DABIERIN & ANOR. V. THE STATE

• Pages: 98-99

98



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1968] N.S.C.C.

DABIERIN & ANOR. V. THE STATE

5

1.

SUNDAY DABIERIN

2.

JOHN ADETAYO

V

THE STATE

APPELLANTS

RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. SC 61/67

10

15

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

BRETT,



J.S.C.

COKER,



J.S.C.

MADARIKAN,



J.S.C.

5th April, 1968.

Criminal Law - S.21 Criminal Code.

20

ISSUE:

1.

Whether s.21 of the Criminal Code require that a defendant's claim of right to

stolen goods be a reasonable one.

FACTS:

The appellants applied to the Supreme Court, seeking leave to appeal against



25

the High Court's decision, in which their convictions by the Magistrate Court were

upheld. They were convicted of stealing three baskets of cocoa, property of one

D.E. D.E's labourers caught the appellants and three others packing cocoa beans

into baskets on D.E.'s farm. When challenged, they claimed the land and the cocoa

growing on it belonged to the second appellant. The trial magistrate found on the



30

evidence that the cocoa belonged to D.E. and that the accused had stolen it. He

rejected a submission that they had acted in the exercise of a

bona fide

claim of

right and without intention to defraud, in which case by virtue of s.21 of the W.N.

Criminal Code, they would not be criminally responsible. In the Supreme Court,

counsel for the appellants submitted that these findings could not be supported



35

having regard to the evidence.

HELD:

1 Section 21 of the Criminal Code does not require that the claim of right shall

be a reasonable one, and it differs in this from s.23, which modifies and may

altogether exclude criminal responsibility for an act done or omitted under an



40

honest and reasonable, though mistaken, belief in the existence of any state of

things.

2.

Section 21 lays down a rule applicable to offences relating to property to the

same effect as that in the definition of "Iarcency" in the Larcency Act, 1916, s.1,

so that a claim of right exists whenever a man honestly believes that he has a



45

lawful claim, even though it may be completely unfounded in law or in fact. It

is enough if the belief is honestly held and there can be no justification for

reading into s.21 of the Criminal Code any implied requirement that it should

also be a belief which it was reasonable for the accused person to hold.

3.

The appeal judge's misdirection did not affect the validity of the magistrates



50

finding that there was no honest claim of right.

CASE REFERRED TO IN JUDGMENT:

1.

R. v. Skivington

(1967) 2 W.L.R. 665.