An Accra High Court has quashed a circuit court ruling ordering one Awudu Musah, a gym instructor, to open his defence in respect of a case.
Awudu was alleged to have in December 2007 at Ogbojo in Accra granted four plots of land to one Doli-Wura Awushie Abdul-Malik Seidu Zakaria at the cost of GH¢60,000 without authority.
The accused, who is standing trial with two others for fraudulent transaction contrary to Section 34(b) of the Land Registry Act, Act 122/1962, prayed the High Court to set aside the ruling of the circuit court and a further order acquitting and discharging him.
Although the prosecution could not establish a case against the accused, the circuit court ordered Awudu to open his defence in respect of the charges.
An earlier submission filed by Ali Gomdah Abdul Samad, which prayed the circuit court judge to acquit and discharge the accused, was ignored.
Unsatisfied with the ruling of the court, lawyers for Awudu proceeded to the High Court to reverse the order.
Justice Justin K. Dorgu, in a judgement, argued that an important ingredient to prove under the instant charge by the prosecution is that Awudu should be the one that makes the grant or purports to make the grant or makes the conflicting grants.
“I have also gone through the whole of the appeal records and noticed that title deeds of the complainant are the various indentures tendered in court by the prosecution. In all these agreements, the grantor of the land is one Nii Joseph Torgbor Obodai, representing the Anohor Dzrasee family of Ogbojo Accra.”
Justice Dorgu contended that apart from that Awudu, who is described in the particulars of the offence as the leasee (grantee), did not tender any document to show that he indeed had any grant.
The court further stated that it was incumbent on the prosecution that the evidence led tallies with the particulars and facts being prosecuted.
“In this particular case, there is no iota of evidence on record that appellant granted any land to Doli-Wura or purported to grant any land without authority nor made any multiple grants of the same land,” he said.
The High Court justice continued: “On all the deeds tendered, there was no signature or even the mention of his name either as a grantor or witness. The evidence rather showed clearly and succinctly that the appellant made it known at every stage that the land belonged to I. C. Quaye and he was only a caretaker.”
The High Court opined that the prosecution had failed to establish an essential ingredient of the charge and no prima facie case against Awudu.
In setting aside the ruling, he said “it is therefore wrong and a miscarriage of justice for the court to have called upon the appellant to open his defence on the charge. I will accordingly allow the appeal (and) hereby do set aside the ruling of the trial circuit court calling upon the appellant to open his defence and instead acquit and discharge him on the charge as well.
By Jeffrey De-Graft Johnson