REPUBLIC VRS. TEYE (D9//01/18) [2025] GHACC 23 (13 February 2025)

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT “A”, TEMA, HELD ON THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025, BEFORE HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE AGNES OPOKU-BARNIEH, SITTING AS ADDITIONAL CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE SUIT NO: D9//01/18 THE REPUBLIC VRS: JOHN TEYE ACCUSED PERSON PRESENT C/INSP. AGNES KONADU FOR PROSECUTION PRESENT NO LEGAL REPRESENTATION JUDGMENT FACTS: The accused person was charged and arraigned before this Court on a charge of causing unlawful damage contrary to Section 172 of the Criminal Offences Act 1960 (Act 29). The brief facts presented by the prosecution are that the complainant, George Nyadudzi, a technician and a caretaker of four plots of land in Dodowa, discovered that the fence wall of the land belonging to his daughter in-law, Patience Kpodo in the USA had been demolished and the land was being redeveloped. The accused person, John Teye, a businessman was found to have demolished the fence and resold the land and claimed ownership of the said land. The prosecution alleges that the accused person when confronted stated that the damage occurred whilst he was using a tractor on his maize farm. A quantity surveyor, Mr Boakye-Dede Emmanuel estimated the cost of the damage caused to the fence at GH₵68,754.00, leading to John Teye being charged and arraigned before the court after investigations. 1 THE PLEA The accused person who is self-represented pleaded not guilty to the charge after the charge had been read and explained to him in the Ga Adangbe language. The prosecution bears the burden to prove the guilt of the accused person beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution called one witness and tendered in evidence Exhibit “A" through the accused person. BURDEN OF PROOF It is trite learning that in criminal cases, the burden is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused person beyond reasonable doubt. See Sections 11, 13, and 15 of the Evidence Act, 1975, (N.R.C.D. 323). In the case of Dexter Johnson v. The Republic [2011] 2 SCGLR 60 at page 663, the Supreme Court per Dotse JSC stated that: “Our system of criminal justice is predicated on the principle of the prosecution, proving the facts in issue against an accused person beyond all reasonable doubt. This has been held in several cases that, whenever any doubts exist in the mind of the court which has the potential to result in a substantial miscarriage of justice, those doubts must be resolved in favour of the accused person. I believe this principle must have informed William Blackstone’s often quoted statement that: “Better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent suffers.” The principle is also well established that in criminal cases, the accused person has no legal obligation to prove his innocence. All that is required when the accused person is called upon to open his defence is to raise a reasonable doubt in the case of the prosecution as to his guilt and the standard of proof on the defence is on a balance of probabilities only. In the case of Osae v. The Republic [1980) GLR 446, the court held in its holding 2 that: 2 “Although it was settled law that where the law cast the onus of proof on the accused, the burden on him was lighter than on the prosecutor, and the standard of proof required was the balance of probability, if at any time of the trial, the accused voluntarily assumed the onus of proving his defence or some facts as happened in this case, the standard he had to discharge was on a balance of probabilities.” ANALYSIS Here the accused person is charged with causing unlawful damage contrary to Section 172 which provides that “a person who intentionally and unlawfully causes damage to property to a value exceeding one million Cedis, commits a second-degree felony. Damage is defined under Section 173 of Act 29 to include “not only damage to the matter of a thing, but also any interruption in the use of that thing, or an interference with that thing, by which the thing becomes permanently or temporarily useless, or by which expense is rendered necessary in order to render the thing fit for the purposes for which it was used or maintained.” To succeed, the prosecution must establish the following essential elements of the charge; a. That the accused person caused the damage to the properties of the complainants. b. That the damage caused by the accused was unlawful. c. That the damage caused by the accused person was intentional. d. That the value of the damage caused was more than GH¢100. In the case of Asante v. The Republic [1972] 2 G.L.R. 177, the court held that under Section 172 of Act 29, it was the value of the damage that was material and not the value of the property that was damaged. The court also emphasised the need for the prosecution to establish that the damage was intentionally and unlawfully caused. In the case of Homenya v. The Republic [1992] 1 GLR 305-319, the court held that 3 “Section 172(1) of Act 29 which creates the offence of unlawful damage requires that for a person to be liable under the said section, the accused must have caused the damage intentionally and unlawfully” The complainant, George Bright Nyadudzi testified that his daughter-in-law, Patience Kpodo owned one-acre plot of land situated at Henyum, Dodowa which she bought from the Tettey Odonkor family of Dodowa in the year 2007. According to him, he was the caretaker of the four (4) plots of land and got to know the accused person through this case. The first prosecution witness further testified that the owner of the plot, resides in the USA but made him a caretaker of the walled and gated plot of land. In 2014, on his usual visit to the site, he realised that mango trees were planted on the land. He informed his daughter-in-law