The Republic v Issah and Another (BR/KD/DC/B7/30/2025) [2025] GHADC 261 (10 July 2025)

INTHE DISTRICTCOURTHELD ATKWAME DANSO ONTHURSDAYTHE 10TH DAY OFJULY2025.BEFORE HER WORSHIP, CYNTHIA ADEI ANDY ESQ. (DISTRICTMAGISTRATE) SUITNO.: BR/KD/DC/B7/30/2025 THE REPUBLIC VRS. 1.ALIISSAH(SENTENCED) 2.ABDULAZIZ J U DGME NT The first accused person (A1) was charged with the offence of stealing which is contrary to section 124(1) of the criminal offences Act, 1960 (Act 29). The second Accused person (A2) was also charged with the offence of dishonestly receiving stolen property: contrarytosection146ofAct 29. The first accused person pleaded guilty and was convicted summarily. The second accused herein pleaded not guilty when the charge was read and interpreted to him. 1 Prosecution was therefore ordered to file the necessary processes for the trial to commence in order toprove theguilt ofthe accused person. The facts of the case was that the complainant, Mahamadu Umaru, aged forty is a businessman and resides at Burae, near Kete-Krachiin the OtiRegion. The first Accused person was an employee of the complainant. He takes care of his cattle. The A2 is a businessman staying at Atebubu. A1 took the cattle for grazing and he was alleged of stealing three of them. This happened on 31st January, 2025. The three cattle were allegedly sold to A2 at GH₵ 5000.00 per cattle instead of the market value of GH₵28,000.00. After the delivery of the cattle to A2, A1 then abandoned the remaining cattle in the bush and ran away and was later arrested from his hide-out at Kokoso Beposonear Sankorein theAhafo Region. In a criminal case such as this, the prosecution is required by law to prove all the elements of the offense beyond reasonable doubt. The onus of the legal burden and evidential burdens are on them. Generally, the legalburden does notshift. Section 10(2) and 11 of the Evidence Act 1975 NRCD323. Section 11(2) states: "In a criminal action the burden of producing evidence when it is on the prosecution as to any fact which is essential to guilt requires the prosecution to produce sufficient evidence so that on all the evidence a reasonable mind willfindthe existence of the factbeyond reasonable doubt". 2 (3) In a criminal action, the burden of producing evidence, when it is on the accused as to a fact the converse of which is essential to guilt, requires the accused to produce sufficient evidence so that on the totality of the evidencea reasonable mind couldhave areasonable doubt as to guilt’. It is only the evidential burden that may shift on the accused persons after a prima facie case has been established by the prosecution. The standard of proof must be proof beyond reasonable doubt as provided for under section 13(1) of NRCD 323. See the case ofAmparbeng V TheRepublic [1972] 2GLR171CA. Prosecutioncalled three witnesses intheir bid toprove their case. The first prosecution witness (PW1) was Mahamadu Umaru. PW1 said he met A1 somewhere September, 2024 at Yeji. He engaged him to take care of his cattle. Sometime in January, 2025, A1 took the cattle for grazing but later called one Manu on phone alleging that he had incurred a gunshot wound. PW1 said Manu informed him about what had happened so he also asked his son, Abubakar Mahamadu to go and search for A1.His son later informed him that he could not find A1, howeverthe cattle were in the bush with three of them missing. He later led police to arrest A1 at his hideout at KorkorsuBeposuinthe Ahafo Region. The prosecution used A1 as their second witness (PW2). A1 said he stole three cows. He sold one to one Odakpa Isaac at Nyankontre and the remaining two, he sold to the A2 herein. 3 The final prosecution witness (PW3) was the police investigator. He is number 52629 G/CPL Mac Tsekpo. He is stationed at Bassa. PW3 said after the arrest of A1, and during the investigations, A1 mentioned A2 as the one he sold two of the cattle to. A2 was subsequently arrested. P.W3 tendered the cautioned and charged statements of A2 asExhibits “A”and “B”respectively. After close of the prosecution’s case, the court made a determination that prima facie case hasbeen established against the A2 and was asked toopenhis defense. A2opted to speak on oath and filed his witness statement as well as witness statements of three otherpersons. The accused person said getting close to the celebration of Eidal-Adha in 2024, he and his uncle Nasiru Seidu went to Dogondadi with the purpose of buying some animals for the celebrations. He said they bought two sheep initially. They were then sent to a nearby Kraal where some Fulani’s are staying. They were introduced to A1 who assured them of getting them one. They were shown a bull and they agreed to buy it at a price of GH₵7500.00. A2 said he asked A1 to keep the bull till the time of the festival. A2 said during the time of the festival, they went to the place to get the animal but A1 wasnowhere tobe found. They thenreportedthe incident to police at Prang. The second accused person said, on the 12th of January, 2025, A1 called him on phone that he was ready to deliver the cow and that a motor rider was going to deliver a cow 4 to someone at Atebubu so he should negotiate with the rider to convey his cow as well. That they agreed at a cost of GH₵500.00 as the transportation cost. According to A2 the animal was delivered to his nephew, Mohammed Eliasu on his behalf as he was then at his farm. He said he then paid the rider through mobile money transfer. A2 said when he got home, he realized that the animal delivered to him was not the bull he bought at Dogondadi but rather a cow. He was later arrested by the police for buying a stolen animal. The first defence witness (DW1) was Naziru Seidu. He is an uncle to A2. He said he accompanied A2 to Dogondadi to buy animals for the celebration of Eidal-Adha. One Issa sold two rams to them. He then went to show them Kraal where they sell cattle. They met A1 who agreed to sell them a bull. They bought a bull at GH₵7500.00 and paid for it. They left the animal with A1 so that they can go for it at a later date. According to DW1, when they went to get the bull, A1 was nowhere to be found. DW1 said he then accompanied A2 to Prang police station to make a complaint to the police. He was in the farm with A2 on 12th January, 2025 when A2 received a phone call from A1that he was sending the animal througharider tobe delivered toA2 at Atebubu. The animal was later delivered but it turned out that it was not the bull that they negotiated for but rather a cow. According to DW1, all efforts to get A1 on the phone to complain did notmaterialize. 