Position of the Law where an Accused Person Rest his Case on that of the Prosecution

Case Title: AKALONU v. FRN (2023) LPELR-60160(CA)

In The Court Of Appeal

(LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Tuesday, March 29, 2023

Before Their Lordships

Mohammed Ambi-Usi Danjuma

Onyekachi Aja Otisi

Fatima Omoro Akinbami

Between

RAYMOND AKALONU-APPELANT(S)

And

FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA-RESPONDENT(S)

INTRODUCTION:

This appeal borders on criminal law and procedure.

FACTS:

This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Lagos State delivered on March 9th, 2021 Coram S.S. Ogunsanya, J. 

The Appellant, who was the 1st defendant before the trial Court, was General Manager in the Insurance Department of Dangote Industries Limited, the complainant. The said complainant had two aircraft it had insured with an insurance underwriter, Leadway Assurance Company Limited, which insurance was renewable annually. Towards the 2014 – 2015 renewal of the policies, the Insurer, by its two letters dated 30/10/2014 (Exhibits P1B and P1F), signed by Mojisola Aladeojebi and Balogun Omololu Alaba, the 2nd and 3rd defendants, enclosed its quotes for the renewal of the policies (proforma invoices – Exhibits P1C and P1G).

The said letters, Exhibits P1B and P1F, were addressed by the Insurer to the Managing Director of the complainant but stated for the “Attention” of the Appellant. The Appellant, by Internal Memo, Exhibits P1A and P1E, forwarded the invoices to the Group Chief Risk Officer (GCRO) and the President/Chief Executive Officer of the complainant for payment approval. The Appellant’s case was that there were errors in invoices that the Insurer submitted.

The error that was material to the two-count Information on which the Appellant was tried and convicted was in the amount quoted by the Insurer as its “Hull War Premium”. The parameter was correctly stated as “0.20%” of the USD4,500,000 “Agreed Value” of the “Hawker 125-1000”, which should have been USD9,000, but the Insurer imputed “USD 32,500” in said the column.

​The management of the complainant did not think this was correct and asked the Appellant to investigate to reconfirm the position. The Appellant contacted the 2nd defendant on the issue. Leadway Assurance Co. Ltd confirmed that there was an error and sent the corrected copy, followed by a letter, Exhibit P14, admitting the error. It apologized and assured that it would guard against such errors going forward, while it hoped to continue to render its professional services to Dangote Industries Limited.

​Not satisfied with this explanation, the complainant proceeded to make a criminal complaint to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Exhibit P1, alleging that the Appellant connived with the two other defendants, both staff of Leadway Assurance Company Limited, “to defraud and sabotage our Group President and our Company of the sum of USD211,467.58”. The EFCC investigated the complaint and preferred the two-count charge against the Appellant and the two other defendants.

​At the trial, the Respondent, as the prosecution, called three witnesses. At the close of the prosecution’s case, the Appellant, who was the 1st defendant announced to the Court that he was resting his case on the case of the prosecution. The other two defendants took the same position. In its considered judgment, the trial Court convicted the Appellant and the other defendants of the offences as charged. The Appellant was sentenced to seven years imprisonment for each of the two counts, with the sentences to run concurrently.

Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the Appellant lodged the instant appeal in the Court of Appeal.

ISSUES:

The Court determined the appeal based on a sole issue thus:

Whether the charges against the Appellant were proved before the trial court beyond a reasonable doubt.

DECISION/HELD:

In the final analysis, the Court allowed the appeal. 

RATIO DECIDENDI

EVIDENCE – BURDEN OF PROOF/STANDARD OF PROOF– Burden of proof and standard of proof in criminal cases

“The Appellant, alongside two other defendants, was convicted and sentenced on a two-count Information of conspiracy to defraud, contrary to Section 323 of the Criminal Law of Lagos State No 11 of 2011; and, attempting to obtain money by false pretences, contrary to Sections 8(b) and 1(a) of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Related Offences Act No. 14 of 2006. As the parties rightly submitted, the duty of the prosecution was to prove that these offences were actually committed by the Appellant beyond a reasonable doubt; Section 135(1) of the Evidence Act, 2011. See also: Ogundiyan v. State [1991] 1 NSCC 448; The State v. Azeez (2008) 4 S. C. 188; Shande v. State (2005) 12 MJSC 152; John Agbo v. State (2006) 1 S.C. (PT. II) 73; Ugwanyi v FRN (2012) LPELR-7817(SC).”

Log in to your Prime/Primsol dashboard to read the full judgment or go to store.lawpavilion.com to subscribe