By: Helena Selby
A taxi driver has been sentenced to three years in prison for stealing the cab belonging to his boss. The accused person, Yaw Kumi, who was supposed to make a daily sales of GH¢50 and work with the vehicle for 21 months as per the contract agreement, refused to make any sales for three months of working with the vehicle.

He made up stories about the car being in bad shape, and later stories about some of the car parts being stolen when he was away in Kumasi.

The court, presided over by Mr. Eric Kyei Baffour, found him guilty of the charge of stealing in his ruling, noting that the prosecution had proven beyond reasonable doubt, the culpability of the Kumi.

It, therefore, imposed a non-custodial sentence of seventy penalty units, or in default, serve the three years in jail, and in addition, ordered Kumi to pay a compensation of GH¢700 to the complainant

The convict, in his defense, told the court that after he received the vehicle from the complainant, and having worked with it for two weeks, it broke down.

According to him, the complainant in turn demanded the sales for the two weeks the vehicle had been in his custody, adding that he had sales of GH¢500 from a woman he worked for, and used it to tow the vehicle on the orders of the complainant.

He said there was a disagreement as to who should purchase the engine and the complainant resorted to the use of the police to harass him, the convict explained.

The convict also indicated that he bought a new engine, but the complainant rejected it, adding that on his return from Kumasi, some parts of the parked vehicle had been taken away.

However, the complainant, Gertrude Obaka Torto, in her evidence, noted that she gave her vehicle to the convict to work with since February 22, 2009.

The prosecution established that after the vehicle was given to the convict, the complainant did not see the vehicle, nor was she given any money as revenue for working with the vehicle.

'The accused removed the engine of the vehicle, the six tryes, the battery, and many other parts of the vehicle. The accused was to make a daily sales of GH¢50, and worked with the vehicle for two years, nine months,' the complainant indicated.

The court, in its judgment, noted that from the evidence led in court, the accused failed to make even one sales to the complainant, when the vehicle was handed over to him.

According to the court, the accused also failed to take the complainant to the woman he claimed hired the vehicle for two weeks and had not paid for the services, though the convict contended that he subsequently, collected the money, being GH¢500, and used that to purchase spare parts for the vehicle

The court further indicated that if indeed, he used the money to purchase the parts of the complainant's vehicle, the convict had failed to render account of the sales to the complainant.

The presiding judge indicated that the accused had dealt with the vehicle in a manner that was inconsistent with the exercise of right of ownership by the true owner.