CORAM

---

---

PARTIES

---

LEONARD DURU (AKA EMMANUEL OBIEZE) APPELLANTS

---

RESPONDENTS

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

SUMMARY OF FACT:
The Appellant was charged at the Lagos State High Court of Justice for the offences of conspiracy to obtain money by false pretense, obtaining money by false pretense, forgery and uttering false document. The basis of the evidence against the Appellant was that he acted with other persons to obtained various sum of money totaling up to $ 397,800 (Three Hundred and Ninety-Seven Thousand, Eight Hundred Dollar) from one Mr. Puchstein, a German, on the pretext that Mr. Puchstein’s Company, Deramic Company, would be awarded the contract to supply and install computers, printers and office equipment to Federal Ministry of Mines and Power. This was never awarded and the monies obtained by the Appellant from Mr. Puchstein were not returned. The Appellant rested his case on the Respondent’s case and at the close of trial, the Court below convicted and sentenced the Appellant to 10 years imprisonment. Unhappy with the decision of the Court below, the Appellant has appealed to the Court of Appeal.

---

HELD

---

Appeal Dismissed

---

ISSUES

---

Whether the Learned Trial Judge properly construed and applied the effect and purport of the decision of the Supreme Court in MICHEAL IJUAKA V. C.O.P. (1976) 6 & 7 SC, PG.99 @ PP.102 – 105, in the Judgment of the Lower Court, which convicted the Appellant for the commission of the offences in Counts 1, 5, 6, 15, & 16, the Respondent having failed to establish at the trial, that the operative influence on the mind of PW2, adduced in evidence at the trial, was the same as that stated in Counts 1, 5, 6, 15 & 16 of the Amended Charge? Whether the Learned Trial Judge having expressed a desire to impose the minimum sentence imposed by law on the Appellant, erred, by imposing a sentence of 10 years imprisonment provided under a repealed law on the Appellant, for the offences in Counts 1, 5, 6, 15 & 16, despite the existence of a law in force, at the time of conviction, which provided a minimum sentence of seven years imprisonment Whether the Learned Trial Judge erred in law in convicting the Appellant for the offences of Forgery and Uttering in Counts 31 & 32, in view of the failure to establish same against the Appellant by the Respondent at the trial? Whether the Learned Trial Judge properly evaluated the evidence adduced at the trial with respect to the offences for which the Lower Court convicted the Appellant in Counts 1, 5, 6, 15, 16, 31 & 32, appealed against herein by the Appellant?

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

CRIMINAL TRIAL – DETERMINATION OF THE LAW GOVERNING A CASE AT TRIAL

---

“It is settled law that it is the substantive law in force at the time the event or crime or cause of action arose that governs the case at the trial of the action, because there is no vested right in procedure, unlike substantive law where there is vested right vide Owata and Ors. v. Anyigor and Ors. (1995) 2 NWLR (pt.276) 380.”

---

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE – POSITION OF THE LAW ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN ABSENCE OF DIRECT EVIDENCE

---

“Circumstantial evidence is often the best evidence where direct evidence is lacking, especially in sophisticated criminal ventures like the one in hand. See for example the case of Felicia Akinbisade v. State (2006) 17 NWLR (pt.1007) 184 at 203 as follows –
“There is overwhelming evidence that the appellant operated the fraudulent account. How could she have done this without knowledge of the existence of the account? I entirely agree with the learned trial Judge that if the appellant did not open the account personally, she must have aided, counselled or procured someone to open the account and that brings her in terms with section 7 of the Criminal Code of Ogun State. It is not in all cases that absence of evidence of handwriting expert is prejudicial to the case of the prosecution. While such evidence could be a desideratum in some cases, it is not invariably so. Where there is a very strong connecting link between the accused and the document to the extent that the circumstances zero on the commission of the offence by the accused, the court is entitled to draw the inference circumstantially that the accused was the author of the document and therefore the author of the crime. It is because our adjectival law realises that it is not in all cases that direct evidence of an eye witness is possible that the law has carved out a niche to assimilate or accommodate circumstances surrounding the commission of an offence; a position which leads to the admission or admissibility of circumstantial evidence.” (My emphasis).”

---

JUDGMENT- CONTENT OF A GOOD JUDGMENT

---

“The judgment therefore contained the summary of the evidence, the point(s) for determination, the reasons for determination and the reasons for the decision or conclusion which made it a good judgment in a criminal trial. I do not fault the judgment. With the said proper evaluation of the evidence the court below undoubtedly discharged the onerous primary duty of appraising/assessing the evidence in the rather laborious case which has left no room for me to intervene in the assessment of the evidence in question. See Omogodo v. State (1981) 5 SC 5, Udedibia v. State (1976) 11 SC 133, Obidike v. State (2014) 10 NWLR (pt.1414) 53, Akinbisade v. State (supra) at 211.”

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Advance Fee Fraud and Other Related Offences Act, No. 13 of 1995 as amended

Advanced Fee Fraud and Other Related Offences Act, 2006 (Act of 2006)

Interpretation Act 1990

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT