FARO V. I.G.P.

• Pages: 4-6

4



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1964] N.S.C.C.

"In the opinion of the Court if the jury had been directed to ignore the

evidence of Miss Billingham as being the evidence of not merely an

accomplice, but of an accomplice who, on her own confession, had

committed perjury, they would then have had to consider whether the rest



5

of these somewhat nebulous matters were sufficient to establish the guilt of

the appellant. In our opinion, it is not possible to say that if the jury had been

so directed, they must certainly or would inevitably have arrived at the

conclusion at which they did arrive."

10

For these reasons, we are of the opinion that the verdict in this matter cannot

be supported and the appeal must be allowed. The conviction is therefore

quashed and it is ordered that a verdict of acquittal be entered on both counts.

The appellant is discharged.

Appeal allowed.



15

FARO V. I.G.P.

20

OLAYINKA FARO



APPELLANT

V

INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE



RESPONDENT



25

SUIT NO. FSC 270/1963

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

ADEMOLA,



C.J.N.

BRETT,



J.S.C.

BAIRAMIAN,



J.S.C.



30

16th January, 1964

Criminal Law - Purpose of charge - Obtaining by false pretences - Wording of

false pretence - Substance.

35

ISSUES:

1.

What is the purpose of a charge.

2.

Whether variation between the false pretences alleged in a charge and those

actually proved would entitle an accused person to an acquittal.

FACTS



40

The appellant and others persuaded A. to pay for a piece of land belonging to

V.I. by producing one T.O. as being V.I. The charge stated: 'by falsely pretend-

ing that a piece of land



belonged to one T.O. and that ....T.O. was in a posi-

tion to sell the same as owner'. On appeal against his conviction the appellant

argued that there was a variation between the false pretences alleged and those



45

proved against him.

HELD:

1.

The main purpose of a charge is to give the defendant notice of the case against

him.

2.

In a charge of obtaining by false pretences, although the wording of the false



50

pretence might have been fuller or different, the charge is sufficient if it conveys

the substance of the false pretence alleged, the conviction is not open to

objection if the substance of the false pretence alleged does not differ from

that of the operative pretence proved.