The appellant together with one Ebenezer Saka was jointly charged before the District Court at Mpraeso with conspiracy to steal and stealing a quantity of engine oil. Each pleaded guilty with explanation to both charges and gave identical explanations which the trial court refused to accept. The trial court convicted each of them on their pleas on 30 October 1969. The first accused who is the appellant herein was sentenced to six months' imprisonment with hard labour and the second accused to five months' imprisonment with hard labour, sentences in each case being made concurrent. The second accused Saka appealed to the High Court, Accra, against his conviction on 18 December 1969. Counsel for the respondent conceded the submission by counsel for Saka that a plea of not guilty should have been entered upon the explanation given at the court below for trial to proceed on merit. Counsel for the respondent further conceded that there should be a retrial, whereupon the court made an order allowing the appeal in the following terms:
"The appeal is allowed. The magistrate should have entered a plea of not guilty. The conviction and sentence of the second accused are set aside. There should be a trial de novo. There should be a trial before another magistrate."
It should be appreciated that this order did not affect the present appellant who was the first accused at the trial. Apparently this was so because unlike the second accused he did not appeal. Consequently he served the six months' term while his companion served just three months' when his appeal was allowed.
It must also be appreciated that the High Court in granting the appeal did not state any reason why it thought a plea of not guilty should have been entered.
After serving his sentence of six months, and upon hearing of the result of his companion's appeal, the appellant herein applied for an extension of time within which to appeal and has appealed on two grounds that:
"(1) The conviction was wrong having regard to the evidence adduced before the court.
(2) The charge of conspiracy is wrong in law, because the accused cannot conspire alone."
At the hearing, counsel for the appellant offered no argument on the first ground of appeal, perhaps, for the apparent reason that there was no evidence taken at the trial, but counsel urged that since the trial was of two persons charged with the same offences before the same court, and [p.37] the case of the present appellant was on all fours with th
