Division: IN THE SUPREME COURT
Date: 1 MAY 1964
Before: OLLENNU, APALOO AND AKAINYAH JJSC
JUDGMENT OF OLLENNU JSC
Ollennu J.S.C. delivered the ruling of the court. The appellant-applicant on 8 November 1963, pleaded guilty before the District Magistrate, Kumasi, to a charge of assault under section 84 of the Criminal Code, 1960,1 and was sentenced to a fine of £G4 or one month’s imprisonment with hard labour. He paid the fine the same day.
On 27 February 1964, Sarkodee-Addo C. J., exercising the jurisdiction and functions of the High Court, by virtue of the powers in him vested by section 64 of the Courts Act, 1960,2 revised the sentence as a judge of the High Court is authorised to do by section 60 (1) (a) of the Courts Act, 1960, and varied the same by the addition thereto of twelve months’ imprisonment with hard labour. The order was served upon the applicant on 3 March 1964; in consequence thereof the applicant was arrested and imprisoned.
Dissatisfied with the enhancement of his said sentence, the applicant, on the same day (3 March 1964) lodged an appeal in this court against the additional sentence imposed by his lordship the Chief Justice. He then applied to the High Court, Kumasi, for bail pending the hearing of his appeal; but was unsuccessful. Consequently he filed the present application for bail.
Learned principal state attorney appearing for the State raised a preliminary objection to the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the application, because, in his submission, no appeal is pending before the court to warrant the court entertaining an application for bail as it is empowered to do by section 22 of the said Courts Act, 1960. He conceded that there is a right of appeal against a revising order made by a High Court judge under section 60 of the Courts Act, 1960, that point having been decided previously in Opoku v. Commissioner of Police3. He argued, however, that by virtue of section 18 (1) of the Courts Act, 1960, notice of such appeal must be filed within ten days of the date of conviction, unless the court or the court before whom the appellant was convicted granted extension of the time. He argued further that the words “date of conviction” have a fixed meaning, and that is: the date when conviction is
recorded against a person by the trial court, and not any subsequent date on which sentence is passed by the trial court or by any higher court.
Counsel submitted, therefore, that since the applicant was convicted by the district magistrate on 8 November 1963, the latest date on which he could have appealed against his sentence was 18 November 1963; and since the time within which he could appeal has not been extended “by the Supreme Court or by the court before whom the appellant was convicted,” the filing of the appeal on 3 March 1964, about four months after the date of the conviction, contravened section 18 (1) of the Courts Act, 1960, and therefore the appeal is not properly before the court and consequently, the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the application for bail.
This objection to the jurisdiction of the court is misconceived. The jurisdiction of the court to hear appeals is set out in section 8 (1) (c) of the Courts Act, 1960, inter alia as follows: “the hearing of appeals from any decision given by the High Court in any other matter whatsoever.”
An appeal against a revision order made by the High Court under section 60 of the Courts Act, 1960, is an appeal from a decision of the High Court made upon affirming a conviction. Therefore section 18 (1) of the Courts Act, 1960, relied upon by learned principal state attorney, is not the relevant section applicable to the case; the appropriate provisions are contained in sections 335 and 336 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 19604 which are as follows:
“335. The prosecution or the defence may appeal from a decision of the High Court in its appellate jurisdiction under this Part to the Supreme Court in accordance with section 14 of the Courts Act, 1960, (C.A.9).
336. Every such appeal shall be entered within ten days of the order appealed against and, subject to Rules of Court made by the Supreme Court, the provisions of sections 326 to 334 shall apply mutatis mutandis to appeals from the High Court to the Supreme Court”.
And section 14 of the Courts Act, 1960, in accordance with which the prosecution or defence may appeal says:
“Subject to and in accordance with the provisions of this Act, a person convicted by the High Court or a Circuit Court or a person whose conviction by any other Court is affirmed by such Court may appeal to the Supreme Court –
(a) against his conviction on any ground of appeal which involves a question of law alone;
(b) with the leave of the Supreme Court or upon a certificate of the judge who tried him that it is a fit case for appeal against his conviction on any ground of appeal which involves a question of fact alone or a question of mixed law and fact or any other ground which appears to the Supreme Court to be a sufficient ground of appeal; and
(c) with leave of the Supreme Court against the sentence passed on his conviction unless the sentence is one fixed by law.”
The order of the High Court against which the applicant seeks to appeal, was made on 27 February 1964. According to section 336 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1960, “such appeal shall be entered within ten days of the order appealed against.” It was filed on 3 March 1964, which is within ten days of the date of the order.
Again, as was held by the court in Opoku v. Commissioner of Police (supra), an appeal from an order of the High Court made under section 60 of the Courts Act, 1960, is entertained by the court as an appeal under section 8 (1) (c) of the Courts Act, 1960, i.e. appeal from a “decision given by the High Court in any other matter whatsoever.” Upon an interpretation of section 18 (1) of the Courts Act, 1960, which accords with the intention of the legislature as disclosed in section 8 (1) (c) of the said Courts Act, that a person may appeal from a “decision given by the High Court in any other matter whatsoever,” the term “date of conviction” used in section 18 (1) is intended to, and must include the “date of the decision” against which the appeal is being taken. It follows that the provisions of section 18 (1) were also complied with in this case, because the notice of appeal was filed within ten days of the date of the order enhancing the sentence.
Therefore either under section 18 (1) of the Courts Act, 1960, or under section 336 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1960, there is an appeal properly pending before the court, therefore the court is vested with jurisdiction under section 22 of the Courts Act, 1960, to entertain the application for bail.
DECISION
Preliminary objection overruled.
T. G. K.
