OBAJINMI KARIMU ALADE VS ATTORNEY-GENERAL (W.N) LADOSU AJADI AND M.L. OJEDELE
August 29, 2025IDIRISU YAHAYA VS THE STATE
August 29, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1967-01) Legalpedia 86177 (SC)
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Holden at Abuja
Fri Jan 27, 1967
Suit Number: SC 374/1966
CORAM
BRETT JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
AJEGBO JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
LEWIS JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
STEPHEN EBIRI AND ANOTHER
APPELLANTS
BOARD OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – BURDEN OF PROOF -THE CUSTOM AND EXCISE MANAGEMENT ACT-INDICTABLE OFFENCES
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellants were found in possession of imported cigarette lighters. They were summarily tried and convicted under the Customs and Excise Management Act.
HELD
The court held that their consent need not be sought before they can be tried by a magistrate and that the burden was on them to prove that they had paid duty or that there was no intent to defraud the government under the Act.
ISSUES
1 Whether the charge against the appellants was valid in that there was nothing to show it was sanctioned by the Board of customs and excise.
2 Whether the failure to seek the consent of the appellants before they were summarily tried vitiates the proceedings.
3 Whether the prosecution proved it case against the appellants
RATIONES DECIDENDI
PROOF OF APPROVAL OF A CHARGE
MEANING OF AN INDICTABLE OFFENCE UNDER S. 304 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT.
1. ‘Where, as in this case, an offence is declared to be punishable either on summary conviction or on indictment it is not an indictable offence for the purpose of section 304 of the Criminal Procedure Act and therefore consent of accused persons is not required.’ Per Brett J.S.C
PROOF OF INTENTION TO DEFRAUD THE GOVERNMENT BY NON PAYMENT OF IMPORT DUTY
2. ‘If a customs officer finds a person anywhere in Nigeria in possession of goods which are chargeable with import duty, the onus of proving either that the duty has been paid or that there was no intention to defraud the Government of any duty is cast upon the defendant.’ Per Brett J.S.C
CASES CITED
1. Ifeacho v. Board of Customs and Excise, S.C. 634/65, judgment delivered 9th June, 1966
2. Ejoh v. Police F.S.C. 417/62, judgment delivered 26th June, 1963
STATUTES REFERRED TO
1. The Customs and Excise Management Act
2. The Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Decree, 1966
