I have already allowed this appeal. I am now only giving reasons for so allowing it. The appellant in this case was arraigned before the circuit court on two counts charging him with forcible entry contrary to section 202 (A) of the Criminal Code, 1960 (Act 29), as inserted by the Criminal Code, 1960 (Amendment) (No. 2) Decree, 1966 (N.L.C.D. 47), and causing damage contrary to section 172 (1) (b) of Act 29. He was acquitted on the first count charging him with forcible entry but convicted on the second count charging him with unlawful damage and sentenced to one day's imprisonment and a fine of ¢3,000 or in default four years' imprisonment with hard labour.
The court made a further order for ¢2,500 of the amount, if paid, to be given to the complainant. However on the application of counsel for the appellant and pending the filing of an appeal the court made a further order suspending sentence pending the hearing and determination of an [p.139] appeal, if any were to be filed. The appellant was then granted bail in the sum of ¢5,000 with two sureties to be justified with a further order that the appeal, if any, should be filed within one week from the date of the conviction.
Four days after the conviction he lodged his appeal. In order to understand the issues raised in this appeal it is necessary to understand the facts which the prosecution established and which were never challenged by the appellant. Indeed the appellant virtually admitted the substantial case which the prosecution made and so the only matter to decide is whether or not the prosecution, case discloses an offence of causing unlawful damage contrary to section 172 (1) (b) of Act 29.
The prosecution led evidence that the complainant bought two plots of land from the Bubiashie mantse for ¢600 and that he commenced building a house on the said land and fenced the house. The Bubiashie mantse is caretaker of the Asere stool and he sold the land on behalf of the said Asere stool some time in 1969. The building had practically reached roofing level and the complainant had spent about ¢3,000 an the said construction. On 14 August 1972, the appellant claiming that the land belonged to his family and acting for his family hired a caterpillar and went on the land. The complainant and his workmen were not on the site. The appellant stood away from the land and ordered the driver of the caterpillar to raze the building to the ground and the building was accordingly demolished.
The appellant exp
