NANA KWARTENG AMANING & OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC
2012
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- MARIAMA OWUSU, J.A. (PRESIDING)
- FRANCIS KORBIEH, J.A.
- IRENE DANQUAH, J.A
Areas of Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
- Evidence Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
2012
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Three appellants were convicted of fraudulent land transactions and sentenced by the Circuit Court, which was later upheld by the High Court with increased penalties. The appellants' main contentions on appeal were improper evidence evaluation and the burden of proof. Both the Circuit and High Courts found sufficient evidence proving the appellants sold encumbered land while a dispute over its ownership was pending. The higher court reaffirmed the previous findings, emphasizing the accused's awareness of the ongoing land ownership dispute as a critical factor in their criminal actions.
Mariama Owusu, J.A.:
On 16-8 2010, the Circuit Court, Kumasi, found the 3 accused persons guilty on the charges of conspiracy to commit crime, to wit; fraudulent Transactions in Land, contrary to section 23 of Act 29/60 and section 34 (a) of Act 122/62 of Land Title Act and making a grant of pieces of land to which you have no Title; contrary to section 34 (a) of Act 122/62 of Land Title Act. They were found guilty and convicted accordingly.
In his judgment, the trial High Court Judge who sat as additional High Court Judge held among other things that:
“In view of the pendency of the case at the Kumasi Traditional Council, the accused knew that they have no unencumbered land to sell to the public. The court is of the view that the accused persons conspired to sell the land and prepared the forged allocation papers and site plan which they all signed. Pursuant to their design, they sold lands they knew they had no title to. The prosecution, in the view of the court, was able to prove the essentials of both charges which the accused faced. I find all the accused persons guilty on both counts and convict them as charged.
SENTENCE: In sentencing the accused, I take note of the roles played by each in the commission of the crime. A1 apparently was the ringleader who masterminded everything. He contacted PW5 and PW6 and actually sold the land to them. A2 and A3 facilitated the crime by aiding and abetting the Acts of A1. They also actively played roles by executing the allocation notes with designations they did not have.
From the above considerations, I decided to give A1 a higher punishment than the others. Punishment must always be commensurate with the acts of the accused.
COUNT 1: Each accused is sentenced to a prison term of six (6) months In Hard Labour.
COUNT 2: A1 is sentenced to a prison term of twelve (12) months In Hard Labour.
A2 and A3 are each sentenced to a prison terms of six (6) months In Hard Labour.
The sentences shall run concurrently. The accused are hereby ordered to pay PW5 and PW6 double the monetary considerations they received from them. The accused are to pay PW5 GH¢4,000.00 and to PW6 GH¢210,000.00.”
Dissatisfied with the decision of the Circuit Court, the accused persons appealed to the High Court.
The Grounds of Appeal to the High Court are:
a. The trial Judge failed to properly evaluate the evidence of the accused particularly, A1 whose evidence was relied upon by the 2 accused persons.
b. The trial Judge was wrong in