Topic 2 - Violent Property Offenses

Question 1

Onukwube v state

Question 2

Balogun v AG. Ogun State

Question 3

Njuguna v Republic

Answer 3

Violence was not immediately before or after stealing

Question 4

Adoba v State

Question 5

Oloye v State

Question 6

Babalola & Anor v The State

Answer 6

Principle

The test must be whether looking at the circumstances a reasonable man would have been put in fear of actual violence by the threat he received.

Facts

The accused, a policeman, stopped the complainant who was waiting to deposit money in a bank and invited her into a room to see her oga. In the room the accused brought out a gun and ordered the complainant to hand over the money which out of fear, she did. He took out the sum of N875 and handed back the rest to the complainant and told her not to tell anybody of what had happened. It was contended on behalf of the accused that the threat to use actual violence to any person meant for the prosecution to establish that the accused could indeed use actual violence and since there was no evidence that the gun had been loaded, there was no threat of fear. Held:
The test must be whether looking at the circumstances a reasonable man would have been put in fear of actual violence by the threat he received. If a person threatens another with a gun we think the natural inference is that the threatened person would expect to receive actual violence if he did not accede to the order to hand over his money. He could not be expected to ask the person threatening him to show him whether the gun was loaded or not so as to determine whether he was put in fear of actual violence. Therefore, there was actual violence in this case and the offence of robbery was made out.

Question 7

Henry Otti v State

Answer 7

Facts

The complainant, one Titilayo Fatunbi, went to cash some money at a Bank along
Broad Street, Lagos on 21st June, 1982. While in the back seat of a taxi, the appellant
stopped his taxi and picked up two men. All the three men conveyed the complainant
to an isolated spot where they demanded, with threat, all the valuables on the
complainant. They took the money she withdrew from the bank earlier that day, her
rings, earnings and bangles and threw her out of the car and they left. A week after
she was ribbed, the complainant saw the appellant in the same taxi cab with a passenger at Ojuelegba in Lagos. She accosted the appellant and raised an alarm. The
appellant was arrested and subsequently convicted of robbery.

Question 8

R v Rekum

Answer 8

Facts

A and his companions left some valuable property in the possession of the accused
and went out to buy some meat. On their way back, they were attacked by the accused, who then subsequently possessed the valuables. It was held that this was robbery
since the use of violence in this instance was immediately before the taking of the
property.

Question 9

Njuguna v Republic

Answer 9

Facts

The accused having burgled a house and stolen therefrom was discovered without chase at a distance of about five hundred yards where he then resisted the complainant (owner) with violence. It was held that the offence was not robbery but burglary and theft because the element of using violence immediately after the act was lacking.

Question 10

Sowemimo v State

Question 11

Ajayi v State

Question 12

R v Hemmings

Answer 12

Facts

A creditor who severely beat up his debtor and thereby obtain payment, was held not guilty of robbery.

Question 13

R v Robinson

Answer 13

Facts

The defendant was owed money by a woman. In a struggle to collect his money from the husband, E5 note dropped out of the husband’s pocket. The defendant picked it up
and kept it. He was convicted of robbery at the first trial. The conviction was quashed because he had an honest belief that he was entitled to the money.

Question 14

Armed Robbery Cases

Question 15

Adesina Kayode v State

Question 16

Nwachukwu v The State

Answer 16

Facts

The appellant threatened the victim with a toy gun and took away her bag of money. It was held that the appellant committed the offence of robbery and that the trial court was wrong to have convicted the appellant for armed robbery.

Question 17

Dibie v State

Answer 17

Facts

The appellants were students of Oko Polytechnic, Anambra State. The appellants who were armed with locally made pistol went to the house of one Mrs. Florence Iyamah and robbed her of the sum of N4,000. The appellant was convicted of armed robbery. In the course of deciding the case, the court stated that whether it was a real pistol or something which looked like a pistol that was pointed at the victim is immaterial. What is material is that either an actual pistol or what looked like a pistol was used to
threaten her which induced fear in her.

