BREMPONG II v THE REPUBLIC [1997-98] GLR 467 - 480
Criminal law and procedure-De fence-Denial of offence-Another defence available on evidence not raised at trial-Effect of- appellants defence of denial of offence at trial for stealing rejected by court and convicted -Defence of claim of right available on evidence though not raised by court-Duty of trial judge- Whether appellant to be acquitted by appellate court-Criminal Procedure Code, 1960 (Act 30), s 177

The appellant, the Omanhene of the Atebubu Traditional Council in the Brong Ahafo Region, was arraigned before the Ashanti Regional Public Tribunal on a charge of stealing a Mercedes Benz car valued at ¢3 million belonging to the council contrary to section 124(1) of the Criminal Code, 1960 (Act 29). The case for the prosecution was that in 1980 the car broke down and the appellant took it away to Kumasi for repairs but he subsequently sold it for ¢5,000 and dishonestly appropriated the money. The appellant denied the charge and in his defence contended that the vehicle was found to have been beyond repair and the council had abandoned it and he therefore sold it for scrap. At the end of the trial, the tribunal found that the prosecution had proved its case beyond doubt and therefore convicted and sentenced the appellant to a fine of ¢200,000 or in default four years' imprisonment. An appeal by the appellant from his conviction and sentence was dismissed by the Court of Appeal (see Brempong v The Republic [1995-96] I GLR 350, CA). On a further appeal by the appellant to the Supreme Court, his counsel contended that there had been no intention to defraud the council since the appellant haC: used his own money in his effort to repair the car. However, the prosecution submitted that since the appellant had denied selling the car, he could not raise the defence of claim of right. The Supreme Court found on the evidence, that the appellant had personally spent ¢ 16,000 towards the repairs of the car.