Mr. Adu Gyamfi -Registry

AYEBI, JA 1. The appeal is against the judgment of a Kumasi High Court presided over by Justice K. A. Pobih dated 7th December 2006. At the trial court, the appellant and two others who were at large, were charged with two counts of conspiracy to commit crime to wit, robbery contrary to sections 23(1) and 149 of Act 29/60 and robbery contrary to section 149 of Act 29/60 as amended.

The particulars of the offences state that on 3rd December 2006 at the Neoplan Station at Asafo in Kumasi, accused acted together in committing the crime of robbery and at knife point robbed Raymond Ayi-Naaba of cash the sum of ¢500, 000. 00 and Nokia 1600 mobile phone valued ¢700, 000. 00. 2. On arraignment before the court, the appellant as per the record pleaded guilty simpliciter to the two counts.

After the presentation of the facts, the court’s record showed that the appellant made a statement perhaps in explanation of his plea.

He stated thus: “I and Kadri (A2) live in the same room.

The three of us were together and all of us went home together.

Later I decided to go out and I was arrested.

The police found the complainant’s phone in our room.

Kadri put it in the room.

I am aware that Kadri put it in the room.

But I did not inflict the cutlass wound on the complainant.

I cannot tell whether that was done by Kadri or Provi”. 3. Following upon that statement or explanation by the appellant, the court reasoned that: “The accused person’s explanation shows that he was aware of the robbery of the complainant’s mobile phone because he saw Kadri keeping the phone in their room but never complaint(sic). I do accept his guilt and convict him.

The accused is sentenced to a term of fifteen years imprisonment with Hard Labour (IHL) on each of the two counts both to run concurrently”. 4. Consequent upon the conviction and sentence of the appellant, the court made restitution orders in respect of a cutlass found in appellant’s room and an amount of ¢97, 000. 00 found on the appellant.

This appeal is against the said conviction and sentence.

The grounds of appeal are: (1) The learned trial judge erred by not entering a plea of Not Guilty having heard the explanation of the appellant which raises triable defence so that he could have been tried.

1. The learned trial judge erred by holding that the appellant was aware of the robbery of the complainant’s mobile phone because he saw Kadri keeping the phone in their room but never complained.

2. The appellant did not apprecia