CORAM

---

UDOMA, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

OKAY ACHIKE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

OBASEKI, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

---

PARTIES

---

GREGORY GODWIN DABOH

JOSEPH N. MORDI

APPELLANTS 

---

THE STATE

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

CRIMINAL LAW-FELONY-INDUCEMENT BY FALSE PRETENCES

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The appellants in conspiracy wrote to the Registrar of Insurance, Federal Ministry of Trade that the 1st appellant had complied with the requirements to be granted a license to operate as an insurer.

 

---

HELD

---

The court held that the appellants were guilty of conspiracy and felony of inducement by false pretences.

 

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether the learned trial judge was wrong in overruling the submission of no case to answer made on behalf of the 1st appellant

2. Whether the learned trial judge ought not to have discharged and acquitted the 1st appellant on the whole case because there was no iota of evidence of any agreement between the 1st and 2nd appellant to commit any offence

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

LEGAL IMPLICATION OF A NO-CASE SUBMISSION

---

“It is a well known rule of criminal practice that at the close of the case for the prosecution, a submission of no prima facie case to answer made on behalf of an accused person postulates one of two things or both of them at once; firstly, such submission postulates that there has been through out the trial no legally admissible evidence at all against the accused person on behalf of whom the submission has been made linking him in anyway with the commission of the offence with which he has been charged which would necessitate his being called upon for his defence. Secondly, that whatever evidence there was which might have linked the accused person with the offence has been so discredited that no reasonable court can be called upon to act on it as establishing criminal guilt in the accused person concerned. PER UDO UDOMA JSC

 

---

PROOF OF CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY

---

“Generally, where persons are charged with criminal conspiracy, it is usually required that the conspiracy as laid in the charge be also proved and that the persons charged be also proved to have been engaged in it. On the other hand, as it is not always easy to prove the actual agreement, courts usually consider it sufficient if it be established by evidence the circumstances from which the courts would consider it safe and reasonable to infer or presume the conspiracy the evidence against the appellants is enough to presume conspiracy in this case. PER UDO UDOMA JSC

 

---

CASES CITED

---

1. WAHABI OLUSANYA MUMUNI &13 ORS V. THE STATE (1975)6 SC 79

2. ADEBIYI MAJEKODUNMI V. THE QUEEN 14 WACA 64

3. MOMO MALICK V. R. LAGOS NO 119 OF 1953

4. REX V. PLUMMER (1902) 2 K. B 348

5. R V. SIMMONDS (1969) 1 QB 685

6. QUEEN V. AZU A OWOH & ORS (1962)1 ALL NLR

 

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

1. CRIMINAL CODE

2. INSURANCE COMPANIES ACT 1961

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT