THE STATE V. AIYEOLA & ANOR

• Pages: 287-292

287



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[19691 N.S.C.C.

(1)

that the appeal against the decision of the lkeja High Court dated 23/1/67 in

Suit IK/73166 with respect to liability be dismissed.

(2)

that the appeal against the amount of damages awarded be allowed and

that the order of the said High Court in that respect including the order for

5



costs and is hereby set aside;

(3)

that the plaintiff be and is hereby awarded £241 as special damages and

£5,000 as general damages with costs assessed at 200 guineas, and this

will be the judgement of the Court; and

(4)

that the defendant/appellant be and is hereby awarded costs of this appeal

10



assessed at 10 guineas.

Appeal allowed in part.

15



THE STATE V. AIYEOLA & ANOR

THE STATE



RESPONDENT

20



V

1.

OLASENI AKINYEMI AIYEOLA



ACCUSED

2.

LAZARUS CHIKU OKAKWE DIKE

IN RE: 0. A. AIYEOLA



1ST ACCUSED/APPELLANT

SUIT NO. SC 25/1969

25

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

ADEMOLA,



C.J.N.

MADARIKAN,



J.S.C.

FATAI-WILLIAMS,



Ag. J.S.C.

18th July, 1969.

30

Criminal Law - Conspiracy and Stealing - Recent possession by lawyer of land

Certificate - Meaning of "recent" in S.148(a) of Evidence Act - One month

in circumstances was recent - Circumstances showed land certificate had been

stolen.

35

ISSUES:

1.

In considering the doctrine of recent possession is it necessary to consider the

nature of the property stolen?

2.

Does the disappearance of a certificate from the Lands Registry necessarily

40



mean that it was stolen by the person in whose possession it was later

discovered?

FACTS:

The accused persons were charged with conspiracy to commit felony contrary

to section 516 of the Criminal Code, stealing contrary to Section 390(4) of the said

45



code and attempt to commit felony contrary to S.509 of the said Code. The felony

being that of obtaining money by false pretences and also the theft of a Land Cer-

tificate. The trial Judge convicted both accused on the 1st count, convicted only

the appellant on the 2nd Count and found him not guilty on the 3rd count. The ap-

pellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

50

HELD:

1. With regard to the theft of the Certificate, the Supreme Court was of the view,

bearing in mind the testimony relating to its disappearance from the Lands

Registry which the trial Judge accepted and the appellant's explanation as to

how he came into possession of it which the Court categorically rejected, that