Rex V. Solomon Olua (1943)

LawGlobal Hub Judgment Report – West African Court of Appeal

Criminal Law—Attempt—Procedure—Accepting reward to influence Native .Tribunal—reward accepted, with a promise to influence the tribunal—acquittal on substantive charge and conviction for attempt—conviction quashed—conviction on substantive charge not substituted—Criminal Code, section 115:—Criminal Procedure Ordinance, section 57—West African Court of Appeal Ordinance, section 11 (1) 4- (2).

Facts

The appellant, a Native Court Clerk, accepted a cow with the promise that he would use his influence with the Court members to obtain the donor’s acquittal upon a criminal charge then pending before the Court. The trial Judge held that in the absence of any evidence that the appellant did use his influence as .promised he -could not be convicted of an offence against section -115 of the Criininal Code, but that the promise to use his influence amounted to an attempt to commit the offence; and he convicted the appellant accordingly.-

The Appeal Court was of the opinion that an attempt to commit the offence, if such an attempt were possible, would consist of an ” attempt to accept the cow . . . . for inducing  ” ; further, that a promise to influence the tribunal did not constitute an attempt to influence it; further, that if there had been an attempt to influence the tribunal, and if this, as the trial Judge held, did not satisfy the words of the section ” for inducing ” so as to warrant a conviction for the substantive offence, then it could, not warrant the conviction for the attempt.

Held

Accordingly, that the conviction was wrong.

Held: Further, that since the trial Court had acquitted on the Substantive charge, the Appeal Court should not substitute a conviction therefore for the conviction for an attempt.

Conviction and sentence quashed.