JOHNSON V. THE STATE

• Pages: 276-281

276



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1968] N.S.C.C.

We accordingly allow the appeal, quash the conviction and order that the sen-

tence and order of the High Court be set aside and that the case be retried before

another judge of the High Court of Benue Plateau State. We further order that the

£100 fine paid by the appellant be refunded.

Appeal allowed: Conviction

quashed: Sentence of High Court

set

aside: Retrial before another

judge of High Court ordered.

J

1.

HNS N V. THE STATE

1.

Y. 0. BAKARE

2.

S.A. JOHNSON

3.

C.V.M. GRAVES

IN RE: JOHNSON

V

THE STATE

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

ADEMOLA,



C.J.N.

COKER,



J.S.C.

LEWIS,



J.S.C.

29th November, 1968.

APPELLANTS

RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. SC 338/1967

15

20

25

Criminal Law - Criminal breach of trust - Criminal Misappropriation - To sustain



conviction under 5.309 of the Penal Code - Whether relevant intention



30

constituting dishonesty essential ingredient of offence.

- Words and Phrases - Criminal Misappropriation - "Dishonesty".

ISSUE:



35

1. In order to sustain a conviction of criminal misappropriation under section 309

of the Penal Code, is the criminal intent of dishonesty an essential ingredient of

the offence.

FACTS:



The appellant was one of three persons tried jointly in the High Court, Maidu-



40

guri on several charges. At the end of the trial, all but the appellant were dis-

charged, and the appellant was convicted on the first count (which alleged criminal

breach of trust) of criminal misappropriation under Section 309 of the Penal Code.

The case for the prosecution was that execution by writ had been levied against



the property of a certain company, that the first accused, the court bailiff had no



45

right to entrust bricks belonging to the said company as he did to the second ac-

cused (the appellant) a licensed auctioneer, who in any case should have sold the

bricks by public auction and not by private treaty as he did; that the second ac-

cused knew or ought to have known that the value of the bricks was about £75, in-



stead of the amount of 23:10d at which he sold them to the third accused, who



50

by the purchase had obtained to himself an unlawful gain. In convicting the ap-

pellant the trial judge found that though the offence charged was criminal breach

of trust, the offence proved was criminal misappropriation. The appellant ap-

pealed to the Supreme Court arguing that the judgment was unreasonable and

5

10