Topic 1 - Non-Violent Property Offences

Question 1

Olamolu V State

Answer 1

Principle: One of the elements of stealing is that the thing stolen must belong to someone, either a natural or artificial person.

Fact: The appellant, a legal practitioner, subcontracted her client’s work to another lawyer. The work involved drafting certain documents and the documents were meant to be sent to Kenyan Airlines on behalf of the client. Through this, the client wanted to receive compensation because his wife died in a plane crash involving Kenyan Airlines. After receiving the compensation, the appellant paid the other lawyer 20% of the total fee and also misrepresented to her client that she received much less than the actual amount she got. The court held that she was guilty of stealing because she took for herself the money that was meant for her client.

Question 2

Torkington V Magee

Answer 2

Principle: Goods capable of being stolen include Choses/Things in action.

Things in action is defined as “personal right of property which can only be claimed or enforced by action, and not taking of physical possession”.

Question 3

Chan Man Sin V. Queen

Answer 3

I Principle: Choses in action are properties capable of being stolen.

Fact: The accused withdrew funds from.the account of the complainant without authority. He was convicted of theft of choses in action; the money he withdrew.

Question 4

R V. Bailey

Answer 4

Principle: Conversion | There must be a substantial change in the condition of the property stolen for there to be a conviction under Section 382(2)g of the CC.

Fact: A took B’s car without consent and drove it around before returning it. The court held that while he could be convicted for stealing the fuel in the car, he could not be convicted for stealing the car itself under the above-mentioned section except there is a substantial change in the condition of the car itself.

Question 5

Chyfrank V FRN

Answer 5

Principle: The six fraudulent intents under Section 383(2) are not conductive but distinctive, thus, establishing one is enough to sustain a conviction.

Principle 2: Fraudulent intent must exist at the time of converting or taking.

Fact: The complainant paid the accused for the purchase of a property which was allocated by the Federal Government. The FG eventually cancelled the allocation, therefore affecting the completion of the sale. The accused could not be convicted under section 383(2)a as there was no intent to permanently deprive the complainant of his money at the time the payment was made.

Question 6

R V Smails

Answer 6

Principle: Intent could be inferred from.the circumstance or fact of the case.

Fact: The case involved someone named Smails who took something (likely wooden sleepers) from another person. The issue at hand was whether Smails’ actions constituted theft (larceny) even if he intended to return the items. The court ruled that Smail’s action did amount to theft because hechanged the nature of the property. This likely means he significantly modified the sleepers in a way that rendered them unusable for their original purpose.

Question 7

CCB Nigeria Plc V. Ozobu

Answer 7

Principle: One of the mental elements of stealing is the intent to use the thing as a pledge or security. However, the common law remedy of distress allows a creditor to seize the goods pledged as security without being guilty of stealing.

Fact: Due to the failure of the respondent to repay a loan, the appellant who was the creditor proceeded to advertise the respondent’s mortgaged property for sale. However, the trial court issued an injunction restraining the appellant from selling the said property. In a different transaction, the respondent signed a personal indemnity and caused the appellant to grant a loan of N40,000 to one company which the respondent was the chairman. As agreed, the loan was to be repaid within six(6) months. The indemnity gave the appellant the power to take necessary steps to take over the security given by the respondent in order to recover the debt. The company failed to make a refund, hence, the appellant’s workers seized the respondent’s Toyota Camry Car and three briefcases containing documents and N65,000. The trial judge granted an order that the appellant should return all items seized. However, the Court of Appeal set aside the order and allowed the appeal

Question 8

R V. Orizu

Answer 8

Principle: S. 383 Criminal Code provides that a person is guilty of stealing, in the case of money, if he takes the money with the intent to use it for himself, although he may intend afterwards to repay the amount to the owner.

Fact: The accused collected money from some people as a deposit upon the assurance that he (the accused) would send them abroad on scholarship. He did not send them abroad nor did he return their money. He was convicted for stealing

Question 9

State V Odimaye

Answer 9

Principle: Under S. 383 Criminal Code, the converter is deemed to have stolen the money where;

(f) in the case of money, an intent to use it at the will of the person who takes or converts it, although he may intend afterwards to repay the amount to the owner.

