OGBOZOR V IGP

• Pages: 6-9

6



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1964] N.S.C.C.

Appeal dismissed.

OGBOZOR V. I.G.P.



5

MALACHY OGBOZOR



APPELLANT

V



10

INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE



RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. FSC 320/1963

FEDERAL SUPREME COURT.

ADEMOLA,



C.J.N.

BRETT,



J.S.C.



15

BAIRAMIAN,



J.S.C.

23rd January, 1964

Criminal Law - Counts of (a) Conspiracy and (b) stealing - Acquittal of stealing

on technical ground - Evidence sustaining conviction for conspiracy - Criminal



20

Law - Defendant not giving evidence - Co-defendant testifying and incriminating

defendant - Other evidence sufficient to support conviction.

ISSUES:

1.

Whether an appeal court which quashes a conviction of stealing should also



25

quash a conviction of conspiracy to commit the offence.

2.

Whether evidence that a bank clerk repeatedly withdrew money on uncleared

cheques, is evidence without more, of conspiracy between him and the

presenter of the cheques to steal from the bank.

FACTS



30

The defendant was a ledger clerk in a bank in which he had an account; from

time to time the co-defendant (who did not appeal) gave him cheques drawn on

other banks, and he at once withdrew the money on each and every cheque with-

out waiting for the cheque to come back cleared. The co-defendant had not the

money to draw upon or authority to overdraw, and every cheque came back dis-



35

honoured and was passed to the defendant to enter as such. They were charged

(a) in one count with conspiracy to defraud the bank and (b) in another count, with

stealing the total amount of the cheques used over a period mentioned in the count;

the magistrate convicted on both counts. The defendant gave no evidence, the

co-defendant gave evidence admitting the conspiracy. No officers of the other



40

banks on which the cheques were drawn were called to testify that they were sent

back dishonoured.

On appeal to the High Court the conviction for stealing was set aside on the

ground of duplicity, but that for conspiracy was affirmed as there was ample evi-

dence of it.



45

HELD:

1.

Although the conviction for stealing was quashed, the High Court acted properly

in considering whether there was evidence to sustain that of conspiracy.

2.

The cheques were sent and came back dishonoured in the ordinary course of

business, and the defendant knew his bank was losing money on one cheque



50

after another, there was no need to call officers of the other banks on which

the cheques were drawn.