KARIMU MABINUORI & ORS V. SAMUEL ONTI OGUNLOYE
August 29, 2025K. S. OKEAYA V. MADAM EKIOMADO AGUEBOR
August 29, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1970) Legalpedia (SC) 79351
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Thu Jan 29, 1970
Suit Number: SC 72/1970
CORAM
ADEMOLA, CHIEF JUSTICE, NIGERIA
LEWIS, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
UDOMA, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
GABRIEL OGUNDOWOLE APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellant, a police officer, told Mrs. Obebe that he suspected that she was selling smuggled goods. He seized her shop keys and took her to the police station where she was locked up. After her bail, the receipts for the goods were produced. Chief Superintendent of Police then told the appellant to release the keys to her which he did not until he had collected £100 bribe from her.
HELD
The Court dismissed the appeal of the appellant stating that an offence under section 406 of Criminal Code was clearly established and the appellant was rightly convicted.
ISSUES
Whether the learned trial judge erred in law in convicting the appellant when the facts found by him cannot support any of the offences for which the appellant was charged and tried.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
THE OBJECTIVE TEST IN DETERMINING THE PRESENCE OF THREAT IN THE CHARGE OF STEALING
In deciding whether a victim parted with his property by virtue of threats made out to him, the objective test should be applied. Could it be said that a reasonable man would voluntarily part with his property in the circumstances of this case but only under a threat? We have no doubt in our mind that it is difficult to lay down any principle without considering the circumstances. Every case must be decided on its own peculiar facts. Per Ademola, CJN
THE OBJECTIVE TEST IN DETERMINING THE PRESENCE OF THREAT IN THE CHARGE OF STEALING
In deciding whether a victim parted with his property by virtue of threats made out to him, the objective test should be applied. Could it be said that a reasonable man would voluntarily part with his property in the circumstances of this case but only under a threat? We have no doubt in our mind that it is difficult to lay down any principle without considering the circumstances. Every case must be decided on its own peculiar facts. Per Ademola, CJN<foo< p=””></foo<>
CASES CITED
Omotosho v. Police (1961) All N.L.R. 693
R. v. Clear (1968) 52 C. App. R. 58
Edo v. Commissioner of Police (1962) I All N.L.R. 92
Police v. Ededey (1966) N.M.L.R. 383; and (1964) 1 All N.L.R. 117
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Criminal Code
