ONABAMIRO & ORS. V. THE STATE

• Pages: 77-87

ONABAMIRO & ORS. V. THE STATE



77

tice of Northern Nigeria agrees, he will be the commissioner. The inquiry should

take place in the presence of the appellant and his counsel as well as prosecuting

counsel and either party is at liberty to adduce evidence and address.

The appeal is adjourned pending the special commissioner's report.

5



Appeal adjourned pending special

commissioner's report.

10



ONABAMIRO & ORS. V. THE STATE

1. DR. S.D. ONABAMIRO

15 2. ADEBAYO ADEYINKA

3.

SAURA A. SANNI

4.

D.K. OLUMOFIN

5.

OKUOLA ADEBAYO

6.

N.A. KOTOYE

20 7. D.A. ODUBANJO

V

THE STATE

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

25



ADEMOLA,



C.J.N.

BRETT,



J.S.C.

COKER,



J.S.C.

30th March, 1968.

APPELLANTS

RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. SC 264/1967

30



Criminal Law - Stealing - Holum claim of right without intention to defraud -

Effect on necessary intent on charge of stealing - Criminal Code (W.N.), s.21

Criminal Law - Conversion - Test - Whether accused disposed of property or

35





any identifiable part of it for purposes which were not necessarily predominantly

but at least substantially, different from purposes for which grant was made

- Criminal Code W.N., s.324(4).

ISSUES:

40





1. Whether an honest claim of right without intention to defraud negatives the

necessary intent on a charge of stealing.

2. What test is to be applied in determining whether the offence of conversion has

been committed under s.324(4) of the Criminal Code

FACTS:

45





The seven appellants and eleven others were charged in the High Court of

Western Nigeria on an information containing sixteen counts. The first, second

and fourth to sixteenth counts charged one or more of the accused persons with

stealing a sum of money proper:y of the Western Nigeria Marketing Board and the

third count charged the 1st appellant, the then Minister for Agriculture in the West-

50





ern Region with comptly obtaining a consideration as an agent of the Board from

BEWAC Ltd when he obtained a discount of £500 on the purchase of landrovers

which sum he failed to pay to the Board. At the close of the case nine persons

were convicted of fraudulent conversion of one or more of the different amounts

mentioned in count one, four, six, eleven, thirteen, fourteen and fifteen.