REPUBLIC VRS ADONGO (UE/BO/DC/B7/01/2025) [2025] GHADC 35 (16 January 2025)

*HWMNJ@DC/BO-16/01/2025* CORAM: HIS WORSHIP MAWUKOENYA NUTEKPOR (DISTRICT MAGISTRATE), SITTING AT THE DISTRICT COURT, BONGO IN THE UPPER EAST REGION OF GHANA, ON THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 CASE NO. UE/BO/DC/B7/01/2025 THE REPUBLIC VRS. OLANDO ADONGO TIME: 09:10AM ACCUSED PERSON PRESENT INSPECTOR DAVID DELALI OSAE FOR THE REPUBLIC NO LEGAL REPRESENTATION FOR THE ACCUSED PERSON JUDGMENT Introduction 1. The accused person herein was charged for the offence of Stealing contrary to section 124(1) of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29) and arraigned before this court on 17th October, 2024. The accused person pleaded guilty with explanation to the charge against him. The court upon examination of the explanation by the accused person entered plea of not guilty for him. The burden therefore shifted to prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused person. In the case of Republic vrs. Adu-Boahen and Another (1993–94) 2 GLR 324 -342, the Supreme Court per Kpegah JSC, stated as follows: A plea of not guilty is a general denial of the charge by an accused which makes it imperative that the prosecution proves its case against an accused person. Since *JUDGMENT-THE REPUBLIC VRS. OLANDO ADONGO (CASE NO. B7/01/2025)* Page 1 of 19 *HWMNJ@DC/BO-16/01/2025* no admissions are made or may be made, unlike civil cases, the prosecution, when a plea of not guilty is voluntarily entered by an accused or is entered for him by the trial court, assumes the burden to prove, by admissible and credible evidence, every ingredient of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. Facts of Prosecution’s Case 2. The facts of the prosecution’s case as presented to the court and attached to the charge sheet filed on 14/10/2024 is that the complainant in this case Mabel Aduko is a drinking spot operator and resides at Bolga- Soe whereas the accused person is a driver and resides at Sikabisi. On 15/07/24, the complainant employed the accused as a driver of her Kia Rhino truck with registration number GR 6628-19 to be loading goods from Namoo to Accra and Accra to Namoo. On 17/07/24, accused person loaded goods from Guelwongo in the Republic of Burkina Faso to Accra. On 17/08/24, accused returned from Accra to Guelwongo with the truck fully loaded. Accused was supposed to give the complainant GHC9,000.00 being the sales for the return trip, but failed to do so. Complainant called accused several times demanding for her money but he refused to answer the calls and abandoned the vehicle at Guelwongo, with two of it tyres valued GHC3,000.00 removed. Complainant reported the matter to police and accused was arrested and cautioned to that effect. In his caution statement, he admitted the offence and stated that he spent GHC8,600.00, in maintaining the vehicle leaving the balance of GHC400.00. Accused could not produce the balance of GHC400.00 and there was no proof of maintenance work carried on the vehicle as he alleged. He was therefore charged for the offence of Stealing. *JUDGMENT-THE REPUBLIC VRS. OLANDO ADONGO (CASE NO. B7/01/2025)* Page 2 of 19 *HWMNJ@DC/BO-16/01/2025* Burden of Proof 3. In a criminal case where an accused person pleaded not guilty, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused person. Article 19 clause (2)(c) of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana provides that: “A person charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed to be innocent until he is proved or has pleaded guilty.” The proof required is proof beyond reasonable doubt. The Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323), outlines this in subsections 11(2) and 13(1) and Section 22 as follows: 11(2) “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 could find the existence of the fact beyond a reasonable doubt. 13(1) In any civil or criminal action the burden of persuasion as to the commission by a party of a crime which is directly in issue requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Section 22: In a criminal action a presumption operates against the accused as to a fact which is essential to guilt only if the existence of the basic facts that give rise to the presumption are found or otherwise established beyond a reasonable doubt and thereupon in the case of a rebuttable presumption the accused need only raise a reasonable doubt as to the existence of the presumed fact”. *JUDGMENT-THE REPUBLIC VRS. OLANDO ADONGO (CASE NO. B7/01/2025)* Page 3 of 19 *HWMNJ@DC/BO-16/01/2025* 4. The Supreme Court in a unanimous decision in the case of Abdulai Fuseini v The Republic, reported in [2020] Crim LR, page 331 reiterated and affirmed the basic philosophical principles underpinning criminal prosecution in our courts as follows:- “In criminal trials, the burden of proof against an accused person is on the prosecution. The standard of proof is proof beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt