REPUBLIC VRS SOLOMON NII DODOO NYAN QUAO (D21/191/2021) [2023] GHACC 1107 (23 February 2023)

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF GHANA HELD IN ACCRA ON THURSDAY, 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 BEFORE HIS HONOUR KWABENA KODUA OBIRI- YEBOAH, CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE. D21/191/2021 THE REPUBLIC VRS SOLOMON NII DODOO NYAN QUAO JUDGEMENT The Accused was arraigned before this court on 1 count: Fraudulent Transaction Contrary to section 34 (b) of The Land Registry Act 122/62. The Accused pleaded not guilty to the charge levelled against him before the court. The prosecution then had the responsibility to prove the guilt of the Accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is trite learning that in a criminal case, when an accused pleads not guilty to an offence, pursuant to section 11(2) of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323), the burden of proof is on the prosecution; and the standard of proof has to be beyond reasonable doubt as stated by section 13 (1) of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323) which provides thus: “In any civil or criminal trial the burden of persuasion as to the commission by a party of a crime which is directly in issue requires proof beyond reasonable doubt”. In the case of Frimpong alias Iboman v The Republic (2012) 1 SCGLR 297, the apex court stated that ‘the prosecution has a duty to prove the essential ingredients of the offence with which the appellant has been charged beyond reasonable doubt…” 1 In the case of Asare v The Republic (1978) GLR 193 CA , it was also stated that “there was no burden on the accused to establish his innocence; rather it was the prosecution that is required to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.” The case of the prosecution per the facts attached to the Charge Sheet is that the Complainant Benjamin Nii Teiko Hammond is Architecture/Draughtman and lives at Mamprobi whilst the accused Solomon Nii Dodoo Nyan Quao is the head of the 1st Quao/Fisher Royal Family of Otublohum located at Fiser near Pokuase. Sometime in the year 2015, the complainant led his cousin Henry Nortey Wilson to the accused person to acquire a parcel of land. The accused who is the head of the 1st Quao/Fisher Royal family of Fise assured the complainant of securing for him portion of his family land. The accused on an agreed date in the company of his surveyor went with the complainant and his cousin to the parcel of land under investigation at Fise near ROKA School. Accused demarcated one and half plots of land for him at the cost of Twenty Thousand Ghana Cedis (GHC 20,000). The complainant without delay made an advanced payment of Eight Thousand, Five Hundred Ghana Cedis (GHC 8,500) to the accused. An indenture dated 10th June 2015 was immediately executed by the accused in respect of the land leased to Henry Nortey Wilson. A few months later, the complainant visited the land and realized that someone had encroached on same by constructing a drinking bar on same. The complainant notified the accused about the development on the land and sought for his assistance to remove the encroacher but to no avail. On 14th June 2018, the complainant petitioned the Director/CID leading to the arrest of the accused. During investigations, the accused Solomon Nii Dodoo Nyan Quao claimed ownership of the land through an Accra, High Court judgment dated 26th November 2013 per suit No FA 7/2008. A visit to the parcel of land under investigation revealed that, the entire land had been fully developed with a caretaker residing and operating a drinking bar therein. During the investigation, an official search was conducted at Lands Commission on the 2 Land granted to the complainant’s cousin. The report could not confirm the accused person’s title or ownership of the land. The accused was subsequently charged for the offence and arraigned before this court. The prosecution seeking to prove their case before the court called one Benjamin Nii Teiko Hammond who said he was given power of attorney by his cousin Henry Nortey Wilson whom he led to go and purchase one and half plots of land from accused and stated that he was relying on his witness statement and exhibit A, B, C, C1, D and D1 which were adopted as his evidence in chief before the court. After PW1 the prosecution called PW2, the investigator who also testified before the court and the prosecution closed their case after. The Accused was ordered to open his defence after the close of the case of the prosecution. The accused indeed opened his defence and testify for himself in his defence. On the 30/11/2022, in the cause of the proceedings and per the orders of the court before adjournment the accused was ordered to consider seeing a Lawyer of his choice and come to court on the next adjourned date with his lawyer and for which reason he was not discharged. On the next adjourned date the accused appeared with his Lawyer in court for further cross examination of the accused and on the next adjourned date afterwards, the accused witness DW1 was led by the counsel of the accused to testify before the court. DW1 was cross examined and after which the case was adjourned for judgment. The accused was charged with the offence of fraudulent transaction under the section 34 (b) of the Land Registry Act 122/62. The Land Registry Act, Act 122 under which the Accused was charged, was repealed by the Land Act, 2020, Act 1036 and 23rd December 2020 was the day of gazette notification. The law is settled that no person shall be convicted of a criminal offence unless the offence is defined, and its penalty is 3 prescribed in a written law. Act 122 was not saved under the Land Act but rather, the regulations, among others, under it were saved under the Land Act. Therefore, based on this situation the accused will be discharged with respect to Count 1 that was brought against him. “The traditional rule in criminal justice as I know it is that, even where there is an error in the proceeding, the courts do not quarrel if the error inures to the benefit of a person accused of a criminal offence. Trouble arises only when the error or irregularity inures to deprive the accused of his constitutional rights”. Marfo v The Republic (1981) GLR 722. The accused will therefore benefit from this error and will be found not guilty. The accused will be acquitted on the charge brought against him and accordingly discharged. 4