GH - SAM v. COMPTROLLER OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE

JUDGMENT OF TAYLOR J.

The details of the facts of this case, although not too relevant to the decision, are apparently necessary for the purpose of answering a [p.292] ground of appeal which was urged on me with such force as would lead an onlooker unacquainted with the facts to the unfortunate conclusion that the point was probably decisive of the matters in controversy between the parties; whereas, in fact, that point is irrelevant except that it involves an argument which on the best authority, it is improper to make and counsel is not entitled to make to this court in the circumstances. It is for this reason that I advert to the facts of this case in such great detail.

The defendant-appellant (hereinafter called the appellant) is a driver living in Accra and apparently the owner of vehicle No. GL 2818, a Mercedes Benz bus. He plies between Accra and Kumasi in the normal course of his business conveying passengers to and from Kumasi. On 19 March 1970 the appellant was in Accra. He gave the ignition key of his vehicle to one of the bookers who came to his house with his mate. They drove the car to the lorry station for passengers. The bookers are a group of agents who collect money from passengers, load the vehicles with the help of the mate and when the vehicle is full they collect their commission and hand over the balance of the money to the driver who can then drive off to his destination. The drivers do not themselves load the vehicles. In this case the bookers put loads under the vehicle's canopy and some in the boot and the money was paid to the driver, less the commission and he left Accra for Kumasi at about 9.30 p.m. with twenty passengers. The key to the boot was with the mate since it was his duty to unload the luggage.

In the meantime, in the morning of 19 March 1970, the border guard police at Kumasi had received information by telephone that vehicle No. GL 2818 was conveying contraband goods from Accra to Kumasi and at 8.30 a.m. three police officers, who were detailed to intercept the vehicle, left for the Ejisu road barrier. There was some confusion in the evidence as to who actually received the message. Two of the policemen (the second and third witnesses for the plaintiff) sent to the road barrier were close friends. The third policeman (the plaintiff's third witness) had once had a quarrel with the appellant, the quarrel having arisen out of allegations that the plaintiff's third witness was flirting with the appellant's wife wh

JUDGMENT OF TAYLOR J.

SAM v. COMPTROLLER OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE

Areas of Law

JUDGMENT