Question 18

Burglary and Housebreaking

Question 19

R v Boyle

Answer 19

Principle:
Elements: There must be a breaking.

Facts

The occupant of a dwelling-house allowed the appellant to enter his house after the appellant had falsely represented himself as an employee from the British Broadcasting Corporation sent to examine a radio set. While in the house, the appellant stole a handbag. It was held that there was constructive entry as the appellant had obtained admission into the house by trick and since he must have been taken to have had a felonious intent and had obtained entry for the purpose of committing a theft, he was properly convicted for housebreaking.

Question 20

R v Smith

Answer 20

Principle:
Elements: There must be a breaking.
As a rule, that for a breaking and entry to constitute burglary, both acts (i.e. the breaking and the entry) must be done at night. Night means the period between 6:30pm and 6:30am

Facts
In that case, X broke part of a dwelling house for purpose of entering on a Friday night and entered the house on Saturday night.

Question 21

Etim v State

Answer 21

The accused persons committed housebreaking when they broke in and entered the complaints house in the daytime

Question 22

Adejobi v The State, (2011) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1261) 347

Answer 22

The 1st appellant voluntarily confessed that he took the sum of N2,991,368.60k from the vault of Trans International Bank which he shared out to himself and others. The 2nd appellant, who was the Branch Accountant, also confessed that she took N900,000 from the bank unofficially to give a friend in need. The money she took was not documented and the Branch Manager was not aware of it. They were convicted of the offences of conspiracy and stealing.

Question 23

Faslat Adepoju v The State, (2014) LCN/7409 (CA)

Answer 23

The appellant with a baseball cap and the 1st accused with a veil over her face intruded and barged in on the alleged victim of robbery, through the back door at the kitchen of her apartment as she was cooking. The duo pushed the victim to the living room and ordered her to kneel down and to surrender her jewelleries, valuables and money. The 1st accused collected the victim’s handset from her and as she tried to move, the appellant commanded her not to or she will scar her face. Under the threat of being harmed, the duo led her into the rooms and collected three wristwatches, a set of white gold earrings and a pendant. They also took her LG silver colour-32 inch television set, a DVD player, a video set and a starcom phone.

Held:

They were convicted of robbery.

Question 24

R v Hemmings,

Answer 24

A creditor who severely beat up his debtor to obtain the debt was excused under bonafide claim of right

Question 25

R v Robinson, [1977] Crim LR 173

Answer 25

The defendant was owed money by a woman. In a struggle to collect his money from the husband, E5 note dropped out of the husband’s pocket. The defendant picked it up and kept it. He was convicted of robbery at the first trial. The conviction was quashed because he had an honest belief that he was entitled to the money.

Question 26

R v Chandler, (1913)1 KB 125

Answer 26

The appellant suggested a plan for the commission of a theft by the appellant at the shop of the complainant. The servant, pretending to agree to the appellant’s suggestions, lent the keys of the shop the appellant, who made duplicate keys, with one of which, on a day arranged with the servant, the appellant unlocked a padlock attached to the outer door and entered the shop, where he was arrested. The complainant had been informed by the servant of the appellant’s plan and knew that he intended to enter the shop on the day in question.
Held:
It was held that the accused was guilty of breaking into the shop with an intent to steal therein. Although it was the complainant’s servant was the one who gave the accused the key, the complainant never consented to the breaking and entering of her premises for the purpose of stealing. The keys were only supplied so that the accused might be detected in the commission of the offence.

Question 27

R v Apesi, (1961) WRNLR 125

Answer 27

The court held the requirement of entry had been met, when in the process of opening a window the accused’s hand or finger entered the room. Although there was no evidence of breaking into the house, the fact that articles were near the window and was possible to take through the window, the offence of entering and stealing must be taken to have been proved.
Held:
“Entry occurs if any part of the accused body or any part of any instrument used by him is within the building or dwelling house.”

