REPUBLIC VRS. APANA (B4/004/24) [2025] GHADC 44 (18 March 2025)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT ‘1’ HELD AT ADENTAN SITTING BEFORE HER WORSHIP NANCY A. ADADE ON TUESDAY THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025. SUIT NO. B4/004/24 THE REPUBLIC VRS RAYMOND APANA _______________________________________________________________________ TIME: 8:47 AM PARTIES ACCUSED: PRESENT PROSECUTION: INSPR. AKPEKO AKU DEDE TORNYEWONYA PRESENT JUDGMENT The accused person has been charged with the offence of assault under Section 84 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29). The brief facts as presented by prosecution are that the complainant Godfred Ayisi is a self- employed man whilst the accused person Raymond Apana is also a businessman and they both reside at Adentan. During the year 2021, the accused person employed the complainant as his sales officer who sold some cartons of alcoholic beverages for him. During the month of September 2022, there was a misunderstanding between complainant and the accused about some monies complainant could not account for and due to that, the accused could not pay the complainant salary on time. However, the accused started demanding for some monies complainant had received from customers and the company mobile phone as he has stopped Page 1 of 8 coming to work. On 21st September, 2022 at about 9:00am, the accused invited the complainant to his house at Adentan Jata Junction area, and demanded for his money. The complainant did not give him the money and this generated a heated argument between them. The accused became offended and assaulted him. On 4th October, 2022 the complainant reported the case to the police and a police medical report form was issued to him to attend hospital. He returned with the medical form well endorsed by the medical office. The accused was arrested and during investigations he denied the offence. After investigations, the accused person was charged with the offence and brought before this honourable court. The accused pleaded not guilty to the offence requiring the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt as provided for under section 11(2) of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323) thus; In a criminal action, the burden of producing evidence, when it is on the prosecution as to a fact which is essential to guilt, requires the prosecution to produce sufficient evidence so that on the totality of the evidence a reasonable mind could find the existence of the fact beyond a reasonable doubt. See also the case of Asare v The Republic [1978] GLR 193-199 Section 84 of Act 29 provides; A person who unlawfully assaults any person commits a misdemeanor From the facts as presented by prosecution, the charge against the accused is that of assault and battery. Section 86(1) of Act 29 states; A person makes an assault and battery on another person, if the other person’s consent, and with the intention of causing harm, pain, or fear, or annoyance to the other person, or of exciting him to anger, that person forcibly touches the other person. Page 2 of 8 To constitute assault and battery it is sufficient if the prosecution proves that without the consent of the complainant and with the intention of causing harm, pain, or fear or annoyance to the complainant or exciting him to anger, the accused forcibly touched him. From the above section, the elements of are: 1. That the accused person forcibly touched the complainant; 2. That the touch was without the consent of the complainant; 3. That the touch was with the intention of causing harm, pain, fear or annoyance …. 4. That the touch was unlawful In Bruce-Konuah v. The Republic [1967] GLR 611-617, where the Prosecution sought to prove the elements of assault, the learned judge Amissah also stated as follows: “This definition is made subject to the provision that ‘It is not necessary that an actual assault and battery should be intended…” And upon such a charge it is open to the prosecution to lead evidence which would support either one or the other type of assault. If the Court finds one particular type proved then it has to convict.” I shall therefore examine the evidence adduced whether or not there was in this case to see if prosecution has duly discharged the burden of proof required. THE CASE OF THE PROSECUTION PW1 PW1 provides testimony stating that he was employed by the accused for a duration of 14 months, during which he received full salary for only 4 months, and those payments were inconsistent. On December 22, 2021, while on Christmas break, PW1 had not received his November salary and faced difficulties providing for his family. As a result, he reached out to customers who owed money and successfully collected their debts, totaling an amount Page 3 of 8 equivalent to one month's salary. He communicated this to the accused, who agreed to the arrangement. However, his December 2021 salary remained unpaid. After returning from the break, the accused assured PW1 that he would ensure consistent salary payments, which did not materialize. In August 2022, the accused raised concerns about discrepancies in whiskey sales and requested an account reconciliation. Upon reviewing the accounts, it was discovered that 13 boxes were unaccounted for. Subsequently, the accused refused to pay PW1 his salary and informed him that deductions would be made for the discrepancies. PW1 then collected additional debts amounting to GH¢1,262.00 and intended to use this amount as partial payment for his salary. A meeting took place at the accused's incomplete house, where PW1 explained that he did not have the GH¢1,262.00 on hand. The accused then prevented PW1 from leaving until the debt was settled, which resulted in several hours of confrontation filled with insults, despite PW1’s requests for a week to gather the funds. Further escalating the situation, the accused directed his caretaker to lock PW1 in the house. When PW1 inquired about the caretaker's authority to do so, the accused became angry and physically confronted PW1, holding him by the chest. When PW1 attempted to turn away, the accused grabbed his shirt and kicked him in the stomach. The accused then locked PW1 in the presence of the caretaker, taking the keys away for over