JOSEPH JIDEOFOR ENWEZOR VS JOSEPH OKWUDILI ONYEJEKWE & ANOR
September 4, 2025GABRIEL SHOFOLAHAN JOSHUA VS THE QUEEN
September 4, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1964-01) Legalpedia 22072 (SC)
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Holden At Abuja
Thu Jan 16, 1964
Suit Number: SC 270/1963
CORAM
ADEMOLA, CHIEF JUSTICE NIGERIA
BAIRMIAN, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
BRETT, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
ADEMOLA CHIEF JUSTICE, NIGERIA
BAIRAMIAN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
BRETT JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
OLAYINKA FARO APPELLANTS
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
LAND LAW – CRIMINAL LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellant and some other persons had sold land to the complainants by falsely holding themselves out as the owner of the said piece of land
HELD
The court held that there is nothing obscure or uncertain about the charge as it stands, and in our view it was proved. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
ISSUES
Whether there was a difference in substance from the charge laid.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
ON HOW TO ASCERTAIN IF THERE IS A DIFFERENCE IN SUBSTANCE FROM A CHARGE LAID
It is well established that if there is a difference in substance between the pretence alleged in the charge and the pretence by means of which the property was obtained an accused person is entitled to be acquitted, and in deciding whether such a difference exists, what the Courts have to do is to compare the substance of the pretence alleged with that of the operative pretence. – BRETT, J.S.C
ON HOW TO ASCERTAIN IF THERE IS A DIFFERENCE IN SUBSTANCE FROM A CHARGE LAID
‘It is well established that if there is a difference in substance between the pretence alleged in the charge and the pretence by means of which the property was obtained an accused person is entitled to be acquitted, and in deciding whether such a difference exists, what the Courts have to do is to compare the substance of the pretence alleged with that of the operative pretence.’ – BRETT, J.S.C
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