Question 28

R v Gardner

Answer 28

The intent to commit felony must exist at the time of breaking in and not after.

Question 29

R v Rose

Answer 29

Dwelling house included a Caravan

Question 30

Sylvester Utteh v The State, (1992) NWLR (Pt 723) 257

Answer 30

The appellant and another person were charged with (a) conspiracy to commit felony, to wit stealing, contrary to S.516 of the Criminal Code, (b) demanding with menace with intent to steal, contrary to S. 406 of the same Code and (c) stealing, contrary to S.309 (9) of the Criminal Code Law. They both pleaded not guilty to all the three counts. It was common ground that at the time of the alleged offence, the appellant was a Police Officer and the other accused person, an Immigration Officer. At the trial six witnesses gave evidence for the prosecution. The accused persons did not testify, resting their case on that of the prosecution. At the conclusion of the hearing and after counsel’s addresses and submissions, the learned trial Judge, Oguntade J (as he then was), gave careful consideration to the totality of the evidence adduced and to all the submissions made on behalf of the accused persons, and came to the conclusion “that the prosecution , had, with regard to counts 2 and 3, established the case against both accused persons beyond reasonable doubts. He therefore found them guilty as charged on those counts and sentenced them to terms of imprisonment. He however, acquitted and discharged them on the first count of conspiracy to commit felony. Dissatisfied with the decision of the trial court, both accused persons appealed to the Court of Appeal, and in the lead judgment of the Court delivered by Awogu, J.C.A., their appeal was dismissed. The appellant, still dissatisfied with the decision of the Court of Appeal has further appealed to this Court.

Held:

The appeal failed in its entirety and was accordingly dismissed. The judgment of the Court of Appeal, affirming that of the High Court of Lagos State, was confirmed

Question 31

Osidola v Commissioner of Police, COP, [1958] NRNLR 42

Answer 31

The accused person who was an investigative police officer in a case of stealing a cheque was questioning the complainant who knew it, whether he had such knowledge. The complainant denied any knowledge of the cheque. The accused took him to police station and said:
“You know that whether you are guilty or not, if I take you to the charge office you will be locked up until the investigation ends. Instead of being locked up in the cell for nothing, if you are not guilty you should try and give me 20 pounds.”
The complainant gave part of the 20 pounds. Held:
The court found the policeman guilty under section 406. “While extortion injures the individual who is made to yield to it, bribe injures the common weal, not the giver of the bribe. It is made an offence for the protection of the community, not for the protection of persons who pay bribes.”

Question 32

Commissioner of Police, COP v Ededeny (No 2), (1964) 1 All NLR 117

Answer 32

The court held that there was not threat of any injury when a house clerk demanded for a sum of ten pounds so as to suppress their breach of duty.

Question 33

Omotosho v Commissioner of Police, COP, (1961) 1 ANLR 693

Answer 33

The appellant, a police constable, after investigation and finding out that an allegation of commission of a crime by the complainant was false, nevertheless, demanded money from the complainant so as not to charge him with the offence. The complainant sought and obtained marked money which he offered the constable and which he accepted and was promptly arrested. The constable was convicted at first instance of an offence under section 406. Held:
The court of appeal stated inter alia “the threats could not and did not in any way operate on the prosecuted but also aware, according to evidence that the appellant knew very well that he committed no offence.”
Comment - Okonkwo and many other writers have vigorously flawed this decision.

Question 34

Amaike v The State, (2004) 6 NWLR (Pt. 870) 541

Answer 34

The accused set fire on it on his farm land to clear bushes. The fire spread beyond the cleared farm land and destroyed the complainant’ property. It was held that the accused was not guilty of arson as he did not intend the particular kind of harm.

Question 35

Atano v Attorney General, AG of Bendel State, (1988) 2 NWLR (Pt. 75) 201

Answer 35

A group of bank officials set the financial department of the bank on fire in order to conceal the money they had misappropriated. They also destroyed record books. Proof of arson was inferred from the circumstances of the case.