AKWULE & ORS. V. THE QUEEN

• Pages: 157-163

AKWULE & ORS. V. THE QUEEN



157

AKWULE & ORS. V. THE QUEEN

5

T.U. AKWULE & 10 OTHERS

V

10 THE QUEEN

FEDERAL SUPREME COURT

ADEMOLA,



C.J.F.

de LESTANG,



C.J. Lagos

15



BRETT,



F.J.

BAIRAMIAN,



F.J.

23rd May, 1963.

APPELLANTS

RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. FSC 325/1962

Legislation - Northern Nigeria - Penal Code, ss.83, 311, 312, 315 - Constitution

20



of Northern Nigeria, 1960, s.4 - Criminal Procedure Code, s.218 - Federal -

Constitution of the Federation, 1960, s.64, s.72, Part 1 of the Schedule, (item

43), item 44, and Part III, paragraph 1(a) - Banking Act, Cap.19 (as amended

by Act No. 19 of 1962), s.2, 3(1) - Federal Supreme Court Act, 1960, s.26(1)

proviso, s.27(2) - Constitutions - Interpretation - Legislative Competence

-

25



Regional Penal Code.

Criminal Law and Procedure - Criminal breach of trust - Special punishment of

bankers - Northern Nigeria's Penal Code - Dominion over cash - Banker -

Branch manager - Lesser offence - Sections 312 and 315 - Appeals in Criminal

30



Cases - Conviction - Substitutive, on appeal, for lesser offence - Words and

Phrases - 'Banker' in Penal Code, N. Nigeria s.315.

ISSUES:

1.

Whether a regional legislature is empowered by the 1960 Constitution to

35



legislate on banking; an item under the constitution's Exclusive Legislative List.

2.

Is a manager of a bank branch a 'banker' within the scope of s.315 of the Penal

Code.

3.

Can an appellate court under s.218 of the Criminal Procedure Code substitute

a conviction for a lesser offence for a wrongful conviction for a more serious

40



offence.

FACTS:

The first appellant was convicted of criminal breach of trust contra s.315 of the

Penal Code as a banker. He was the manager of a branch of the B.W.A. Ltd. The

appellants on appeal argued that as banking was a subject on which Parliament

45



alone could legislate under the 1960 Constitution, s.315 of the Penal Code - a re-

gional enactment - was unconstitutional in regard to bankers and the count laid

under s.315 was a nullity. The second point was whether the first appellant was a

'banker.' The first appellant passed cheques for his co-accused payable to firms

which had accounts at other banks and allowed his co-accused credit as part of

50



a scheme of fraud on his employers; the point made was that he did not give cash

to the co-accused. The next point was whether as the first appellant was not a

banker, the court could substitute for the conviction under s.315 a conviction under

s.312.