EDO & ANOR. V. C 0 P

• Pages: 64-67

64



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1962] N.S.C.C.

EDO & ANOR. V. C.O.P.

5

JOHN EDO

NELSON OSAKABO

V

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

APPELLANTS

RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. FSC 87/1961

10

FEDERAL SUPREME COURT

UNSWORTH,



F.J.

TAYLOR,



F.J.



15

BAIRAMIAN,



F.J.

9th February, 1962

Criminal Law - Deprivation of liberty - (Criminal Code) Cap. 42 section 365 -

Demanding property will? menaces with intent to steal - Section 406.



20

Police officer - Powers of Arrest - Criminal Procedure Act Cap.43 section 10 -

Police Act Cap 154 Section 20 - Duty of Public to assist section 34 Cap.43

Criminal Procedure Act.

25

ISSUES:

1.

Whether a person can be lawfully detained merely because he knows the

whereabouts of a suspect.

2.

What is the test of an intent to steal?

3.

What is the meaning of "absence of the owner's consent to the taking" for the



30

purpose of a charge of stealing?

4.

Whether a threat to imprison a man on a fictitious charge is a threat of detriment

within the meaning of section 406 of the Criminal Code.

FACTS:

The appellants, police constables, were looking for a suspect and they arrested



35

the complainant who told them where the suspect was and he (the suspect) was

arrested. The complainant was however, still not released and was told that he

would be taken to the police station and locked up unless he paid them (policemen)

some money. He paid up and was released.

The policemen were convicted under section 365 of the Criminal Code (de-



40

priving complainant of his liberty); section 406 (demanding money with threats)

and section 390 (stealing the money they received). They appealed to the High

Court which affi•rned their convictions and they further appealed to the Federal

Supreme Court contending that their conduct in arresting the complainant was law-

ful by virtue of Sections 10 and 34 of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance and Sec-



45

tion 20 of the Police Ordinance and also that since the money was given to them

by the complainant, they could not be accused of stealing same. It was argued in

addition that the demands or threats alleged were not sufficient to constitute de-

mands or threats of detriment with intent to steal within the meaning of section 406

of the Criminal Code.



50

HELD:

1.

There are no provision in sections 10 and 34 of the Criminal Procedure Act nor

in section 20 of the Police Act which made the appellants' conduct in regard to

depriving the complainant of his liberty lawful in the circumstances.