actually means “proof of the essential ingredients of the offence charged and not mathematical proof.” Emphasis supplied 5. In the case of Miller Vrs Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 ALL ER 372 at 373 Lord Denning (as he then was) explained proof beyond reasonable doubt as follows: “It need not reach certainty but it must carry a high degree of probability, proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond a shadow of doubt. The law would fail to protect the community if it admitted fanciful possibilities to deflect the course of justice … If the evidence is so strong against a man as to leave only a remote possibility in his favour, which can be dismissed with the sentence ‘of course, it is possible but not in the least probable’, the case is proved beyond reasonable doubt, but nothing short of that will suffice.” Emphasis supplied 6. In the case of Dexter Eddie Johnson Vrs the Republic [2011] SCGLR 601 Dotse JSC discussed the principle of proof beyond reasonable doubt in some detail and cited the case of Woolmington Vrs DPP [1934] AC 462 where Lord Sankey made the following statement: *JUDGMENT-THE REPUBLIC VRS. OLANDO ADONGO (CASE NO. B7/01/2025)* Page 4 of 19 *HWMNJ@DC/BO-16/01/2025* “Throughout the web of the English Criminal Law, the golden thread is always to be seen, that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner’s guilt – if at the end of and on the whole of the case, there is a reasonable doubt, created by the evidence given by either the prosecution or the prisoner – the prosecution has not made out the case and the prisoner is entitled to an acquittal. No matter what the charge or where the trial, the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of the common law of England and no attempt to whittle it down can be entertained.” See the case of: Commissioner of Police Vrs Isaac Antwi [1961] GLR 408 where the Woolmington principle was applied. 7. See also the following cases on the burden of proof in criminal cases: Frimpong @Iboman v The Republic [2012] 1 SCGLR 297, Gligah & Anr v The Republic [2010] SCGLR 870, Tetteh v The Republic [2001-2002] SCGLR 854, Francis Yirenkyi v Republic [2017-2020] 1 SCGLR 433 at 457 and 464-466, just to mention a few. The Ingredients of the Offence of Stealing, 8. The Offence of Stealing is governed by sections 124 (1) and 125 of the Criminal Offences act, 1960, (Act 29). Section 124(1) and 125 of Act 29 provides that: Stealing 124(1) A person who steals commits a second degree felony. 125. Definition of stealing *JUDGMENT-THE REPUBLIC VRS. OLANDO ADONGO (CASE NO. B7/01/2025)* Page 5 of 19 *HWMNJ@DC/BO-16/01/2025* A person steals who dishonestly appropriates a thing of which that person is not the owner. In Anang Vs. The Republic {CA} [1984-86] 1 GLR 458, The Supreme Court per Taylor J.S.C, said: “… the ingredients of the offence of stealing are stated in section 125 of Act 29, and these ingredients have been authoritatively expounded by the full bench of the Court of Appeal in the case of Republic v. Halm, Court of Appeal (full bench), 7 August 1969; digested in (1969) C.C. 155 which is binding on this court. There Amissah J.A. in his inimitably lucid and impeccable manner delivering the unanimous and illuminating judgment of the full bench strongly constituted said as stated in the headnote at 263: “The preliminary relationship for consideration in a charge of stealing is not so much a relationship between the person charged and some other, identified as owner, as a relationship between the person charged and the thing alleged stolen . . . For the offence of stealing to be constituted, therefore, the relations, act and intention to be proved in connection with ‘the thing’ are: (i) that the person charged must not be the owner of it; (ii) that he must have appropriated it; and (iii) that the appropriation must have been dishonest.” In addition, Abban, J as he then was in the case of Ampah and Another v The Republic (1976) 1 GLR 403 @ 412 stated as follows: "... the basic ingredients which ought to be proved in a charge of stealing by the prosecution are, firstly, that the accused was not the owner of the subject- matter of the charge; secondly, that he appropriated the subject-matter of *JUDGMENT-THE REPUBLIC VRS. OLANDO ADONGO (CASE NO. B7/01/2025)* Page 6 of 19 *HWMNJ@DC/BO-16/01/2025* the charge and, thirdly, that the appropriation was dishonest. If these three essential elements are proved to the satisfaction of the court, the court will be bound to convict unless the accused is able to put forward some defence or explanation which "can cast a reasonable doubt" on the case for the prosecution." See also the following authorities on the elements of the offence of stealing: the book entitled “Contemporary Criminal Law in Ghana, 3rd edition by Dennis Dominic Adjei (JA), 2021 pages 339 to 340, Mensah vrs. The Republic 1978 GLR 404, Ali & Others vrs the Republic (1992) 1 GLR 570, just mention a