5 The second defense witness (DW2) was David Nyeleyo Kwaku. DW2 said he bought a cow from A1 at Nyankontre. When he went for the cow, A1 asked him to convey another cow to Atebubu. That the cow belongs to A2. On that day, they conveyed two cows, oneforhimself and the other forA2. The third defence witness DW3) was Mohammed Eliasu. He said he was at home when A2 told him some people will be coming to deliver an animal to him. That he was there whenthey came with twoanimals. They offloaded one and sent the otherone away. The final defense witness (DW4) was Akwasi Issah Ntapi. He is a resident of Dogondadi. He said somewhere in the year 2024, A2 in the company of DW1 came to buy two sheep from him. He accompanied them to the Kraal where they met A1. He sold a bull to them for GH₵7500.00. That he saw when A2 paid the money to A1. He said when the time came for A1 to deliver the animal to A2, A1 was nowhere to be found. Section 146 of Act 29 provides: A person who dishonestly receives any property which that person knows has been obtained or appropriated by a criminal offence is punishable under this chapter, commits a criminal offence and is liable to the same punishment as if that person had committed that criminaloffence. In the case of Republic v Bayford [1973] 2 GLR 421, the ingredients of the offense were setas outas follows: 6 1. That the accused received property which he knew to have been obtained or appropriated by stealing, or fraudulent breach of trust, or defrauding by false pretense, or robbery, or extortion or unlawfulentry. 2. That the accused person did receive the goods in any of the following manners: with guilty intent, knowing or shouldhave known that they were stolen. The case of prosecution was that the A1 who was in charge of taking care of PW1’s cattle, stole some of them and sold them to the A2 herein and one other person. A1 is currently serving prison term after being convicted of stealing the cows. He testified for the prosecution and said he sold three cows to A2. The second accused person admitted receiving one cow. The first question that needs determination is the actual number of cows sold to A2. Whilst A1 testified to sending three cows, when the A2 was under cross-examination, he was questioned on receiving two instead. A2 insisted on receiving only one. Below is areproductionofwhat happened during crossexamination ofA2; Q. I am putting it to you that the two cattle were delivered to you by a Motor King rider at Atebubu on 31stJanuary, 2025? A. Itis nottrue. Ionly receivedone cow. 7 DW2 and DW3 who the A2 sent to receive the cow onhis behalf, all said it was only one cowA1 sent to A2.Prosecutionfailed to prove that there were three cows that were sent toA2 atAtebubu fromNyankontre. I find that onlyone cowwas delivered toA2. As indicated earlier, A1 pleaded liable to stealing the animal in question. He was convicted and sentenced for the theft. On that basis I find that the animal in question was stolen. Since A2 admitted receiving the cow from A1 and has since returned it, A2 isheld to havereceived astolenitem. On the determination of the second ingredient, in his defence, A2 said he did not know that the cow sent to him was a stolen one. He said somewhere last year, he went to a place near Prang called Dogondadi searching for a cow to buy for Eidul Adha. He was shown a Kraal and A1 was introduced to him as an owner of a bull he saw in there. They negotiated the price and he paid for it with the promise that he would go for it later. A2 said when he decided to go for the animal, all calls to A1 did not go through. He went to the place only to be told that A1 had relocated. Sometime in January this year, A1 called him that he is now ready to deliver the cow so he should arrange with a motor rider who was conveying another cow to someone in Atebubu. Through that arrangement he received one cow. A2 tendered a police extract as evidence of reporting A1to police whenhe couldnot see him to deliver the animaltohim. 8 It has already been established that the animal delivered to A2 was stolen. Should A2 ought to have known that it was stolen? The evidence clearly shows that A1 is just a Fulani herdsman who only takes care of people’s animals. A2 should have done more investigations to ascertain who he was dealing with. This notwithstanding, the police extract tendered bore a date which suggests that the complaint was made during the investigations of the instant case. From the evidence, the purported transaction between A1 and A2 was done in June, 2024. A1 was arrested somewhere ending part of January, 2025. The complaint to the police by A2 was in February 2025. This shows clearly that the said report was an afterthought probably to cover up the purchase of the stolen animal. Again, the original agreement was entered at Dogondadi, near Prang. The animal was delivered from Nyankontre in Sene East District; this should have raised some eye brows. Finally, according to A2, he negotiated to buy a bull but what was delivered was a cow. This too proves that something was wrong with A1’s conduct. It is clear fromthe evidence that therewas dishonest intentonthe partofA2. From the analysis above, I found that A2 ought to know that the animal delivered to himwas astolenitem. On the basis of the above findings therefore, the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt oftheAccused beyond reasonable doubt. A2is therebyconvicted oncount two. 9 …………………………………… H/W CYNTHIA ADEI ANDY ESQ. (DISTRICTMAGISTRATE) 10