REPUBLIC VRS IBRAHIM (UE/BG/CT/B7/72/2023) [2023] GHACC 1085 (3 November 2023)

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT HELD AT BOLGATANGA IN THE UPPER EAST REGION OF GHANA ON FRIDAY THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023 BEFORE HIS HONOUR SUMAILA MBACHE AHMADU (CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE) SUIT NO. UE/BG/CT/B7/72/2023

THE REPUBLIC

VERSUS

AMIDU IBRAHIM

J U D G E M E T The Accused person is charge for stealing: Contrary to Section 124(1) of the Criminal and other Offences Act 1960 (Act 29) as amended by paragraph 4 of NLCD 398/69. The Accused person pleaded not guilty to the charge. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION. The Accused person takes care of the complainant’s cattle. During the month of May 2022, the complainant and the Accused person took stock of the cattle and had Sixty– Nine (69) in number. On the 2/01/2023, the complainant visited the cattle and detected that the number of the cattle were short by Nine (9). The complainant then asked the Accused person the where about of the Nine cattle but he could not account for them. The complainant then reported the case to police at Pwalugu. In support of its case the prosecution called three witnesses; PW1 (Gilbert Atubiga) complainant, PW2 (Mbii Patrick Ayamdoo) and PW3 (No. 46065 G/CPL Vicent Obeng. The prosecution tended in evidence Exhibits A, B, C, D, E and F.

THE CASE OF THE DEFENCE The accused person says this year five of the cows got lost and told the complainant to let him search for them and that he will pay if he fails to find them.

BURDEN OF PROOF Prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt under section 11(2) and 13(1) of the evidence Act 1975 NRCD 323. INGREDIENTS OF STEALING. The actus reus of theft is usually defined as an unauthorized taking, keeping, or using of another’ property which must be accompanied by a mens rea of dishonesty and the intent to permanently deprive the owner or rightful possessor of that property or its use. ANALYSIS AND THE APPLICATION OF THE LAW. From the evidence adduced before this Court, the Accused person was duly engaged/contracted to take care of the cattle of the complainant. The complainant claimed that 9 of his 69 head of cattle were dishonestly appropriated by the Accused person. The Accused person dispute the number of cattle allegedly missing and says that he knows of 5 (five) cattle missing. The Accused person has denied stealing the cattle, but that they got lost. The disappearance of the cattle whether Five or Nine were detected by the complainant. The Accused person who is the care taker did not inform the complainant of the lost as he claimed. In the case of Brobbey and othere V. The Republic {1984-86} 2GLR 85: BY the provision of Act 29 Section were 125, the essential elements of the offence of stealing were that; (1) The person charged must have appropriated the thing allegedly stolen, (ii) The appropriation must be dishonest, and (iii) The

person charged must not be the owner of the thing allegedly stolen. Consequently a person could not be guilty of stealing unless he was proved to have appropriated the thing in the first place from the evidence it is not in dispute that cows were given to the Accused person to take care, from Exhibit A, out 69 cows Nine cows could not be accounted for. The Nine cows belong to the complainant. The accused has contracted to take care of the cattle and has failed to produce 9 of the 69 cows left with ……………………………………………….by the complainant even though, the cattle is the subject matter of the offence are animals and can go astray, but the caretaker‘s failure to inform the complainant/owner clearly smart of a dishonest appropriation more so the Accused person has made payments in open Court to cover part the Nine cows he could not account for, which clearly shows that he accept his guilty. Accused says he is pleaded and that the Court should have mercy and he has dependents 2 Wives and 11 children who are below 10 years of age and prays for non- custodial sentence. Prosecution says he is not known. BY COURT: Accused is first time offender, having dependents and has made part payment of the value of the 9 cows’ in open Court. I hereby sentence Accused to a day in prison custody and a fine of 300 penalty units in default 3 years in prison. It is further ordered that the Accused compensate the complainant with GH₵32,000.00 in favour of the complainant.

HIS HONOUR SUMAILA MBACHE AHMADU (CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE). 4