REX v. P. H. BRAVO JONES

The following joint judgment was delivered :-

KINGDON, C.]. NIGERIA., PETRIDES c.J. GOLD COAST AND LANE J.

The appellant was charged upon Information in the Supreme Court of Sierra Leone before the Chief Justice sitting with a jury with' , Forcible Entry, contrary to 5 Ric. II c. 7 ", and the particulars given of the alleged offence were :-

" Bravo H. Jones, on the 1st day of February, 1938, at Freetown in the Colony of Sierra Leone, with many other persons unknown, made a forcible entry into the apartment situate at 2 Charles Street tenanted by one Kpanneh Lewis, of which she was in occupation and expelled her from the possession thereof."

The appellant pleaded" Not guilty", evidence was led by the prosecution in support of the charge and at the close of the case for the prosecution Counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no case for him to answer on the ground, inter alia, that the Statute 5 Ric.1I c. 7 referred only to forcible entry into" lands and tenements," i.e. freehold property, and did not cover the case of forcible entry into leasehold property which was all that was alleged or attempted to' be proved by the prosecution in this case.

That submission was over-ruled and the appellant was called upon to make his defence to the charge as it stood, i.e. for an offence contra 5 Ric. II c. 7.

He did so, both giving evidence himself and calling witnesses.

After the defence had closed the Court amended the Information by substituting 21 Jac. 1 c. 15 for 5 Ric. II c. 7, Counsel for the defence making it clear that he was not a party to the amendment. Counsel for the Defence and the Prosecution then addressed the Court, the Judge summed up, and the Jury, by a majority found the appellant" guilty." He was sentenced to a fine of £3 or imprisonment for one month in default.

The appellant was never called upon to plead to the charge as amended, nor was he given any opportunity to make a defence to the charge as amended save by way of his Counsel's address.

He now appeals to this Court on the following grounds :-

1. That the learned Chief Justice was wrong in leaving the case to the Jury after submission by Counsel for the Defence that there was no case to answer under the charge as originally framed under 5 Wc. II. c. 7.

2. That the learned Chief Justice was wrong in allowing evidence for the defence to be given and for the case for the defence to be closed before deciding whether from the evidence of the prosecution there was a case t