CORAM

---

---

PARTIES

---

SOLOMON MAKEN APPELLANTS

---

FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA RESPONDENTS

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

In 2009, Coscharis Motors Ltd. and Justice Multi- Purpose Co – operative Society Ltd. entered into a contract for the supply of 1846 units of TVS motorcycles for the purpose of distributing same to members of the society, who comprise the staff of the Adamawa State Judiciary and that their salaries would be directly debited in favour of Coscharis Motors Ltd., which contract was guaranteed by the Adamawa State Judiciary. The total cost of the motorcycles supplied is N240, 000,000. The parties agreed that payment for the motorcycles supplied would be made over eighteen (18) months period. Upon receipt of the letter of offer for the motorcycles from the co-operative society and a Guarantee, the Company supplied the motorcycles to the society but the Co-operative society could not make full payment for it within the agreed period. This informed the action of one Benjamin Ibe, a staff of Coscharis Company to retrieve 600 units of motorcycles from the Appellant, who was the Chairman of the Co-operative. It was discovered that the said motorcycles were distributed to parties other than the staff of Adamawa State judiciary or were they in the employ of the Adamawa State Government, making it impossible to recover payment for the TVS motorcycles supplied. Coscharis Motors Ltd. at the High Court of Lagos State subsequently filed a suit, wherein the account of the Adamawa State Government, who acted as the guarantor of the loan was garnisheed and a recovery of N218, 000,000.00 was made in favour of Coscharis. It also reported the matter to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), which afterwards arraigned the Appellant along with three others at the Federal High Court, holden at Yola on an amended charge for the offences of Conspiracy to obtain goods by false pretence and obtaining goods by false pretence contrary to Sections 8 (a) and 1 (3) and Section 1(1)(a) and punishable under Section 1(3) of the Advance Fee Fraud and other Related offences Act, 2006 respectively; to which the Appellant pleaded not guilty to both charges. During the trial, the Respondent called witnesses to prove the offences against the Appellant while the Appellant in his defence denied obtaining motorcycles by false pretence. According to him sometimes in 2009, one Benjamin Ibe came to them on behalf of Coscharis Motors and advertised the Motorcycles. After negotiations, a letter of offer was given to the said Benjamin Ibe and 1,846 motorcycles were supplied. Deductions were made from salaries of beneficiaries of the motorcycles who were civil servants from source and remitted to Coscharis Motors. Those who were not Civil Servants refused to pay. The Cooperative Society instituted actions against some of them in the High Court and obtained judgments against some of them. At the end of trial, the Appellant with his co accused was found guilty, convicted and sentenced to a prison term of seven years on both counts without an option of fine; both sentences are to run concurrently. Dissatisfied with the decision of the trial court, the Appellant filed an appeal before this court contending that the failure to remit or pay the agreed contractual sum as agreed by the parties in the contract for the supply of the motorcycles was simply a breach of contract.

---

HELD

---

Appeal Allowed

---

ISSUES

---

Whether the Respondent was able to prove the essential ingredients of the offences of conspiracy to obtain goods by false pretence and obtaining goods by false pretence beyond reasonable doubt against the Appellant.

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

PROOF OF THE OFFENCE OF CONSPIRACY AND OBTAINING BY FALSE PRETENCE – STANDARD OF PROVING THE OFFENCE OF CONSPIRACY AND OBTAINING BY FALSE PRETENCE

---

“It is trite that the offence of conspiracy and obtaining by false pretence against the Appellant must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Conspiracy is an agreement by two or more persons to do an unlawful act or to do a lawful act by unlawful means. See F.R.N. V. Umeh (2019) LPELR – 46801 SC”. –

---

OFFENCE OF FALSE PRETENCE – SECTION 1(1) (A) OF THE ADVANCE FEE FRAUD AND OTHER RELATED OFFENCES ACT, 2006

---

Section 1 (1) (a) provides: –
“1 (1) notwithstanding anything contained in any other enactment or law, any person who by false pretence, and with intent to defraud:
(a)Obtains from any other person in Nigeria or in any other country for himself or any other person;
(b)Induces any other person in Nigeria or in any other country to deliver to any person, or
(c)Obtains any property, whether or not the property is obtained or its delivery is induced through the medium of a contract induced by false pretence, commits an offence under this Act.
(2) A person who by false pretence and with intent to defraud, induces any other person in Nigeria or in any other country, to confer a benefit on him or any other person by doing or permitting a thing to be done on the understanding that the benefit has been or will be paid for commits an offence under this Act.”-

---

OFFENCE OF FALSE PRETENCE –INGREDIENTS A PROSECUTION MUST PROVE IN ESTABLISHING THE OFFENCE OF FALSE PRETENCE

---

“In order to establish the offence of false pretence the prosecution must prove: –
1) That there was a pretence,
2) That the pretence emanated from the accused
3) That it was false
4) That the accused person knew of its falsity or did not believe its truthfulness
5) That there was intention to defraud
6) That the thing is capable of being stolen
7) That the accused person induced the owner to transfer his whole interest in the property.
See F.R.N. V. Amah (2016) All F.W.L.R. (Part 818) 889 at 906 Paragraphs C-E –

---

CASES CITED

---

Not Available

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Advance Fee Fraud and other Related Offences Act, 2006 Court of Appeal Rules, 2016

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT

---