few. From the above authorities, the elements that prosecution must prove in order to succeed in this case is that the accused person dishonestly appropriate the sum of GHC9,000.00 and two truck tyres valued GHC3,000.00 totaling GHC12,000.00 belonging to the complainant, Mabel Aduko. Evaluation of Evidence of Prosecution and Legal Analysis 9. In instant case, prosecution in an attempt to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt called two (2) witnesses. PW1-Mabel Aduko testified as follows that: “on 15/07/2024, I employed accused person as a driver of my Kia Rhino truck with registration number GR 6628-19 to be loading goods after agreeing to the terms and conditions. On 17/07/24, the accused person loaded the vehicle from Guelwongo to Accra and per the rules of engagement, the proceeds were for himself. On 17/08/24, the accused person returned to Guelwongo with the truck fully loaded of which the proceeds were to be mine, however he failed to account to me. Accused made cash the sum of GHC13,000.00 and spent GHC4,000.00 for *JUDGMENT-THE REPUBLIC VRS. OLANDO ADONGO (CASE NO. B7/01/2025)* Page 7 of 19 *HWMNJ@DC/BO-16/01/2025* fuel leaving a balance of 9,000.00 which he was supposed to give to me but failed to do so. The accused person throughout the trip never responded to my calls neither did he called to complain of any fault on the vehicle until his arrest by the Police. He alleged that he spent GHC8,600.00 to maintain the vehicle including purchasing of four tyres. On my inspection, I realized there were no maintenance work on the vehicle neither did accused showed proof of any maintenance work on the truck. I again realized two of the truck tyres valued GHC3,000.00 were nowhere to be found.” 10. PW2- No.54955 G/L/Cpl. Emmanuel Eshun, the investigator herein testified that complainant in her statement to the police stated she employed accused as the driver to her Kia truck to be loading goods from Guelwongo to Accra and from Accra to Guelwongo; and that any money he made on his return journey is for the complainant. He testified that during investigation, accused person claimed he spend GHC8,600.00 to maintain the vehicle including purchasing of four tyres throughout the trip. However there was not any proof of maintenance work carried on the vehicle as alleged by the accused person. He stated investigation also disclosed that accused person never called the complainant to inform her of the purported maintenance work. It also came to light that two of the truck tyres valued GHC3,000.00 had been removed upon his return to Guelwongo. PW2 tendered in the evidence the following documents: Investigation Cautioned Statement of the accused person dated 18/08/2024 and Further Investigation Cautioned Statement of the accused person dated 20/08/2024 as Exhibits A and A1 respectively, Charged Statement of the accused person dated 20/08/2024 as Exhibit B and a Photograph of the truck or Vehicle as Exhibit C. *JUDGMENT-THE REPUBLIC VRS. OLANDO ADONGO (CASE NO. B7/01/2025)* Page 8 of 19 *HWMNJ@DC/BO-16/01/2025* 11. The prosecution witnesses maintained during cross examination that the accused person dishonestly appropriate the sum of GHC9,000.00 and two tyres valued GHC3,000 amounting to GHC12,000.00 for which he was not the owner. 12. After the close of prosecution’s case, the court found that there was a prima facie or sufficient case against the accused person for him to be called upon to open his Defence. The court therefore called on the accused person to make a defence and reminded the accused person of the charge against him. The court also informed the accused person of his right to give evidence personally on oath or to make a statement. It must be noted that at this juncture, the duty of the accused person is not to prove his innocence but to raise a reasonable doubt concerning his guilt. Sections 11(3) and 13(2) of the Evidence Act 1975, (NRCD 323) provides as follows “Section 11(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 evidence a reasonable mind could have a reasonable doubt as to guilt. Section 13(2) Except as provided in section 15 (c), in a criminal action, the burden of persuasion, when it is on the accused as to a fact the converse of which is essential to guilt, requires only that the accused raise a reasonable doubt as to guilt.” 