BEST LAW REPORT SUBSCRIPTION PRICE!!

  • Jegede v. Federal Republic of Nigeria
  • 666
  • 2013-03-04
  • ₦ 200
  • Buy Now

Jegede v. Federal Republic of Nigeria

  1. AKIN JEGEDE
  2. ADNOC PETROLEUM LTD

V

FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA

COURT OF APPEAL

( LAGOS DIVISION )

AMINAT ADAMU AUGIE JCA ( Presided )

SIDI DAUDA BAGE JCA

RITA NOSAKHARE PEMU JCA ( Read the Lead Judgment )

CA/L/655/11

MONDAY, 10 DECEMBER 2012

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE - Criminal cases - Standard of proof required therein - On whom lies - When discharged - Proof beyond reasonable doubt - Whether means proof beyond any shadow of doubt

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE - Fraud - Meaning of - Nature of

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE - Stealing - Prosecution - What must prove to establish

EVIDENCE - Best evidence - Documentary evidence as

Issues:

  1. Whether the learned trial judge properly evaluated the evidential significance of exhibit P4, issued by the appellants Bankers; HSBC Dubai evidencing the transfer of the sum of $300,000 USD to Charvet Limited, with respect to the allegation of stealing leveled against the appellants.
  2. Whether the learned trial properly evaluated the evidence adduced at the trial in relation to the allegation of stealing leveled against the appellants.
  3. Whether in views of the nature of the evidence adduced at the trial by the prosecution, the appellants were under, or had any evidential burden or duty to establish their innocence of the allegation of stealing.

Facts:

The 1st accused person is the managing director of the 2nd accused company. They were alleged to have converted the funds paid to it by a company, Charvet (Nig.) Ltd to pay the latter’s supplier abroad in dollars. They were therefore arraigned in the High Court of Lagos State on a two count charge of conspiracy and stealing. The accused persons made a no case submission, which was upheld in respect of count of conspiracy but overruled on the second count of stealing. The trial court found them guilty on the 2nd count and the accused persons being aggrieved, appealed to the Court of Appeal.

In determination of the appeal, the Court of Appeal considered the following statutes;

Criminal Code, section 383(1):

“A person who fraudulently takes anything capable of being stolen, or fraudulently converts to his own use or to the use of any other person anything capable of being stolen, is said to steal that thing.”