Whether the Court Must Consider the Financial Means of An Offender Before Imposing a Fine

CASE TITLE: SHERIFF v. FRN (2024) LPELR-62025(CA)
JUDGMENT DATE: 25TH APRIL, 2024
PRACTICE AREA: CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE
LEAD JUDGMENT: UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU, J.C.A.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:
This appeal borders on Criminal Law and Procedure.

FACTS:
This appeal is against the judgment of the High Court of Borno State, delivered on October 4, 2021.

According to the Prosecution, the PW1 entrusted and sold 79 bags of maize to the Appellant on a cash and carry basis, but the Appellant after carrying the goods, failed to remit the amount due to the PW1. The PW1 later confirmed that the Appellant had disposed of the bags of maize, and after several demands for the amount due on the bags of maize entrusted to the Appellant, he initiated a Petition or Complaint which spawned the charge against the Appellant.

According to the Appellant, the PW1 sold the maize to him on credit with the understanding that payment would be made in instalments as the Appellant received payment from the persons to whom he supplied the maize, and who were to make payment to him as they sold the maize. The Appellant called his witnesses, some of whom he supplied the maize to. However, the said witnesses testified under cross-examination that they were not present when the PW1 entered the transaction with the Appellant and so they did not know the agreement between them.

Furthermore, the Appellant in his extra-judicial statement that the 79 bags of maize were entrusted to him and that even though the PW1 had demanded that he needed his money after 20 days, he told the PW1 that he would pay him after one month. However, the Appellant had disposed of all the 79 bags of maize, and more than one month later, the Appellant had not remitted the money to the PW1.

It was also stated that the PW1 gave the Appellant access to the shop where the maize was stored to carry the same and remit payment to the PW1. Even though the PW1 said he had 100 bags of maize stored in the shop, the Appellant whom he left alone to carry the goods, claimed that it was only 74 bags that were there and that it was the quantity he carried away. The PW1 left him alone in his shop to carry the goods and then remitted the payment to him after ascertaining the number of bags in the shop, which he carried away. It was also disclosed on evidence that the Appellant did not pay for the goods as agreed and that, having disposed of the said bags of maize, he also failed to remit the proceeds of sale to the PW1 contrary to the agreement reached when the maize was entrusted to him. The Appellant thereafter relocated from his business premises known to the PW1 and did not keep to any of the payment timelines that he, the Appellant, gave. It was only after the matter had been charged to Court that the Appellant made part payment of the money due to PW1 when the goods were entrusted to him.

The trial Court in its judgment convicted the Appellant. The Appellant was dissatisfied with the decision and he appealed against it.

ISSUE(S) FOR DETERMINATION:
The Court determined the appeal on this sole issue, which states:

“Whether having regard to the circumstances of this matter and the evidence on record, the lower Court rightly found and held that the offence of criminal breach of trust charged was proved beyond reasonable doubt to warrant the conviction and sentence imposed on the Appellant.”

DECISION/HELD:
In the final analysis, the appeal succeeded in part but only with respect to the reduction of the fine imposed by the trial Court, the conviction of the Appellant by the trial Court for the offence was affirmed.

RATIOS:

• APPEAL – FORMULATION OF ISSUE(S) FOR DETERMINATION – Whether a court can rightly reframe or re- formulate issues for determination
• EVIDENCE – BURDEN OF PROOF/STANDARD OF PROOF – Burden and standard of proof in criminal cases; what does proof beyond reasonable doubt mean?
• CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – GUILT OF AN ACCUSED PERSON – How to establish/prove the guilt of an accused person
• EVIDENCE – CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – Position of law on confessional statement
• 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
• CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – OFFENCE(S) – What makes an act or omission to constitute a criminal offence
• CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – FINE – Whether the Court must consider the financial means of an offender before imposing a fine
• APPEAL – INTERFERENCE WITH EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE – Duty of trial Court to evaluate evidence and ascribe probative value to same; when an Appellate Court will/will not interfere
• CASE LAW – JUDICIAL PRECEDENT/STARE DECISIS – Whether a court of law is necessarily bound by a precedent in an earlier decision

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