Mohammed W. Al-Dungus v. The State (1973)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

FATAYI-WILLIAMS, J.S.C. 

On the 9th day of September, 1971 at the Bornu Upper Area Court No.2, the appellant was convicted of the offence of receiving thirteen heads of stolen cattle knowing them to have been stolen. His appeal to the Maiduguri High Court against the conviction was dismissed on 22nd November, 1972. He has now appealed to this court.

The facts can shortly be stated as follows: On 21st April, 1971 at about 12 noon, one Mallam Yauwa reported to the police that thieves had stolen his 33 heads of cattle and 18 sheep. The cattle and sheep were valued at 3,116. The animals, according to the complainant, were stolen while his son was looking after them at the pastures in Dambowa District. During the search for the missing cattle, Mallam Yauwa found four of them with one Mamman Hurso at Gulumba in Dikwa Division. When questioned, Mamman Hurso said he bought the four heads of cattle from one Gujja for 95. Gujja in turn said he bought them from the appellant. The sale was carried out inside the cattle pen in the appellants house.

During the course of the inquiry into the complaint by the Bomu Upper Area Court as provided for in section 158 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the court asked the appellant if he had any question to ask the complainant. The appellant said he had none to ask him. At first he denied selling the four heads of cattle to Gujja. Later he admitted the sale. To a question asked by Mallam Yauwa that during the search for his cattle, he and the police received information that after the thieves had stolen the 33 heads of cattle, they took 28 out of them to the appellants house and that the appellant bought 13 out of the 28 heads of cattle for 143, the appellant replied

“Yes, it is true, twenty seven heads of cattle were taken to my house. Hamma and Gorgel, the two drove the cattle to my house and offered them to me to buy. I bought 13 heads of cattle at 143.The Upper Area Court then put the following question to the appellant:

“It is stated that you bought the 13 heads of cattle at 143. Is it true this is what the cattle would fetch in the market at present”

And the appellant replied:

“I knew it is not their actual price that I paid for them. At present a cow could not be bought with 40 pounds or 50 pounds because cattle in these days are very dear and everybody knows this.”

During the course of the inquiry, the appellant admitted selling three heads of cattle to one Suleiman Wal Lawan (P.W. 3) for 54 and a one and a half year old cow to one Ibrahim Wal Mohammed (P.W. 4) for 15 pounds.

After the inquiry had been completed, the judge of the Upper Area Court, pursuant to the provisions of section 160 of the Criminal Procedure Code, thereupon framed the charge of receiving the 13 heads of cattle knowing them to have been stolen, against the appellant. When asked if he was guilty of the offence or not, the appellant replied

“I have not committed this offence. Wal Halim and his friend Hamma, the two brought 27 heads of cattle to my house. They said here are cattle if I wish to buy. I asked them how they obtained the cattle. They told me that the cattle are their personal property and they wanted to sell them and that they are not stolen ones. On this condition I believed them and bought 13 heads of cattle, they accepted my offer and I gave them 143. They received the money and went away. Later it came to light that the cattle were stolen ones. I do no know the cattle to have been stolen at the material time when I bought them.”

All the four witnesses called by the appellant to testify on his behalf denied knowing anything about the transaction. Hamma (4th D/W), who bears the same name as one of the persons the appellant said had offered to sell him 27 heads of cattle, denied that he was present when the sale of the cattle took place. With respect to this denial, the appellant observed as follows:

“The witness knows the facts of the matter but he refused to tell the truth just to avoid telling the truth.”

In convicting the appellant, the Upper Area Court judge observed that not only was the appellant unable to tell the court the persons from whom he bought the cattle, the actual sale was carried out “in a house hidden, not in open market where public go.” The trial judge also observed that the price of 143 which the appellant paid for the cattle was far below the market value, cattle being very dear at the material time. Lastly, the trial judge found that of the four witnesses called by the appellant, three said they knew nothing about the transaction while the fourth admitted buying a cow from the appellant for 18 but that when he heard that the cow had been stolen, he returned it to the appellant without even bothering to ask for the return of his money.