LAWAL V. THE QUEEN

• Pages: 141-144

LAWAL V. THE QUEEN



141

On this ground, and without considering the other matters of criticism to which

Mr. Nadaraja referred, we set aside the decision of the Native Court. Mr. Nada-

raja has invited us to order a retrial, in accordance with section 67(1)(b)(ii) of the

Native Courts Law, 1956, and section 30 of the Federal Supreme Court Act, 1960,

5



and this is a case in which in the ordinary way we might well take such a course.

However, it has taken so long for the two successive appeals to be heard that the

appellants have already served nearly two-and-a-half years out of the sentences

of seven years' imprisonment imposed on them, and without laying down any rule

for the exercise of our discretion in the matter we do not propose in this case to

10



order a retrial. The judgment of the Court therefore is that the decision of the Na-

tive Court is set aside and the appellants are acquitted.

Appeal allowed.

15

LAWAL V. THE QUEEN

20 SALIMONU BOLATITO LAWAL

V

THE QUEEN

FEDERAL SUPREME COURT.

25



TAYLOR,



F.J.

BAIRAMIAN,



F.J.

COKER,



Ag. F.J.

5th April, 1963.

APPELLANT

RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. FSC 442/1962

30



Criminal Law - False pretences - Distinction between existing fact and promise -

Post-dated cheque on bank with which drawer has account - if cheque on

bank with which drawer has no account.

ISSUES:

35





1. Is a promise to pay at a future date (in form of a post-dated cheque) a false

pretence by itself, where the prornissor never intended to keep his promise.

2. Whether it is a false pretence to draw a cheque on a bank with which the drawer

has no account.

FACTS:

40





The appellant bought goods and gave a post-dated cheque on a bank in which

he had an account, and the cheque was dishonoured; he had not intended to keep

his promise. He was convicted on a charge of obtaining goods by false preten-

ces, the pretence alleged being that he represented the cheque to be a good and

valid order on the bank for the amount of the cheque and that he had authority to

45





draw a cheque for that amount; the trial Judge relied on

R.

v.

Richard Parker

(1837)

169 English Reports 1.

HELD:

1. When a person gives a post-dated cheque on the bank in which he has his

account for more than he has in his account, his cheque does not mean that

50





he has money at the bank, but that it will be paid when presented. In effect the

appellant was promising to pay on a future day and, although he did not intend

to keep his promise, such a promise by itself was not a false pretence -

R.

v.

Dent

39 Cr. App. R. 131.