11. Also, Sankey LC noted in the case of Woolmington vrs. Director of Public Prosecutions [1935] AC 462 at 481 as follows: *JUDGMENT-THE REPUBLIC VRS. OLANDO ADONGO (CASE NO. B7/01/2025)* Page 9 of 19 *HWMNJ@DC/BO-16/01/2025* …while the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner, there is no such burden laid on the Prisoner to prove his innocence, and it is sufficient for him to raise a doubt as to his guilt; he is not to satisfy the jury of his innocence. Evidence of the Accused Person and its Analysis 13. The accused person testified himself without a witness. Accused person -Olando Adongo testified as follows: “My friend by name Ayinelebsigo called me on phone some time ago and told me that a friend of his has purchased a Kia Rhino truck and that she needed a driver to use the truck for commercial purpose. That Ayinelebsigo gave me the direction to complainant’s house in Bolga-Soe where I met with complainant’s brother. That complainant’s brother showed me the truck which was then packed in complainant’s house and told me that complainant was not around so I should come back the next day. That I went back to complainant’s house the next day as instructed by complainant’s brother and this time around I met both complainant her brother. That complainant’s brother told me to go with the truck and get my first load and report the outcome to them so that based on the outcome a proper and clearer sales agreement can be reached between me and complainant. That I took the truck to Yeliwongo in Burkina Faso and spent about week there scouting for load. That after about a week I got a load to Accra. That on the way to Accra, two tires busted, at Buipe, and at Kadelso the engine pump also developed fault. On reaching Atakrom the front break rubbers got spoilt. That due to the faults, I spend about two weeks on the road trying to repair the truck at each point in order to deliver the load to the owner. That in the course of running up and down in the *JUDGMENT-THE REPUBLIC VRS. OLANDO ADONGO (CASE NO. B7/01/2025)* Page 10 of 19 *HWMNJ@DC/BO-16/01/2025* attempt to fix the faults on the truck, my mobile phone got lost. That I could not reach out to complainant to tell her the situation on the road due to the loss of my mobile phone and the fact that I did not also have her contact number written down or memorized. That I made several calls to my own phone number in an attempt to locate the phone but nobody answered the calls and I strongly believe it was during that same time that complainant called my line but there was no response. That I finally managed to reach Accra and was able to do proper maintenance on the truck to wit, changing the crutch plate, fixing electrical faults on the front and tail lights, changing down crutch port, spring hanger (driver’s side). That I also purchased horn for the truck which initially had non-functional horn. That I got another load from Accra to Yeliwongo and while on the way to Bolgatanga, four of the tires to the truck got busted. That the owner of the goods I was carrying to Yeliwongo bought two second-hand tires for me with the agreement that when we get to our destination I will pay him the money used in buying the tires. That when I reached Yeliwongo and while they were offloading the goods, my friend Ayinelebsigo came to inform me that complainant wish to see me so I followed my friend to complainant’s house. That when I got to complainant’s house I was put in a car and returned to Bongo Police station where I was arrested and detained for three days. That later I was granted police enquiry bail and was instructed by the police to report myself from Monday to Friday until I finish paying the sum of GHC9,000.00 which complainant demanded as proceeds from the trip I made. That it is a norm for drivers entering Yeliwongo to deposit their driver’s license at a police check point in Yeliwongo which I obliged and deposited same with them. That after I was arrested and detained at Bongo Police station, complainant went for the truck at Yeliwongo and also collected my driver’s license which was with the *JUDGMENT-THE REPUBLIC VRS. OLANDO ADONGO (CASE NO. B7/01/2025)* Page 11 of 19 *HWMNJ@DC/BO-16/01/2025* police in Yeliwongo. That I pleaded with complainant to release my driver’s license to me to enable me work and repay the money she is demanding but has since refused to listen to my plea. That when I was arrested by the police, the news reached my client who bought the two tires for me and he removed the two tries from the truck. That I am currently unable to find any car to drive so as to get money to pay the GHC9,000.00 complainant is demanding. That I wish to say that I am not a dishonest person and that what happened has never happened between me and any of my car owners since I started driving as a professional commercial driver. That I am still pleading with complainant to release my driver’s license to me and give me some time for me to pay her the GHC9,000.00 she is demanding. 