Whether a Breach of Contract Can Result in Criminal Liability

CASE TITLE:  FRN v. SHIKAAN (2025) LPELR-81388(CA)

JUDGMENT DATE: 8TH MAY, 2025

PRACTICE AREA: CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE

LEAD JUDGMENT: NEHIZENA IDEMUDIA AFOLABI, J.C.A.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:

This appeal borders on the offences of obtaining money by false pretence and criminal breach of trust.

FACTS:

This appeal is against the judgment of the High Court of Justice, Makurdi, Benue State, delivered on 2 February 2024 by Hon. Justice A.I. Ityonyiman, which discharged and acquitted the respondent of a two-count charge of obtaining money by false pretence and criminal breach of trust.

The nominal complainant, Mr. Sunday Onaji, a businessman dealing in agricultural produce, was introduced to the respondent, who represented himself as a seller of paddy rice. The respondent took him to a supposed warehouse along University of Agriculture Road, Makurdi, for inspection. Relying on this representation, the complainant agreed to purchase ten metric tons of paddy rice at ₦110,000 per ton, totalling ₦1.1 million. Payment was made into the respondent’s First Bank account on 24 January 2018. However, immediately after the payment, the respondent absconded and could not be reached, while the rice allegedly shown to the complainant was later discovered to be nonexistent.

Investigations by the EFCC confirmed that the respondent had fraudulently obtained the ₦1.1 million under the pretence of supplying rice, and further revealed that he absconded after receiving the money. He was eventually arrested on 19 December 2018 and, upon interrogation, admitted receiving the money and failing to deliver the goods. He was arraigned on 2 March 2021, and both prosecution and defence presented evidence at trial.

In its judgment, the trial court held that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly discharged and acquitted the respondent on both counts. Dissatisfied, the appellant lodged this appeal.

ISSUE(S) FOR DETERMINATION:

The Court formulated a sole issue for determination, viz:

“Whether the prosecution has proved all the ingredients of the offences charged against the Appellant beyond a reasonable doubt as required by law.”

DECISION/HELD:

The appeal was found to be lacking in merit. Consequently, the judgment of the trial Court was affirmed.

RATIOS:

• APPEAL- FORMULATION OF ISSUE(S) FOR DETERMINATION: Whether a court can rightly reframe or re- formulate issues for determination
• CONTRACT- BREACH OF CONTRACT: Whether a breach of contract can result in criminal liability   
• CONTRACT- BREACH OF CONTRACT: Requirements of the law for a criminal breach of trust to occur and when transactions involved in a case will be held to be based on contractual agreement where there is no evidence of criminal breach of trust
• 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- CRIMINAL BREACH OF TRUST: Ingredients the prosecution is required to prove where there is an allegation of criminal breach of trust
• EVIDENCE- BURDEN OF PROOF/STANDARD OF PROOF: Burden and standard of proof in criminal cases; whether the burden of proof on the prosecution can shift to the accused person    
• EVIDENCE- PROOF: Whether the ingredients of any offence must be established by cogent evidence before a conviction can stand

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