The Republic v Opoku (B7/05/2025) [2025] GHADC 257 (24 June 2025)

SITTINGINTHE DISTRICT COURT ATWENCHI IN THEBONO REGION ON TUESDAYTHE24TH DAY OF JUNE,2025,BEFORE HIS WORSHIP ISSAH ABDUL- WAHABESQ(MAGISTRATE) CCNO: B7/05/2025 THEREPUBLIC VS URSLAOPOKU JUDGMENT The accused person herein was arraigned before this on a charge of defrauding by false pretencescontrarytosection 131oftheCriminaland OtherOffences Act1960(Act 29). The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge after same was read and explained to her intwi. Upon a thorough examination of the particulars of the offence and the facts as presentedby the prosecution, the following issues were setdown fortrial; 1. Whether or not the accused did make any representation to the complainant in relationtothe motortricycle also knownas“Pragia”, 1 2. Whetherornot thesaid representationwas false; 3. Whether or not the accused knew at the time of making the statement that it was false; 4. Whether or not the complainant relied on the statement and parted with any money totheaccused. The facts of the case as presented by the prosecution are that the complainant is one MosesPilro who is 22 years old and a farmer at Nsawkaw. That the accused herein is 20 years and a susu collector for a financial institution also at Nsawkaw. That in the month of May 2023, accused who attends the same church with the complainant informed the complainant that she was an agent for a company called 22nd Emperor Enterprise in Accra. That the said company helps to provide brand new motor tricycles to interested persons. That after several persuasions complainant then expressed interest in the said tricycle locally known as “Pragia”. That the accused then requested that the complainant pays the purchase price of GH₡15,000.00 under the pretext of transferring same to the said company as part payment for the said tricycle (Pragia) and that the complainant will pay the remaining GH₡15,000.00 when the machines arrives. That the complainant agreed and gave the GH₡15,000.00 to the accused through the church pastor. That after having paid the GH₡15,000.00, the accused started giving excuses tothe complainant as 2 to why the company was delaying in supplying the tricycle. That having realized how frustrated the complainant had become, the accused then refunded GH₡2,000.00 out of the money to the complainant. Then on the 2nd day of February, 2024, complainant reported the matter to the police and the accused was arrested. That during investigations the accused could not provide any prove that she worked for the said company. That afterinvestigations she was charged withtheoffence. The first prosecution witness in his evidence told the court he is Mose Piro and that he lives at Attakrom near Nsawkaw and he knows the accused. That a friend of his told him he had heard the accused saying she works for a certain company that helps people buy motortricycles. P.W.1 said he contacted the accused and she said it was true and that she (accused) works for the company that supply the tricycles to interested persons. That accused then told him (pw1) to get the machine, he would have to pay 50% of the cost which is GH₡15,000.00 and when the tricycle is delivered you pay the balance. That accused also said the complainant will need to provide a guarantor. Pw1 said he contacted his pastor who then agreed to guarantee for him (pw1). That the pastor also said he knows the accused through their church. Pw1 said on the 15th of May 2024 and in the presence of one Emmanuel Agyei (pw2), he (pw1) paid GH₡15,000.00 to the accused. That the 3 accused filled out aformwiththe heading “the 22ndEmperor Enterprise”and made him signsame. Pw1 tendered the form which was admitted and marked as ‘A’. That the said Emmanuel Agyei (pw2) also signed as a guarantor. Pw1 said after the accused took the money she never delivered the said tricycle after several months. Pw1 said he became suspicious of thee accused and asked for a refund of the money. That after several months of pressure, accused gave him (pw1) only GH₡2,000.00. Pw1 said he later reportedthe case to the police and gave a statement. Accused did not have any question forpw1. The second prosecution witness was one Emmanuel Agyei (pw2) who said he lives at Yabraso and is a pastor with the Assemblies of God. That he knows the accused who used to be amember of their church. That the complainant is also a member of the same church. Pw2 said onthe 15th day ofMay 2023,complainant and the accused came to him and accused said she works with a firm that helps people buy motor bikes. That the complainant then paid GH₡15,000.00 to the accused in his (pw2) presence. That he took the money and gave to the accused. That accused promised to deliver