14. On 13/12/2024, during cross examination of the accused person by the Prosecution, the following transpired: Q. You told this court in paragraph 16 of your witness statement that you carried out some maintenance on the vehicle which was entrusted into your hands. Is that so? A. That is so. Q. In the same paragraph 16, you said you changed a clutch plate, fixed electrical faults, changed tail light, changed down crutch port and spring hanger, and that you changed the horn. Is that so? A, Yes that is so *JUDGMENT-THE REPUBLIC VRS. OLANDO ADONGO (CASE NO. B7/01/2025)* Page 12 of 19 *HWMNJ@DC/BO-16/01/2025* Q. I am putting it to you that technically all what you have mentioned in this paragraph that you change as maintained is not true. A. It is the truth I am saying. Q. I further put it to you that before you took the truck all the lights were fashioning and this are still on the car? A. That is true. But on our going all got spoilt. Q. I am putting it to you that the alleged repairs as stated in paragraph 16 cannot cost GH₵9,000 A. It will be up to the GH₵9,000 because the cost of the tyres I bought is part. Q. In paragraph 18 of your witness statement you made mentioned that you bought two tyres which were brought to you by somebody. Is that correct? A. That is true. Q. The two tyres you said they bought for you. Where are the receipts? A. Because I am unable to get the receipts for the expenses I made that was why I agreed to refund the money to the complainant when she confronted me. Q. I am putting it to that it is not true you bought any spare parts to repair the car as you are not able to produce receipts for any of the items. A. I am speaking the truth. *JUDGMENT-THE REPUBLIC VRS. OLANDO ADONGO (CASE NO. B7/01/2025)* Page 13 of 19 *HWMNJ@DC/BO-16/01/2025* Q. I am putting it to you that the proceeds you got from the two trips could have maintained this truck with some remaining. A. There was no money left after the maintenance. Q. I am putting it to you that you did not carried out any maintenance but you consume all the money and switched off your phone which made it difficult for the complainant to get in touch with you? A. That is not true. My phone got missing. Q. When you return form Accra, you abandoned the truck without informing the complainant. Is that so? A. From Accra I stopped at Yorogo, packed the car and went to meet the complainant. Thereafter I went to off load the goods at Yeliwongo. It was when I off loaded the goods that the complainant sent the middle man in the contract to police and pick me up on a motor bike. They sent me to Bolga and later to Bongo police station. Q. I am putting it to you that had it not been the one who introduced you to the complainant, the complainant would not have known that you returned from Accra with the truck. A. That is not true. 15. This court is mandated to examine the defence of the accused person in three stages or apply what is usually referred to as the “three tier test” principle. Thus, in the Republic vs. Francis Ike Uyanwune [2012] DLCA8143, Dennis Adjei, J.A.: *JUDGMENT-THE REPUBLIC VRS. OLANDO ADONGO (CASE NO. B7/01/2025)* Page 14 of 19 *HWMNJ@DC/BO-16/01/2025* “The accused person must give evidence if prima facie case is established else, he may be convicted and if he opens his defence the court is required to satisfy itself that the explanation of the accused person is either acceptable or not. If it is acceptable the accused person should be acquitted and if it is not acceptable the court should probe further to see if it is reasonably probable. If it is reasonably probable, the accused person should be acquitted but if it is not and the court is satisfied that in considering the entire evidence on record the accused person is guilty of the offence, the court must convict him. This test is what is usually, referred to as ‘three tier test’”. See also the case of Lutterodt vs. Commissioner of Police [1963]2 GLR 429. 16. Even though the accused person is required to raise a reasonable doubt, the explanation of the accused must be convincing to be acceptable or reasonably probable. From the evidence or explanation of the accused person or defence, He admitted he loaded the truck to Accra and loaded the truck back to Guewolongo. Accused person claims he carried out some maintenance on the car. Thus, he stated as follows: “That on the way to Accra, two tyres busted, at Buipe, and at Kadelso the engine pump also developed fault. On reaching Atakrom the front break rubbers got spoilt. That due to the faults, I spend about two weeks on the road trying to repair the truck at each point in order to deliver the load to the owner. … That I finally managed to reach Accra and was able to do proper maintenance on the truck to wit, changing the crutch plate, fixing electrical faults on the front and tail lights, changing down crutch port, spring hanger (driver’s side). That I also purchased horn for the truck which initially had non- functional horn.” *JUDGMENT-THE REPUBLIC VRS. OLANDO ADONGO (CASE NO. B7/01/2025)* Page 15 of 19 *HWMNJ@DC/BO-16/01/2025* 17. The accused person claims he was paid GHC13,000.00 for loading the goods to Accra. However, he paid Commission of GHC1,300.00 and bought fuel for GHC4,000.00 which amounts to GHC5,300. If you subtract GHC5,300.00 from GHC13,000.00, the remaining balance is GHC7,700.00. He claims he spent GHC8,600.00 on maintenance of the truck. Indeed, the Accused person in his further statement to the police on 20/08/2024 (Exhibit A1 relied on in Exhibit B) stated as follows: “I loaded bags of groundnut from Guelwongo to Accra at a charge of GHC13,000.00 of which I