefore yield no room to other road users he termed “small fry", was an extraneous comment irrelevant to the issue and unrelated to his duty of ascertaining the facts.
It was valiantly argued by counsel for the Republic, that since the magistrate had commended the driver of the Peugeot car for possessing the presence of mind not to brake in the circumstances and reserved all his disparaging and uncomplimentary epithets for bus drivers in general, and had moreover followed this with a conviction, the only permissible inference was a finding against the appellant of carelessness and inattentiveness in the control and management of
AI Generated Summary
Justice Francois J.S.C. considered an appeal by a bus driver convicted of failing to exercise due care and attention on the Dodowah road after his bus collided with a Peugeot caravan near Dodowah Zongo. The caravan continued until stopping against a telegraph pole. Prosecution witnesses, drawn from the caravan, alleged the appellant had ‘hogged’ the road, but the trial magistrate did not expressly rely on their partisan evidence or address the appellant’s claim that the caravan’s excessive speed was the sole cause. Although a scene sketch was available and the magistrate inspected the locus, he offered only generalized criticisms of municipal bus drivers, rather than making necessary findings and reasons. Emphasizing mandatory trial procedure, citing Nubuor v. Ampadu, Craven v. Craven, Bruce v. Attorney‑General and Asante v. Bogyabi, and invoking Lord Denning’s call to give reasons, the Supreme Court held the judgment defective, allowed the appeal, ordered a retrial before a different magistrate, and directed that all fines be refunded.