the tricycle in a months time but she never did. That after several months, complainant demanded a refund of his money. Then the accused gave complainant only GH₡2,000.00 and refused to pay the rest. Pw2 said when he requested that the accused let him (pw2) talk 4 to the company, accused refused. They then said the accused was trying swindle the complainant. The third and final witness for the prosecution was Detective Chief Inspector Richard Sugah stationed at the Nsawkaw District Police CID. That he knows the complainant and the accused. That on the 12th day of February 2023, a case was reported against the accused and same was referred to him for investigations. He took statements from complainant and witnesses. They then arrested the accused and cautioned her. That the accused admitted taking the sum of GH₡15,000.00 from the complainant with a promise that she will help complainant by a tricycle. Pw3 said throughout their investigations they never came across any company by the name “The 22nd Emperor Enterprise”. He was then instructed to charge the accused with the offence. Pw3 tendered the caution and charge statements of the accused which were admitted and markedas exhibits ‘B’and ‘C’ respectively. After the prosecution closed their case, this court took the view that a case had been made out against the accused and she wascalled upontoopenher defence. In her evidence in-chief, the accused told the court she is Ursula Opoku and that she lives at Nsawkaw and is a susu collector. That she worked with a credit union in Techiman. That she went to Techiman one day and heard on radio in Techiman about a company that was giving motor tricycles (Pragia) to people. Hat before they give to you, 5 you need to pay a deposit of 50% and that they wanted workers too. That the one who made the announcement was one Nana Appiah. Then one day, one of her customers toldher someone was interested in thee tricycles. That it was the complainant. Then one pastor (pw2) whom she told about said complainant should go ahead. The accused said she later met the complainant with Nana Appiah in the presence of the pastor (pw2) and the complainant paid GH₡15,000.00 to them (accused and the Nana Appiah). That later, Nana Appiah made her to speak with one Charles Asum who he said was the director in Accra and that they had given him the money. Accused said after Nana Appiahtookthe money, whenyoucall he doesn’tpick thecall. Then at a point the calls were not going through again. Accused said she then decided to take up the debt. Accused said she gave complainant GH₡2,000.00 out of the GH₡15,000.00 leaving a balance of GH₡13,000.00. She was later brought to court. Accused did not callany witness. Upona carefulassessment ofallthe evidence, it became so clear thatthe accused indeed made a representation to the complainant through pw2 that she worked for a certain company by name “The 22nd Emperor Enterprise” and which was into the supply of motor tricycle. That the accused also told complainant that she could assist the complainant get a new motor tricycle or Pragia but only subject to a down payment of 6 50% of the price of GH₡30,000.00. The 50% down payment which is GH₡15,000.00 was then paid to the accused in the presence of pw2 Emmanuel Agyei who said the accused and complainant are both his church members. It must be noted that at no point did the accused provide evidence of her employment contract with the suppose company to eitherthe complainant oreventothis court. Again, the prosecution contended that even during investigations into the case, the accused neither provided any particulars of the supposed company nor the evidence of any prior supply of the said motor tricycle to anyone besides the complainant. It must also be observed that the accused after having failed to lead the complainant to the said company then decided to refund the complainant’s GH₡15,000.00 to him but she only paid GH₡2,000,00 leaving a balance of GH₡13,000.00. This was when the complainant made acriminal complaint tothe police leading tothe arrest oftheaccused. It is thus important to state that from the conduct of the accused, it was obvious that at the time the accused represented to the complainant and pw2 that she worked for the said company which deals in motor tricycles that statement was false. And indeed, the accused herein knewat thetime ofmaking the said statement thatsame was false. The complainant undoubted, relied on this false representation by the accused and parted with the said sum of GH₡15,000.00 with the hope that he will get his motor tricycle fromthe accused and hersupposed company but neverhappened. 