two hours before eventually returning. PW2 PW2 is a Detective Inspector who was the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) officer on duty when the case was reported. The accused was issued a medical form, subsequently arrested, and his statement was taken. Investigations were carried out, leading to the accused Page 4 of 8 being charged with the offence of assault. The following evidence was submitted: the complainant’s statement (Exhibit ‘A’), Investigation cautioned statement of the accused (Exhibit ‘B’), the charge statement of the accused (Exhibit ‘C’), the medical form endorsed by the medical officer (Exhibit ‘D’), and the voice recording of the accused person (Exhibit ‘E’). Paragraph the medical report Exhibit ‘D’ issued by Dr. Ludmila Twum, chief medical officer at the Achimota Hospital states that ‘he (the complainant/PW1) sustained soft tissue contusion of lower abdomen right side abdominal sean was requested to exclude damage to internal organs’ The accused person cross-examined the witnesses and during cross examination of PW1 the accused person questioned among others; Q: I put it to you that on that day, I was furious when you owed me more and adding more, so I was not happy. A: With the debts, we were still reconciling… Q: I told you I was going to report you to the police and I got up to leave and you also got up to cross me and I used my right leg to push you off and you asked why did I kick you and l said yes I kicked you. A: … you held my shirt when I stood up and your caretaker asked you to stop…then you hit my stomach. Q: I put it to you that you came to provoke me that you will not pay the money. A: It is never true. THE DEFENCE The defendant commenced his defense following the establishment of a prima facie case against him by the prosecution, in accordance with Section 173 of Act 30. He indicated that the first witness (PW1) served as a sales officer for his company and that on July 29, 2022, PW1 incurred a debt of GH¢4,224 for beverages he was responsible for selling on behalf of the company. Furthermore, in September 2022, pw1 took additional beverages valued at Page 5 of 8 GH¢1,262 and did not provide an accounting for this amount. The defendant noted that all attempts to have PW1 settle his outstanding debt were unsuccessful, leading to a misunderstanding between the parties. He asserted that the audio recording (Exhibit 'E') was orchestrated and does not represent the complete context, as PW1 approached him provokingly, claiming he did not have the funds to make the payment. When the accused person was under cross examination, this is what he had to say; Q: I put it to you that…you admitted in this court in your own cross examination that you used your right leg to kick the complainant and that he cannot do anything to you, meaning you did it. A: I cannot recall admitting that. What I do know is that I pushed the complainant with my leg and not the stomach. Q: I am putting it to you that whether you kicked or pushed, all equalled to assault. A: Regrettably yes I concede. Based on the evidence presented, especially Exhibits ‘D’ and ‘E’ wherein the accused person admitted to kicking the stomach of the complainant and the medical officer confirming injury to the abdomen right side of the complainant, it is evident that the accused person touched the complainant without obtaining the complainant's consent. I shall now examine whether or not the touch was unlawful Section 85(2) of Act 29 states; ‘An assault is unlawful unless it is justified on one of the grounds mentioned in Chapter one of this part’ Per the evidence of the accused, person, he claims he was provoked into ‘pushing’ the complainant. Can this be justified by the use of force? Section 31 of Act 29 gives grounds on which force or harm may be justified. It provides; Force may be justified in the cases and manner, subject to the conditions, hereinafter in this Chapter mentioned, on the ground of any of the following matters, namely— Page 6 of 8 (a) express authority given by an enactment; or (b) authority to execute the lawful sentence or order of a Court; or (c) the authority of an officer to keep the peace or of a Court to preserve order; or (d) authority to arrest and detain for felony; or (e) authority to arrest, detain, or search a person otherwise than for felony; or (f) necessity for prevention of or defence against crime; or (g) necessity for defence of property or possession or for overcoming the obstruction to the exercise of lawful rights; or (h) necessity for preserving order on board a vessel; or (i) authority to correct a child, servant, or other similar person, for misconduct; or (j) the consent of the person against whom the force is used. From the evidence on record, none of the grounds under Section 31 can be gleaned from the record. The accused person kicked the complainant only because the complainant owed him. He claims he did not kick him in the stomach but rather pushed him with his legs. Rightly as prosecution pointed out, whether it was a kick in the stomach or push with a leg so far as it was without the consent of the complainant and it was intended to cause pain and anger to the complainant and unlawful, it constitutes an assault. A case in point is Faulkner v Tolbot [1981] 3 ALL ER 440 CA where it was held that ‘an assault is an intentional touching of another person without the consent of that person and without lawful excuse. It need not necessarily be hostile or rude or aggressive as some of the cases seem to indicate’. I therefore find as fact and hold that the accused person assaulted the complainant (PW1) which was intended to cause pain, and annoyance to the complainant. The prosecution has presented sufficient evidence to establish the offence of assault beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, I find the accused person guilty of assault and hereby impose a conviction. Page 7 of 8 SENTENCING Upon consideration of the plea in mitigation presented by the accused, I hereby impose a fine of 150 penalty units. Should the accused fail to pay this fine, he will serve a sentence of four months in prison. Additionally, the accused is ordered to compensate the complainant in the amount of GH¢1,000.00. (SGD) H/W NANCY A. ADADE MAGISTRATE Page 8 of 8