paid a commission of GHC1,300.00 from the GHC13,000.00. I then bought fuel amounting to GHC4,000.00 before I was able to get to Accra. I spent a week before I got to Accra because the vehicle developed some faults and I maintained same. My brother Joseph and my mate who were on board can attest to that. I then loaded bags of poultry feed from Accra to Guelwongo which also amounted to GHC13,000.00. I paid a commission of GHC1,300.00 from the GHC13,000.00 and also bought fuel of GHC4,000.00 before I got to Guelwongo. The to total expenditure on maintaining the vehicle to and fro was GHC8,600.00” 18. From the explanation of the accused and the statement he gave to the police, the question to ask is how can you incurred expenses to the tune of GHC8,600.00 on a car of which you are not the owner and do not have a receipt for even one of the items bought? The inference that the could made is answer to this question is that the accused person is not truthful. *JUDGMENT-THE REPUBLIC VRS. OLANDO ADONGO (CASE NO. B7/01/2025)* Page 16 of 19 *HWMNJ@DC/BO-16/01/2025* 19. Also the accused person claims “That in the course of running up and down in the attempt to fix the faults on the truck, my mobile phone got lost.” Assuming without holding that the accused person’s phone got missing, the alleged missing of the phone did not happen when the vehicle allegedly started having faults on the road. He claims two tyres busted on the road at Buipe, why did the accused person not call the complainant or the owner of the vehicle immediately to inform her? 20. For the forgoing reasons, this court is not satisfied with the explanation of the accused person that he used the money to maintain the truck. Thus, the court finds the explanation of the accused person unacceptable and holds that the accused person dishonestly appropriated the sum of GHC7,700.00 and two tyres belonging to the complainant. The prosecution however failed to satisfy the court that the tyres cost GHC3,000.00. Conclusion 21. Having examined the whole evidence of the prosecution and Defence on record, this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has discharged its burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt regarding the charge of Stealing against the accused person. Thus, the ingredients of the offence of Stealing were proved beyond reasonable doubt. In other words, apart from the defence’s explanation, this court is satisfied on a consideration of the whole evidence that the accused person is guilty of Stealing. Accordingly, the accused person is hereby found guilty of Stealing. The accused person is therefore convicted for the crime of Stealing. *JUDGMENT-THE REPUBLIC VRS. OLANDO ADONGO (CASE NO. B7/01/2025)* Page 17 of 19 *HWMNJ@DC/BO-16/01/2025* Mitigation of Sentence and Sentence 22. The Accused Person pleaded for leniency or mercy and that the court should temper justice with mercy. He submitted that he is a first time offender. 23. Some of the principles that govern sentencing are: the seriousness of the offence, the premeditation with which the criminal plan was executed, the prevalence of the crime within the locality in particular and the country in general, the degree of revulsion felt by the law abiding citizens of the society, mitigating circumstances such as extreme youth, first offender and good character. See the cases of Kwashie v The Republic [1971]1 GLR 488, Adu Boahene v The Republic [1972]1 GLR 70, and Kamil v The Republic [2011] SCGLR 300. 24. This court also recalls the purpose of sentencing to be punitive, calculated to deter others, to reform the offender, to appease the society and to be a safeguard to this country. The rate at which people dishonestly appropriate monies or properties belonging to other persons as in the instant case must not be countenanced. To this end, a sentence or punishment that will deter other likeminded individuals from engaging in similar acts must be imposed. And now therefore, considering the circumstances of this case, plea of the accused person for mercy or leniency, the fact that the accused person is a first time offender, the general overcrowding in the prisons; and being guided by Ghana Sentencing Guidelines as well as principles governing sentencing; the Accused person is hereby sentenced to twelve (12) months imprisonment with hard labour. *JUDGMENT-THE REPUBLIC VRS. OLANDO ADONGO (CASE NO. B7/01/2025)* Page 18 of 19 *HWMNJ@DC/BO-16/01/2025* 25. OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, Accused Person is hereby ordered to make outright refund/payment of the sum of Seven Thousand seven Hundred Ghana Cedis (GHC7,700.00) to the complainant as well as pay a fine of one hundred and twenty-five (125) penalty units and in default four (4) months in imprisonment with hard labour. The complainant should return accused person’s driving licence to him. (SGD.) H/W MAWUKOENYA NUTEKPOR (DISTRICT MAGISTRATE) *JUDGMENT-THE REPUBLIC VRS. OLANDO ADONGO (CASE NO. B7/01/2025)* Page 19 of 19