EBIRI AND ANOTHER VS BOARD OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE

Legalpedia 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