Fact: The accused received a loan from a Housing Corporation to build a house on a parcel of land which he mortgaged to the corporation. He used the money instead to contest an election. He was convicted of stealing because the money still belonged to the corporation until he used it for the specific purpose for which he received it. It made no difference that he might have intended to repay it afterwards.

Question 10

R V Bernard

Answer 10

Principle: false representation by conduct.

Fact: The accused falsely represented himself as a recent graduate of Harvard by wearing Harvard’s graduation gown. Consequently, he was able to purchase at a discount price. He was convicted for the offence of obtaining by false pretence.

Question 11

R V Jennison

Answer 11

Principle: If the false representation consists partly of a statement of a past or present matter and partly of a statement relating to the future, an offence is committed under Section 419 provided the former statement is a material contributory factor inducing the representee to part with his property

Fact: The accused, a married man, represented himself as being single and induced a girl to give him money promising that he would use the money to furnish a house and thereafter marry her. Held:
He was convicted of obtaining money by false pretence. In the above case, although there was. future promise, yet the statement that the accused was single related to an existing fact and was an important factor which induced the girl to part with her money.

Question 12

R V Maytum White

Answer 12

Principle: Though a representation as to the future does not constitute false pretence, it does where it also includes false representation as to an existing fact.

Fact: A purchased goods with a fake post-dated cheque. While a post-dated cheque is a form of future representation, the accused however does not have an account with the bank of the cheque he tendered. There is a false representation as to an existing fact as the cheque gave a representation that he has an account with the bank already.

Question 13

Achonra V COP

Answer 13

Principle: A false representation of a futuristic event is not a false pretence.

Fact: a post-dated cheque is a representation of the future. There is no false pretence.

Question 14

Ineh V COP

Answer 14

Principle: False Representation as to a future event does not constitute false representation

Fact: A received a sum of money on the parol representation that he will give the received money to a police officer. It’s a futuristic promise and there is no false representation.

Question 15

Okoro V AG Western Nigeria.

Answer 15

Principle: Representation must be false and the accused must be aware of its falsity or not believe in its truth to amount to a false pretence.

Fact: The accused ordered goods from its principal’s company in the name of a non-existing company. He was convicted under Section 419.

Question 16

Onwudiwe V FRN

Answer 16

Principle: There is no case representation where the accused made the representation in honest belief of its truth.

Question 17

Aguba V FRN

Answer 17

Principle: Scope of Intent to defraud. It need not be pecuniary, any intent which is prejudicial to the victim’s rights is sufficient.

Fact: A received money to purchase a car. He failed to pay, the court held that there was intent which is prejudicial to the complainant.

Question 18

Ojukwu V FRN

Answer 18

Principle: Intent to defraud is different from deceit. Deceit is not enough to ground a conviction.

Fact: The accused induced delivery by tendering a dud cheque. He however offered cash when the cheque was dishonoured. This showed that he never intended to defraud though there was a decision. He was not convicted.

Question 19

R V Ayewo

Answer 19

Principle: A charge of Obtaining by false pretence will fail where the actus reus is actually “inducing delivery”.

Fact: A fraudulently represented that he completed his contractual duty upon which he received his pay. He was guilty.

Question 20

Oshin V IGP

Answer 20

Principle: Obtaining involves the transfer of ownership of property and mere possession is not sufficient.

Fact: The accused falsely misrepresented the money she obtained on behalf of the complainant, thus, misappropriating a portion of the money received. An action for obtaining by false pretence will fail as the actus reus of obtaining isn’t complete. There was no transfer of ownership as the ownership of the money received remained in the complainant. The accused only had possession and the appropriate charges would have been for stealing.

Question 21

R V Kilham

Answer 21

Fact: The accused obtained a horse by false pretence on hire and returned it without paying. Held:
This did not amount to obtaining by false pretence. Where mere possession is transferred, it may be stealing but certainly not obtaining by false pretence. Hiring a property by false pretence would not suffice because only possession is being transferred.

Question 22

R V Ingram

Answer 22

Principle: For there to be a conviction under Section 419A/of the CC the accused must have obtained credit by which he incurs liability or entry in a debtor and creditors account.

It was ruled that the liability need not be monetary but any such “money’s worth liability”, such as services or commodities.

This ruling has however been overruled in Fisher V Raven where the court held that the liability in question must be in respect of repayment of money alone.

