CASE TITLE: ANUBALU v. STATE (2019) LPELR-48088(CA)
JUDGMENT DATE: 3RD JULY, 2019
PRACTICE AREA: CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE
LEAD JUDGMENT: ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR, J.C.A.
SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:
INTRODUCTION
This appeal borders Criminal Law and Procedure.
FACTS
This is an appeal against the Judgment of the High Court of Anambra State sitting in Ogidi (“the lower Court” or “the trial Court”) delivered on 15 October 2018 (“the Judgment”) coram: Vin Agbata in Charge No: HID/4C/2016 wherein the Appellant was convicted of the offence of obtaining by false pretence contrary to Section 1(3) of the Advance Fee Fraud and other Fraud Related Offences Act, Cap A6, Laws of the Federation 2010.
The one-count charge proffered against the Appellant is set out below:
”That you Boniface Anubalu (m) on or about the 27th day of January 2012 at Awada, Obosi in the Idemili Magisterial District, with intent to defraud, obtained the sum of N25M (Twenty Five Million Naira) from Arinze Okoye (Managing Director, Divine Arisco W.A Ltd, Main Market, Onitsha) under the false pretence that you sold to his company, your two-storey uncompleted building situate at No. 52b Oraifite Street, Awada, Obosi, a representation which you knew to be false and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 1(3) of the Advance Fee Fraud and Fraud Related Offences Act, 2006″
The Appellant pleaded not guilty to the aforementioned charge during his arraignment on 23 May 2016 and the Respondent opened its case against the Appellant on 08 December 2016. In proving the sole count contained in the charge proffered against the Appellant, the Respondent called three (3) witnesses and tendered six (6) exhibits. Conversely, the Appellant testified for himself and called 4 additional witnesses, while an additional witness was also subpoenaed on behalf of the Appellant.
It is the Appellant’s case that he is the owner of a two-storey uncompleted building situate at 52B, Oraifite Street, Awada Obosi, Anambra State (“the property”) and that he was informed that one Christian Okonkwo used the Appellant’s title document to the property as a collateral to obtain loan from Arinze Paul Okoye (“the Complainant or PW1”). The Appellant alleged that he approached the Complainant and expressed his surprise that the Complainant was in custody of the Appellant’s title documents to the property.
According to the Appellant, the Complainant expressed his intention to use the Appellant’s title documents as collateral to obtain a loan from Skye Bank. The Appellant stated that the Complainant asked him to execute an Irrevocable Power of Attorney in favour of the Complainant to enable the Complainant to obtain the loan with the title documents which bear the name of the Appellant. The Appellant alleged that he executed the Power of Attorney and also made another agreement with the Complainant stating clearly that the purport of the Power of Attorney was to secure the loan from the bank and nothing more.
The Appellant alleged that the Complainant obtained the loan of Five Million Naira from the bank (N5, 000,000) and gave him the sum of One Million, Six Hundred Thousand Naira (N1, 600, 000) from the loan. The Appellant stated that he had refunded back to the Complainant the sum of One Million Naira (N1, 000, 000). The Appellant claimed that he did not transfer or have the intention of transferring his title in the property to the Complainant. The Appellant also claimed that he did not receive the sum of Twenty Five Million Naira (N25, 000, 000) from the Complainant at any time as the purchase price for his property. The Appellant also denied executing a Deed of Assignment dated 21 January 2013 (Exhibit P5) which was executed in favour of the Complainant.
The Respondent, on the other hand, stated that the Complainant and the Appellant reached an agreement for the sale of the property. The Respondent alleged that it was agreed that the purchase price for the property is fixed at Twenty Five Million Naira (N25, 000, 000); and pursuant to the said agreement the Complainant effected payment of the purchase price to the Appellant. The Respondent alleged that further to the agreement, the relevant title documents to the property were delivered to the Complainant, an Irrevocable Power of Attorney was executed (Exhibit P2) and a Deed of Assignment (Exhibit P5) was also executed in favour of the Complainant. The Respondent alleged that the Appellant failed to deliver the possession of the property to the Complainant and has now denied the sale of the property to the Complainant under the guise of a loan transaction after collecting the sum of Twenty Five Million Naira from the Complainant.
At the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Judge held that the Respondent proved its case and consequently convicted the Appellant in the following terms:
“The prosecution has clearly proven the guilt of the Defendant beyond reasonable doubts. Consequently, the Defendant is as guilty as charged. Pursuant to Section 1(3) of the Advance Fee Fraud and other Fraud Related Offences Act, Cap A6, Laws of the Federation 2010 which prescribes a minimum of seven years imprisonment without an option of fine; the defendant is sentenced to seven years imprisonment without the option of fine…”
The Appellant being dissatisfied with the Judgment appealed to the Court of Appeal.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
The Court of Appeal determined the appeal on a sole issue which is:
“Whether the Respondent proved the charge against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.”
DECISION/HELD
In conclusion, the Court of Appeal found the appeal meritorious and allowed same.
RATIOS:
- CONTRACT- BREACH OF CONTRACT: Whether a breach of contract can result in criminal liability
- CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE- OFFENCE OF OBTAINING BY FALSE PRETENCES: Elements to be established by the prosecution to sustain a charge of obtaining money by false pretences
- CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE- OFFENCE OF OBTAINING BY FALSE PRETENCES: Meaning of false pretence; Ingredients that are required to be proved to establish the charge of obtaining money by false pretence
- CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE- OFFENCE OF OBTAINING BY FALSE PRETENCES: What the prosecution must prove to succeed in a case of obtaining by false pretences
- CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE- OFFENCE OF MONEY LAUNDERING: What would constitute an express violation of the Money Laundering Act
- POLICE- DUTY OF POLICE: Whether the duty of the police includes the settlement of civil disputes or debt collection
WHAT OUR CLIENTS ARE SAYING…
It has been easy for me to research & use principles on my work especially when i have urgent work.
~BARR. GABRIEL OFEN
