BOLANLE ABEKE V THE STATE

CORAM

AYO GABRIEL IRIKEFE, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

PARTIES

BOLANLE ABEKE APPELLANTS

THE STATE

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The facts of this case are very simple and straight forward. The appellant, who is a contractor, is a close associate of PW2, one Ganiyu Ajayi. In the course of carrying out her trade, appellant secured a contract from the Ministry of Agriculture, Ogun State to build a house but later on ran out of funds and approached PW2 for a loan. PW2 lent appellant the sum of N2, 000.00 on 4/9/91 but appellant returned a week later for another loan of N2, 000.00 but PW2 could only afford N 1,300.00 which was handed over to the appellant with a request that the two transactions be documented. Appellant rather preferred to issue a post dated cheque to cover the two loans, which she did. The cheque was presented on 29/9/91 for payment but was later returned unpaid with the remark Return to Drawer. The matter was reported to the Police and the appellant was charged to Court for issuing a dishonoured cheque and was tried, convicted and sentenced.

HELD

APPEAL DISMISSED

ISSUES

Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right in affirming the decision of the trial court that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt in the circumstance of this case.

RATIONES DECIDENDI

BEFORE AN ACCUSED CAN BE CONVICTED THE PROSCUTION MUST PROVE THAT THE ACCUSED HAD MENS REA AND ACTUS REUS

“Any person who obtains credit for himself or any other person by means of a cheque that when presented for payment not later than three months after the date of the cheque is dishonoured on the ground that no funds or insufficient funds were standing to the credit of the drawer of the cheque in the bank on which the cheque was drawn shall be guilty of an offence.” I entirely agree with the appellant that to convict on the above subsection, the prosecution must prove that the accused had mens rea and actus reus. Put in common simple parlance, mens rea mean a guilty mind. And actus reus means a guilty act” PER OGUNTADE J.S.C

CONCEPT OF REASONABLE DOUBT

“Reasonable doubt is doubt founded on reason which is rational; devoid of sentiment, speculation or parochialism. The doubt should be real and not imaginative. The evidential burden is satisfied if a reasonable man is of the view that from the totality of the evidence before the court, the accused person committed the offence. The proof is not beyond all shadow of doubt. There could be shadows of doubt here and there but when the pendulum tilts towards and in favour of the fact that the accused person committed the offence, a court of law is entitled to convict even though there are shadows of doubt here and there” PER OGUNTADE, J.S.C

BEFORE AN ACCUSED CAN BE CONVICTED THE PROSCUTION MUST PROVE THAT THE ACCUSED HAD MENS REA AND ACTUS REUS

CASES CITED

FRICAN CONTINENTAL BANK LTD. CALABER VS JOSEPH AGBANYM 1960 FSC 267/1959 [1960] NSCC 12
Chindo Worldwide Ltd. v. Total (Nig.) Plc
Ibodo v. Enarofia, Aseimo v. Abraham
Chinwendu v. Mbamali.