OKEZIE V. THE QUEEN.

• Pages: 8-12

8



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1963] N.S.C.C.

These grounds of appeal must, therefore fail for the reasons set out above, and

the appeal is dismissed. I make no order as to Costs.

Ademola, C.J.F.

I concur.

Taylor, F.J.

I concur.

Brett, F.J.

I concur.



5

Appeal dismissed.

OKEZIE V. THE QUEEN.



10

ELIJAH OKEZIE



APPELLANT

V



15

THE QUEEN



RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. FSC 36/1962

FEDERAL SUPREME COURT.

ADEMOLA,



C.J.F.

BRETT,



F.J.



20

BAIRAMIAN,



F.J.

4th January, 1953.

Legislation - Federal Supreme Court Act, 1960, s.26(1) - Federal Supreme Court

Rules, 1961, Order 1/11, Rule 2.



25

Criminal Appeals - Distinction between Civil and Criminal Appeals on facts.

Criminal Law - Obtaining by False Pretences - Two pretences alleged - one,

only the inducement - Pretences distinct and divisible.



30

ISSUES:

1.

Where two false pretences are alleged in a count, can a trial Judge convict on

one which he finds to have operated on the complainant's mind?

2.

Whether the words "decision unreasonable



having regard to the weight of



35

evidence" are an appropriate ground in a criminal appeal.

FACTS:

The appellant was charged on a count of false pretences. The trial Judge

found:-

(1)

that the accused obtained £15 by falsely pretending that Ngwa County Coun-



40

cil demanded £30 as security for employing the complainant, and

(2)

that the accused lied in telling the complainant he would see him employed,

because the accused was not in a position to exert influence to secure him

the employment. He was convicted and appealed, complaining that two

false pretences were alleged in the count.



45

HELD:

The two pretences alleged were distinct and divisible; in the trial Judge's view

one of them operated on the mind of the complainant; and it was competent to the

Judge upon his view to convict on the count.

PER

CURIAM:



50

The words "weight of' (evidence), which are appropriate to a civil appeal on

facts, are not appropriate to a criminal appeal; the proper ground of appeal from

conviction is that the verdict "is unreasonable or cannot be supported having re-

gard to the evidence", in the sense that, unless there is some evidence to support