Question 23

Ireto V IGP

Answer 23

Principle: A mere lie does not suffice as a fraudulent trick under the offence of cheating, there must be some sort of action.

Question 24

R V Ogbonna

Answer 24

Fact: A obtained a 3-pound loan with a fake gold ticket. It was held that where it can’t be proved that the gilding was done by the accused or by his order, there is no fraudulent trick or device.

Okonkwo and Naish however argued that there should be a conviction where the accused was aware of the gilding.

Question 25

R V Lababedi

Answer 25

Tag: Cheating

Fact: The accused presented a false invoice to the Nigerian Custom upon which his car was released at a lower amount than he ought to have paid. He was convicted of cheating.

Question 26

R V Villenskey

Answer 26

Principle: Where the owner of a stolen goods recovers the goods, it’s not a stolen good anymore.

Question 27

R V King

Answer 27

Principle: Goods will cease to be stolen goods as soon as they are recaptured by the true owner or by the police on his behalf. A person who receives them thereafter is not guilty of receiving stolen goods

The court held that the goods were no longer stolen when they had been recaptured by the police.

Question 28

R V Uko

Answer 28

Principle: The fourth paragraph of Section 427 of the CC provides that to prove possession, it is enough that the accused alone or jointly possesses the property or has aided in concealing/disposing of the property.

Fact: One of the accused was found with a counterfeit coin at a concert, to the knowledge of the other. They were both guilty under Section 427.

Question 29

R V Oluwaseyi

Answer 29

Principle: Knowledge of the fact that the goods were stolen may be presumed from the time and price at which the goods were received.

The accused bought stolen goods at a significantly low price and in less than two hours after the goods were stolen. The court held that knowledge that the goods were stolen may be presumed.

Question 30

Yongo V COP

Answer 30

Principle: The way a property is kept or concealed could be a presumption of innocence.

Fact: The car received was kept in a dark place behind another car and a closed door. It was kept in a manner that shows concealment and knowledge could be presumed.

Question 31

Udoh V The state

Answer 31

For there to be a presumption of knowledge of the fact that the goods were stolen under the doctrine of recent possession, it must be proved that;

1. The accused was in possession of the goods.
2. The goods were recently stolen.
3. The accused cannot give a satisfactory explanation as to how he got the property.

Question 32

Bello v State(2020)

Answer 32

The doctrine of recent presumption shall not constitute a prescription of knowledge where the accused gives a satisfactory explanation.

Question 33

Ogogovie V State

Answer 33

Principle: Doctrine of recent possession

Fact: The stolen properties were recovered from the accused soon after the robbery incident. There is a presumption that he is the thief and was convicted.

Question 34

Ogbanga V COP

Answer 34

Principle: For a successful claim of the defence of a bonafide claim of right, it must be proven that;

The act or omission of the accused must be in respect of a property… “any property”
There must be a genuine claim of right.
The claim must be honest and without intent to defraud.

Also, the claim of the defence is an acknowledgement that the accused did the act or made the omission.

Fact: The defence failed in the instant case since he kept denying doing the act; the destruction of the complainant’s plantain.

Question 35

COP V Otosi

Answer 35

Principle: Section 23 of the CC serves as a defence to property offences.

Fact: The ownership of the land in which the goods, the subject matter of the action, were found was in dispute. The defence of bonafide claim of right was successful. The accused could not be convicted of stealing.

Question 36

Nwakire V COP

Answer 36

The defence of bonafide claim of right is available for property offences like stealing, robbery, armed robbery, willful and unlawful damage to property, demanding property with menace, etc.

Note Thomas J’s dictum in R V Emeozo.

Question 37

State V Okolo

Answer 37

Principle: The defence of bonafide claim of right does not avail an accused in a violent property offence charge.

Fact: The accused hired soldiers to demand his share of certain property. The defence failed.

Question 38

Nwachukwu V COP

Answer 38

The defence of bonafide claim of right failed on the grounds of the use of violence. The court held that it negativized the claim of right.

Question 39

Uzoaka V FRN

Answer 39

The defence of bonafide claim of right will avail an accused acted in honest belief of the right and without intent to defraud.

It is immaterial that the right is unfounded in law and fact.

This was also the ruling in R V Bernhard.