Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Home » WACA Cases » Rex V. Job Kojo Frempah (1941) LJR-WACA

Rex V. Job Kojo Frempah (1941) LJR-WACA

Rex V. Job Kojo Frempah (1941)

LawGlobal Hub Judgment Report – West African Court of Appeal

Murder Charge—Accused under charge of rape ran away—Police Constable proceeded to arrest without warrant—Members of public called upon to help—One of them killed by accused in resisting captureDeceased did not attack accused or use unnecessary force—Guilty.

Held : Appeal dismissed.

There is no need to set out the facts.

E. A. Bannerman for Appellant.

W . H. Irwin for Crown.

The following joint judgment was delivered



In this case the appellant had been taken before the Bialiene and charged with rape. He had run away. The Biahene, who though not a Native Authority within the meaning of the Native Authority (Ashanti) Ordinance (Cap. 79), is a chief and he rightly reported the matter to the police. Police Constable Joffa went to arrest the appellant without a warrant, as he was entitled to do. He called upon some members of the public to help him. A man named Kwame Bandahene was one. Whilst attempting to make the arrest Kwame Bandahene was killed by the appellant with a cutlass. There is a conflict of evidence as to whether or not Kwame Bandahene attacked the appellant before being killed, and as to whether or not Kwarne Ban dahene was armed.

The appellant was tried for the murder of Kwame Bandahent, by Doorly, J., sitting with assessors at a special Assize held at Wenchi. After hearing the evidence, the learned trial Judge concluded his summing-up to the assessors with the following concise and correct directions:—

See also  Rex V. Ben Nze (1941) LJR-WACA

” If you believe that deceased attacked accused with a

” cutlass and that accused being in danger of his life

” no more than was necessary to defend himself, you will give ” the opinion that accused should be acquitted.

If you believe that deceased attacked accused and cut ” him and that accused then struck the deceased, but went ” further than was necessary in self-defence, you will give ” the opinion that accused is guilty of manslaughter. On this ” question you will consider whether deceased after receiving ” any one of the blows testified to by the doctor would have ” been in a position to continue an attack on accused.

” If you do not believe the deceased attacked accused

and are satisfied that deceased did nothing he was not

entitled to do, you will express the opinion that the accused ” is guilty of Murder.”

Upon these directions the assessors were unanimously of opinion that the appellant was guilty. of Murder.

The learned trial Judge then recorded the following judgmentjudgment:-

“I find as facts that the deceased did not attack and cut ” the accused with a cutlass or use any unnecessary force in ” assisting the police to arrest the accused as was his duty. ” I am satisfied that accused knew the purpose of the visit ” of the policeman and his assistants and attacked in order ” to resist capture. I find the accused guilty of Murder.”

We see no reason to differ from these findings of fact, and upon them the correct finding is clearly ” Guilty of Murder.”

See also  Nchirahene Kojo Ado V. Buoyemhene Kwadwo Wusu (1938) LJR-WACA

The appeal is therefore dismissed.

More Posts


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

LawGlobal Hub
LawGlobal Hub is your innovative global resource of law and more. We ensure easy accessibility to the laws of countries around the world, among others