7 Again, it is important to state also that the accused at the time she told complainant and pw2 that she worked for the said company, she did not as a matter of fact know where the office of the said company was, and yet she got the complainant to part with a whopping sum of GH₡15,000.00to her. This was a dishonest conduct that was meant to deceive the complainant and to get him (complainant) part with money which did happen. Sofromthe evidence as adduced, I found thefollowing as facts; 1. That the accused indeed told the complainant that she worked for a company thatsupplies motortricycle topeople who areinterested. 2. That at the time the accused made this representation, the accused was not in the employment of any such company which made the said representation false and theaccused knewthat. 3. That the company believed or relied on the said false statement and paid GH₡15,000.00 to the accused with the hope that he will buy the machine but that neverhappened. Ina criminal trial the burden of proof in the sense ofthe burden of establishing the guilt of the accused is on the prosecution and failure on the part of the prosecution to discharge that must lead to the acquittal of the accused. See; Donkor Vs The State [1964] 2GLR, 598SC. 8 The above principle of law is an expansion of section 11 (2) od the Evidence Act 1975 (Act 323) which provides that; “In a criminal action, the burden of producing evidence when it is on the prosecution as to any fact which is essential guilt requires the prosecution to produce sufficient evidence so that onall the evidence areasonable mind could find the existence ofthefact beyondreasonable doubt”. From the provision of section 11 (2) above, it can also be gleaned that the standard burdenrequired ofthe prosecution in criminal trial is“prove beyond reasonable doubt”. It is again the law as was decided in the case of Yeboah Vs The Republic (1972) 2 GLR, 289, that the guilt of the accused in a criminal trial must be proved with the degree of certainty thatis required by law. The accused is before this court on a charge of fraud by false pretences contrary to section 131 of Act 29 of 1960. The offence of fraud by false pretences is created by section 131 of Act 29 and the section provides that; “whoever defrauds any person by any false pretencesshall be guilty ofasecond degree felony”. What constitute the offence under section 131 is defined in section 132 when it is provided that “a person is guilty of defrauding by false pretences if by means of any false pretence or by personation he obtains the consent of anotherperson topart with or transferthe ownershipofanything”. 9 To succeed inan offence under section131,the prosecutionmust establish that; a. The accused made the representationtothe complainant. b. That theaccused at thetime ofmaking the representationknewsame tobe false. c. That the complainant relied on the said false representation and parted with something tohis detriment. In relating the law as stated to the facts before this court, it must be noted that the accused herein at the time she told the complainant she was working for the said “22nd Emperor Enterprise”, she actually did not even know where the office of the company wasand asamatteroffact was neverin their employment. That the complainant upon pressure and persuasion from the accused relied on same and parted with the cash sum of GH₡15,000.00 to the accused. This said conduct of the accused was intended to and indeed did set the complainant to believe in the false pretencesand tohis detriment. From the evidence and the law as stated above therefore, it is my considered conclusion that the prosecution has proved the charge against the accused and she has been found guiltyas chargedand convicted. The reasonsfor theaboveconclusion include; 10 1. That the accused told complainant she worked for a certain company that sells motortricycles when she knew it was false. 2. That she made that false representation to the complainant to get him part with money and which the complainant did. 3. That the complainant relied on the false statement and paid GH₡15,000.00 to the accused. 4. The accused though took the GH₡15,000.00, she however failed to deliver the motortricycle because her intentionwas todefraud. 5. That the prosecution proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt and as required by law. Mitigation- On mitigation, the accused pleaded for leniency and said she was also actually defrauded by the guy who talked to her about the company. Accused has shown remorse and is also a first time offender. Accused sentenced to a fine of 80 penaltyunits orindefault eight (8) monthsimprisonment. She is further ordered to refund the GH₡13,000.00 to the complainant. The GH₡2,000.00earlier refunded should be givento thecomplainant. 11 ………………………. ISSAHABDUL-WAHAB (MAGISTRATE) 12