Try asking the following...
JUDGEMENT
JUDGMENT OF QUASHIE-SAM J.A.
The respondent, R. W. Jackson, Area Manager of Tractor and Equipment, U.A.C., Kumasi, was charged with failure to report an accident which occurred at the workshop on or about 29 May 1979 contrary to sections 10(1) (b) and 63 of the Factories, Offices and Shops Act, 1970 (Act 328). Section 10(1) (b) of the Act reads:
"10.(1) Where an accident in any factory, office or shop—
(b) disables any such person for more than three days from earning full wages at work at which he was employed, the occupier shall forthwith send written notice of the accident, in the prescribed form and containing the prescribed particulars, to the Chief Inspector or the Inspector for the district."
The punishment for defaulting is contained in section 63 of the Act which makes provisions for a fine not exceeding N¢100 or imprisonment not exceeding one month or both such fine and imprisonment.
At the District Court, Grade 1, Kumasi, the respondent pleaded not guilty to the charge. Opening the case for the prosecution, the facts, as the prosecution alleged, were that failure of factories to report accidents led to a circular being sent out by the Factory Inspectorate to all occupiers warning against contravention of section 10(b) of Act 328. In spite of that it was alleged the respondent failed to report an accident which injured Wundua Mingire, a caterpillar mechanic at his workshop, disabling him from his normal work for more than three days. Investigations revealed that the respondent had reported the accident to the District Labour Officer, Kumasi, pursuant to the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1963 (Act 174), but not as required under Act 328, hence the charge.
At the hearing counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary point of law which he centered on the interpretation of the offending s[p.89] ection under which the respondent had been charged, arguing that on a proper interpretation of the section, the respondent was bound to make a report to the inspectorate only where the injured person was disabled from earning full wages for more than three days, and that where the injured person received his full monthly wages, such as in the present case, there was no offence committed if no report was made and therefore the respondent should not have been charged. This submission was rejected by the lower court on stated grounds in its ruling, and hearing proceeded.
The prosecution called two witnesses: Peter Kwaku Moses, a district labour officer,