Constituents of the Offence of Obtaining by False Pretence

CASE TITLE: OTENUGA v. IGP (2023) LPELR-61072 (CA)
JUDGMENT DATE: 31ST AUGUST 2023
PRACTICE AREA: CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (Offence of Obtaining by False Pretences)
LEAD JUDGMENT: ISAIAH OLUFEMI AKEJU, J.C.A.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION

This appeal borders on the offense of obtaining false pretensions.

FACTS:
This appeal emanated from the Ekiti State High Court.

In a bid to purchase a parcel of land occupied by a dilapidated building, PW1 contacted a woman on the phone, offering to purchase the property, under the mistaken belief that the woman he spoke to was the owner of the property. PW1 negotiated for the property and was asked to pay the sum of N620, 000.00 (six hundred and twenty thousand naira) for the property. The woman at the other end of the transaction gave a bank account number to PW1, into which PW1 was to pay the sum agreed upon as the purchase price. PW1 did as he was told in April 2021.

In July 2021, it became clear that something untoward had happened. PW1 called the person to whom he thought he transferred money (the appellant), asking for a refund. The person promised to refund part of the money in July 2021 but failed to do so. PW1 wrote a petition to the police. It was then revealed, on investigation, that the appellant did not receive PW 1’s money through her personal bank account but used PW 2’s bank account for the transaction. PW 2 was arrested. The appellant was arrested.

The appellant was the sole defendant at the trial, where she was arraigned on a twin count of fraud and stealing. The appellant was alleged to have defrauded one Oso Olugbenga (PW1) and stolen the sum of N620, 000.00 (Six Hundred and Twenty Thousand Naira) from her victim.

At the end of trial, the trial court found the appellant guilty on the two counts and sentenced her accordingly.
Aggrieved with the decision of the trial court, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.

ISSUE(S) FOR DETERMINATION:
The Court of Appeal determined the appeal based on the following issues:
“(i) Whether the learned trial Judge was right in convicting and sentencing the appellant for two alternative offenses of obtaining by false pretense and stealing.
(ii) Whether the learned trial Judge was right when he held that the prosecution proved the offense of obtaining by false pretense beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant.
(iii) Whether the learned trial Judge was right when he held that the prosecution proved the offense of stealing beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant.”

DECISION/HELD:
In the end, the appeal was dismissed.

RATIO(S):
• CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – OFFENCE OF OBTAINING BY FALSE PRETENCES – Meaning of “false pretence”
• CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – OFFENCE OF OBTAINING BY FALSE PRETENCES – Ingredients of the offence of obtaining by false pretences
• CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – ELEMENTS OF AN OFFENCE – Importance of proving the element(s) of an offence
• CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – CRIMINAL TRIAL/PROCEEDINGS – Position of the law as regards offenders/offences which may/may not be tried together
• JURISDICTION – CRIMINAL JURISDICTION – Whether the Court in a place where an element of an offence occurred will have jurisdiction to try same
• CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – OFFENCE OF STEALING – Position of the law on fraudulent conversion in the offence of stealing

To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol