Otu v S (CR/0261/2025) [2025] GHAHC 148 (26 May 2025)

Otu v S (CR/0261/2025) [2025] GHAHC 148 (26 May 2025)

The explanation given by the appellant for count one amounted to an admission of guilt and justified conviction, but for count two, the explanation did not amount to an admission and required a plea of not guilty. The offences arose from a single criminal design, so sentences should run concurrently. The sentence for count one was within the law and not harsh or excessive.

Citation
[2025] GHAHC 148
Parties
Appellant: Raphael Nii Otu; Respondent: The Republic
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
26 May 2025
Case Number
CR/0261/2025
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal succeeds in part
Legal Topics
Defrauding by False Pretence, Sentencing, Concurrent and Consecutive Sentences, Plea With Explanation
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Defrauding by False Pretence Sentencing Concurrent and Consecutive Sentences Plea With Explanation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Raphael Nii Otu

Appellant

The Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the explanation of the appellant amounted to a defence and required a plea of not guilty
  2. 2 Whether the sentences should have run concurrently or consecutively
  3. 3 Whether the sentence imposed was harsh and excessive

Ratio Decidendi

The explanation given by the appellant for count one amounted to an admission of guilt and justified conviction, but for count two, the explanation did not amount to an admission and required a plea of not guilty. The offences arose from a single criminal design, so sentences should run concurrently. The sentence for count one was within the law and not harsh or excessive.

Court Disposition

Appeal succeeds in part

Orders

  • Conviction and sentence on count one affirmed
  • Conviction and sentence on count two set aside