–
ERIC ANNAN OGOE AND RICHARD MARCUS OGOE
V.
THE INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE
WEST AFRICAN COURT OF APPEAL HOLDEN AT ACCRA, GOLD COAST
8TH DAY OF APRIL, 1937
2PLR/1936/22 (WACA)
OTHER CITATION(S)
2PLR/1936/22 (WACA)
(1937) III WACA PP. 165 – 166
LEX (1937) – III WACA PP. 165 – 166
–
BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS:
DONALD KINGDON, C.J., NIGERIA
PETRIDES, C.J., GOLD COAST
WEBBER, C.J., SIERRA LEONE
–
BETWEEN:
ERIC ANNAN OGOE AND RICHARD MARCUS OGOE – Appellants
AND
THE INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE – Respondent
–
ISSUE(S) FROM THE CAUSE(S) OF ACTION
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE — PROOF OF CRIME:- Convictions for aiding and abetting in gaming offences —- Paucity of evidence led by prosecution — Duty of court thereto
ENTERTAINMENT AND SPORTS LAW — GAMING:- Proof of offences relating to gaming operations — Keeping a common gaming house contrary to sections 46(1) and 442 Cap. 29. — Failure of prosecution thereto — Legal effect
ENTERTAINMENT AND SPORTS LAW — GAMING:- Providing facilities for playing a game of chance — Proof of — Congregation of people playing a game called ludo for money — Failure to describe and define what a game of ludo is — Whether suffices
–
ORIGINATING COURT(S)
APPEAL DIVISIONAL COURT, GOLD COAST, EXERCISING APPELLATE JURISDICTION
–
REPRESENTATION
R. S. Blay – for Appellants
A. J. Ainlie – for Respondent
–
DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEAL
Held:-
There is no evidence of providing facilities for betting, and the only evidence on which the accused were convicted for keeping a building for the purpose of making gain by providing facilities for playing a game of chance was the evidence of a sergeant of police, who states that he saw a congregation of people playing a game called ludo for money. He does not describe the game, and there is no evidence whatever what the game of ludo is and whether it is a game of skill or a game of chance.
–
–
MAIN JUDGMENT
The following joint judgment was delivered:
KINGDON, C.J., NIGERIA, PETRIDES, C.J., GOLD COAST, AND WEBBER, C.J., SIERRA LEONE.
The two accused in the Magistrate’s Court at Tarkwa were each fined £20 or three months’ imprisonment with hard labour in that on the 24th September, 1936, at Abosso, by their act or otherwise did aid and abet one Kweku Jackson in the commission of a crime to wit “Keeping a common gaming house contrary to sections 46 (1) and 442 Cap. 29.”
They appealed to the Divisional Court, which gave judgment dismissing their appeal, and from that judgment they now appeal to this Court.
The former of the two sections above mentioned relates to abetment of crime and the latter to the keeping of a common gaming house. A common gaming house is not defined, but in the Criminal Code Ordinance a gaming house is defined as follows:
“Any building or premises kept or used by any person without lawful authority for the purpose of directly or indirectly making gain by providing any facilities for betting or for playing of any game of chance for money or money’s worth.”
There is no evidence of providing facilities for betting, and the only evidence on which the accused were convicted for keeping a building for the purpose of making gain by providing facilities for playing a game of chance was the evidence of a sergeant of police, who states that he saw a congregation of people playing a game called ludo for money. He does not describe the game, and there is no evidence whatever what the game of ludo is and whether it is a game of skill or a game of chance.
It is unnecessary to deal with the other grounds of appeal; it is sufficient to say that there is no proof that this building was used for purpose of gain by providing facilities for the playing of games of chance. The findings and sentences are accordingly reversed and the appellants are acquitted and discharged.
–