Adeniyi Oluwaseun Sunday v. The People Of Kwara State (2024)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

TUNDE OYEBANIJI AWOTOYE, JCA (Delivering the leading judgment)

This is the judgment in respect of the appeal filed by the defendant in KWS/38C/2020.

The charge was read and explained to the defendant who pleaded not guilty to each of the two counts.

After hearing the parties, the learned trial Judge entered judgment convicting the defendant on count 2 of the charge.

The charge

Count one

That you Oluwasegun Adeniyi Sunday on or about 28/02/2017 at Ilorin, Kwara State, within the jurisdiction of the honourable court committed an illegal act to wit: obtaining a sum of N100,000.000.00 (One Hundred Million Naira) from one Alhaja Kudirat Ijaya by false pretence and you thereby committed an offence contrary to section 1 (2) and punishable under section 1(3) of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Related Offences Act, Cap A6, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2006.

Count two

That you Oluwasegun Adeniyi Sunday on or about 28/02/2017 at Ilorin, Kwara State, within the jurisdiction of the honourable court committed an illegal act to wit: purported to settle a lawful obligation by means of issuing dud cheques to one AlhajaKudirat Ijaya and you thereby committed an offence contrary to section 1 (1)(b)(i) of Dishonoured Cheques (Offences) Act.

The learned trial Judge held thus:

Although the defendant claimed to have ordered the bank to stop payment of the cheques, the explanation he gave for doing so does not accord with the reason. Considering the far-reaching effect of dishonouring a cheque issued for whatever reason at all, the onus was on the defendant to support his claim by cogent evidence that he indeed ordered the stoppage of payment of the cheques because they did not relate to the loan. He failed grossly to so prove.

Therefore, his defence in that wise cannot avail him. Neither has he shown by any iota of evidence that at times material, he had sufficient funds in his account to enable the cheques in issue to be funded when presented for payment as agreed. PW4, who went on investigation to the bank and was told that the cheques were dud cheques was not confronted with the fact that the bank was ordered not to cashback the cheques as claimed.

On this premise, it is found that at times material, there was no sufficient fund in the account of defendant.

It is long settled by judicial authorities that when a cheque is dishonoured upon presentment for reason of lack of sufficient funds in the bank account from which it is to be paid, this provided a reasonable basis for a criminal complaint against the drawer for issuing a dud or dishonoured cheques, irrespective of the fact that the cheques was initially issued as a postdated cheque in discharge of a written contractual obligation to secure or guarantee the payment of a loan.