DISTRICT OFFICER VS THE QUEEN
September 8, 2025ANYIAM GODWIN VS THE QUEEN
September 10, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1961-02) Legalpedia 13248 (SC)
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Holden at Lagos
Thu Feb 23, 1961
Suit Number: SC. 212/1960
CORAM
ADEMOLA, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
UNSWORTH , JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
APPELLANTS
THE QUEEN
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
CRIMINAL LAW – CHARGES
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellant was convicted for 53 distinct offences of stealing which were included in one count and tried as one offence together with conspiracy.
HELD
The court held that the charge was bad for duplicity and set aside the appellant’s conviction and sentence.
ISSUES
1. Whether the charge against the appellant was bad for duplicity
2. Whether the Learned Trial Judge properly directed his mind to the fact that he was trying 53 distinct offences which required separate consideration for purposes of evidence and judgment.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
DRAFTING CHARGES WITH MULTIPLE COUNTS
‘It is clear that 53 separate misappropriations on 53 separate occasions were being alleged by the prosecution, and these distinct offences should have formed the subject of separate counts in accordance with sections 156 and 339 of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance unless there is some express provision of law authorizing a departure from the rule.’ Per Unsworth F.J
CASES CITED
Not Available
STATUTES REFERRED TO
The Criminal Procedure Ordinance
