–
REX
V.
T. N. ANORBA AND ANOTHER
THE WEST AFRICAN COURT OF APPEAL, HOLDEN AT ACCRA, GOLD COAST
28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1944
2PLR/1944/39 (WACA)
OTHER CITATION(S)
2PLR/1944/39 (WACA)
(1944) X WACA PP. 100 – 101
LEX (1944) – X WACA PP. 100 – 101
–
BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS:
DONALD KINGDON, C.J., NIGERIA
GRAHAM PAUL, C.J., SIERRA LEONE
DOORLY, AG. C.J.
–
BETWEEN:
REX – Respondent
AND
1. T. N. ANORBA
2. E. ODONKOR – Appellants
–
ORIGINATING COURT(S)
Appeal by both Defendants; case reported mainly with regard to the first Appellant
–
REPRESENTATION
Ollennu — for both Appellants
Akufo Addo — for the Crown
–
ISSUE(S) FROM THE CAUSE(S) OF THE ACTION
CRIMINAL LAW AND PRACTICE:- Homicide – Manslaughter – Conviction on ground of aiding and abetting
–
CASE SUMMARY
The first Appellant asked the second to come along with his gun to round up supposed thieves, the intention being to shoot if they threatened with a gun. The second Appellant shot unlawfully but at that moment the first was out of his sight. He was convicted on the ground of aiding and abetting the second Appellant.
–
DECISION(S) OF THE WEST AFRICAN COURT OF APPEAL
Held that:
There being no evidence that he had instigated the unlawful shooting the conviction of the first appellant could not be sustained.
–
MAIN JUDGMENT
The judgment of the Court was delivered by the President:
It is quite clear in this case that the 2nd Appellant shot the deceased in circumstances which amounted to manslaughter.
There is no substance in his appeal against conviction and it is dismissed.
The case of the 1st Appellant is different. He was convicted of manslaughter by aiding and abetting the 2nd Appellant in the shooting of the deceased. But the only evidence to support the allegation of aiding and abetting is that he got the 2nd Appellant to come along with his gun to help round up supposed thieves. The only evidence of intention is that of the 1st Appellant himself:-
“We took the gun to find the thieves and our intention was that if we saw the thieves and they threatened us with a gun we would shoot.”
The evidence shows that 1st Appellant was out of sight of 2nd Appellant and about 25 yards away when 2nd Appellant fired.
There is no evidence whatever either that the 1st Appellant instigated the unlawful shooting at the moment it took place or at any time previously. There is no evidence that 1st Appellant did any act or had any intention other than what was strictly lawful. For these reasons we are of opinion that he was wrongly convicted of manslaughter.
The appeal of the 1st Appellant is allowed, the conviction and sentence passed upon him are quashed and it is directed that in the case of the 1st Appellant a judgment and verdict of acquittal be entered. He is discharged.
–