COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (M.W.) V. AKPATA

• Pages: 219-223

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (M.W.) V. AKPATA



219

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (M.W.) V. AKPATA

5

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,

(MID-WESTERN NIGERIA)

10



V.

LAYINKA AKPATA

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

ADEMOLA,



C.J.N.

15



COKER,



J.S.C.

LEWIS,



J.S.C.

30th June, 1967

APPELLANT

RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. SC 679/1966

Criminal Law - Stealing - Charge - Stealing of government property by public

20





servant - Statement and proof of ownership - Sufficiency - Intent - accused

binding case file to prevent discovery of theft of exhibit - Charge of destroying

court exhibit - Evidence of removal - Appropriate verdict - Charge of wilfully

concealing case file with intent to obstruct course of justice laid under section

on attempting to obstruct course of justice - Effect.

25

Appeals - to Supreme Court - Substitution of verdict.

Legislation - S.154(1) Criminal Procedure Act Cap.43 - Crinzinal Code Law,

Sections 107, 111(2), 331(4) - S.104(a)(ii) Magistrates' Courts Law

30

ISSUES:

1.

Where special ownership is of the essence of a charge, must the charge show

the type of ownership necessary to sustain the charge?

2.

Whether a trial court can substitute appropriate words in a charge where the

35





evidence in respect of such a charge would have been in no way different from

that already before the court.

FACTS:

The respondent at the material time was a registrar in the High Court in Benin

and was in charge of exhibits in a case pending in that court. He made use of the

40





sum of £ 173-15s-Od which was an exhibit in the case for his own use and then hid

the case file so that the case might not come up for trial. Later, when transferred

to the Magistrate Court he removed the file from its proper custody in the High

Court and made no reference to its existence in his handing over notes. When

questioned about the file some months later he could not produce it in the High

45





Court, but left in the direction of the Magistrate Court and about ten minutes later

produced the file. It was also in evidence that when confronted about the money

the respondent admitted that he had made use of it. The above facts formed the

subject matter of four counts and the trial magistrate convicted him on all counts

of the charge. He appealed to the High Court.

50





Count 1 alleged that the defendant being a person employed in the Public Ser-

vice: to wit Judicial Department, High Court, Benin City, stole the sum of £173-15s-

Od property of your employers contra section 331(4). The judge held that the count

was bad because it did not name the Mid-Western Government as the owners of