who asked him to see the accused who bought the land for her. In the company of his wife, the accused took them to the owner of the land, Mr. Tetteh Odonkor, who pleaded with them to give him time since he was not well at that time and on three subsequent visits, he could not meet Mr. Odonkor. On the 30th of March, 2017, the complainant visited the owner of the land to demand a document from him requested by the lands department. On the site, he realised that the fence wall had been broken down. In the company of Patience Kpodo’s mother, Madam Cecilia Numana, the matter was reported to Mr. Odonkor who then requested that the matter to be reported to the police. Apart from the destruction of the fence wall, two separate footings were constructed on the land. Thereafter, on the 1st of May, 2017, the two parties were summoned by the then District Commander, the late Superintendent Alex Kumantari, who after questioning both parties, instructed that the accused be charged in court. In addition, he also advised that a qualified and registered quantity surveyor be engaged to give the cost of damage to the fence wall. At the time when the incident happened, Patience Kpodo had the indenture of the land was in and the process of acquiring the land title. The quantity surveyor gave the estimated bill of Sixty Eight thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty-Four Ghana Cedis Gh₵ 68,754.00 as 4 the cost for the damage to the fence wall around the four plots of land and a copy of the report was given to the Police. To prove their case further, the prosecution filed witness statements for two other witnesses, Tetteh Odonkor and the investigator, Inspector Agbleke Jerome. However, after several adjournments, the witnesses failed to appear to give evidence. Thus, the witness statements of the witnesses not relied upon do not constitute evidence. The prosecution announced the close of their case and the accused person elected to give evidence in his defence. In his defence, the accused person testified that he was working on family land when the alleged incident happened. There are documents covering the land obtained by his family before he was born. He states that they farm on the land and at times, they give out the land to others for farming purposes. According to him, his family decided to win sand on the land, which was used to build the family house at Old Ningo. He states that when his family members were alive, nobody claimed ownership of the land until they passed on. According to the accused person, the neighbours engaged the services of land guards and set his house ablaze. They reported the matter at the Dodowa Police Station but to no avail. On 24th December 2009 when he went to his farm, he noticed that the land guards had cut down the maize he had planted, and they had started digging a foundation on his land. When he went to the farm, he met the complainant in the company of the land guards and instructed them to stop, but they refused. He went to the Dodowa Police Station, and they gave him a letter to be sent to the police headquarters for assistance. He tendered in evidence the pictures admitted and marked as Exhibit “2” and an application letter admitted and marked as Exhibit “3”. He prepared his land to start farming, and he realised that his land was fenced and they had packed a lot of cement 5 blocks on the land. One day whilst working, he saw some boys packing some of the blocks but he could not tell where they sent the blocks to until they packed all the blocks and used a Kia Truck to destroy his maize farm. Later, he noticed that the fence wall on his land had been damaged and they were recovering the blocks that were laid around the farm. He was invited to the Dodowa Police Station in the year 2017, and when they were asked to produce their documents, the complainant could not produce any document evidencing that the land had been sold to him. In cross-examining the accused person, the prosecution tendered in evidence Exhibit “A”, a ruling from the Arbitration Court of Nene Tetteh Apperkon III, Dodowa Manste, through the accused in which Tetteh Odonkor was granted leave to work on the land. From the evidence led by the prosecution and the defence put up by the accused person, apart from the prosecution stating that someone demolished the wall of the complainant, there is no evidence that the complainant owns the land and that the accused person caused damage to the fence wall of the complainant. The first prosecution witness under cross-examination by the accused person, the following exchanges took place; Q: You said I caused damage to your wall. Did you witness me causing damage to the wall? A: My Lord, I did not see the accused person causing the damage personally. Q: I am putting it to you that when you came to know that the farm belongs to me that is when you falsely accused me that I caused damage to your property. A: I did not know the accused person until March 2017 when I reported the matter to the Police. I do not know who broke the wall. The Police will be able to tell. The witness having categorically stated that he does not know who broke the wall and the accused person having vehemently denied same in his defence, demonstrates that 6 the prosecution failed to prove that the accused person intentionally and unlawfully caused damage to the wall of the complainant. On the totality of the evidence led by the prosecution and the defence put up by the accused person, I hold that the prosecution failed to prove their case of causing unlawful damage against the accused person beyond reasonable doubt. I therefore pronounce the accused person not guilty of the charge and I accordingly acquit and discharge him on a charge of causing unlawful damage to the fence wall. SGD. H/L JUSTICE AGNES OPOKU-BARNIEH (ADDITIONAL CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE) 7