Michael Ijuaka V. Commissioner Of Police (1976)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

OBASEKI, J.S.C 

This appeal is against the judgment of the High Court Calabar, presided over by Kooffreh, J., (as he then was) in Appeal No.C/25AC/ 74 delivered on the 27th day of January 1975, dismissing the appellant’s appeal against his conviction by the Chief Magistrate Calabar on two counts (courts 1 and 3 of the Charge) of obtaining money by false pretences contrary to section 419 of the Criminal Code.

Before the Magistrate Court, Calabar, the appellant was tried on a five count charge, counts 1, 3 and 5 of which for the purpose of this judgment, we will reproduce in full.

Count 1: That you Michael Ijiaka (m) on the 31st January 1973, at Calabar, in the Calabar Magisterial District, with intent to defraud, obtained the sum of N45.00 from Monday Udofia (m) by falsely pretending that you were able to print genuine N2,000.00 and thereby committed an offence under section 419 of the Criminal Code.

Count 3: That you Michael Ijuaka (m) on the 31st January 1973, at Calabar, in the Calabar Magisterial District, with intent to defraud, obtained the sum of N43.00 from Enefick Paul (m) by falsely pretending that you were able to print genuine N2,000.00 for him and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 419 of the Criminal Code.

Count 5: That you Michael Ijauka (m) on the 31/1/73, at No. 9 Edgerly Road, Calabar, in the Calabar Magisterial District, unlawfully had in your possession, four and half bundles of papers cut to the size resembling 50k note and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 480(a)(i) of the Criminal Code.

The counts omitted, i.e., Counts 2 and 4 charged the appellant with stealing and were in the alternative to the counts of obtaining by false pretences. However, the appellant was acquitted by the learned Chief Magistrate on those counts.

The appellant’s appeal against his conviction on count 5 was allowed in the High Court but his conviction on counts 1 and 3 was affirmed and it is against this conviction that the appellant has brought this appeal before us.

The three grounds of appeal filed and argued before us are:

(1) The learned Judge on appeal misdirected himself in law and on the facts when he held that there was ample evidence to show that accused got the money from the two P.Ws. in the circumstances which these witnesses narrated. I have no reason therefore to disturb the findings of facts of the learned Chief Magistrate”

(a) The learned Chief Magistrate failed to evaluate the evidence of the first P.W. Samuel Ajibola when he said that the two boys told me that N88.00 was collected from them for the purpose of giving them a machine for printing money, a piece of evidence which materially contradicted the evidence of the two P.Ws. (2nd and 3rd P.Ws.)

(b) The learned Chief Magistrate failed to resolve the contradiction between the evidence of the 2nd and 3rd P.Ws. and that of the 1st P.W. on the material purpose for which they parted with the sum of N88.00

(2) The learned judge on appeal erred in law in dismissing the appellant’s appeal when”

(a) The learned Chief Magistrate convicted the appellant without considering and/or considering adequately the contradiction and other matters which are capable of casting doubt on the case for the prosecution.