Eskwai logo
Verify now as a student, judge or newly called lawyer for access to discounted plans.

REPUBLIC v. WOAHENE

October 16, 1967

COURT OF APPEAL

CORAM

  • OLLENNU
  • AZU CRABBE
  • APALOO JJ.A

Areas of Law

  • Criminal Law and Procedure
  • Health Law
  • Evidence Law

AI Generated Summary

The Supreme Court (per Ollennu J.A.) reviewed a prosecution appeal from the High Court, Kumasi, which had quashed a District Court conviction of possession of dangerous drugs under section 29 of the Pharmacy and Drugs Act, 1961 (Act 64). The respondent had earlier been acquitted on related charges, with a restitution order returning drugs to him. He had applied for licences under Act 64, and police, acting on Assistant Superintendent Quao’s instructions, searched his shop in his absence, seizing drugs spanning classes A, B, C and unclassified. On appeal, the prosecution argued that section 29(1) imposed an absolute prohibition and that “lawful excuse” meant only “lawful authority,” i.e., possession upon prescription. The court examined Act 64’s sections 22(1)(a), 24 and 36, and the authorities of Dickins v. Gill, Winkle v. Wiltshire and Wong Pooh Yin, holding that “lawful excuse” is broader than “lawful authority,” that wholesale and non‑prescription supply are permitted, and dismissing the appeal as limited to law with factual findings intact.

JUDGEMENT