Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Home » WACA Cases » Rex V. Nelson Asiegbu (1937) LJR-WACA

Rex V. Nelson Asiegbu (1937) LJR-WACA

Rex V. Nelson Asiegbu (1937)

LawGlobal Hub Judgment Report – West African Court of Appeal

Convictions on two counts for fraudulent false accounting—Counts open to objection on ground of duplicity—No miscarriage of justice thereby—Section 10 (1) of Ordinance No. 47 of 1933.

Held : Section 10 (1) of Ordinance 47 of 1933 applied, Rex v. Thompson, 9 Criminal Appeal Reports, page 252, followed, and appeal dismissed.

There is no need to set out the facts of the case. Appellant in person.

Ivor Brace for Crown.

The following judgment was delivered :KINGDON, C.J., NIGERIA.

In this case the Court is satisfied that the facts proved establish the guilt of the appellant upon the two counts on which he was convicted. But Counsel for the Crown has very properly pointed out, in appellant’s interest, that the two counts are open to objection on the ground of duplicity. He asks the Court to refrain from quashing the convictions on this ground, but instead to act upon the proviso to section 10 (1) of the West African Court of Appeal Ordinance, 1933.

In this case the appellant was represented at the trial by Counsel, and so, if he was in any way prejudiced or embarrassed by the way in which the counts were framed, objection could and should have been taken. It was not, but instead the acts constituting the offences were admitted, as indeed they have been admitted in this Court.

The fact that no objection was made in the lower Court does not preclude an objection being taken here, but does lead us to be completely satisfied that the appellant was not prejudiced in any way and that no miscarriage of justice has resulted. The case appears to be on all fours with that of Rex v. Thompson (9 Cr. App. Rep. 252) in which the Court of Criminal Appeal in England acted upon the provisions of the English law corresponding to the proviso upon which we are now asked to act. We shall accordingly accede to the request of the Counsel for the. Crown.

See also  John Edmund Turkson V. Amoah Ababio & Ors (1949) LJR-WACA

The appeal is dismissed.

More Posts

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

LawGlobal Hub
LawGlobal Hub is your innovative global resource of law and more. We ensure easy accessibility to the laws of countries around the world, among others