UGWU NWANKWO VS THE QUEEN PAGE| 1 - Legalpedia | The Complete Lawyer - Research | Productivity | Health

UGWU NWANKWO VS THE QUEEN PAGE| 1

HUNMUANI AJOKE VS AMUSA YESUFU OBA & ANOR
September 8, 2025
OKOLI OJIAKO AND ORS VS ONWUMA OGUEZE AND ORS
September 8, 2025
HUNMUANI AJOKE VS AMUSA YESUFU OBA & ANOR
September 8, 2025
OKOLI OJIAKO AND ORS VS ONWUMA OGUEZE AND ORS
September 8, 2025
Show all

UGWU NWANKWO VS THE QUEEN PAGE| 1

Legalpedia Citation: (1962-02) Legalpedia 70913 (SC)

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Holden at Lagos

Fri Feb 2, 1962

Suit Number: SC 244/1961

CORAM



PARTIES


APPELLANTS


RESPONDENTS


AREA(S) OF LAW


CRIMINAL LAW—CHARGES—INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES—DUPLICITY OF CHARGE—APPEAL

 

 


SUMMARY OF FACTS

The appellant, who was convicted on three counts, the three counts in question are No. 3, No. 4 and No. 5 of the informa-tion; they are counts of stealing contrary to section 390(6) of the Criminal Code. At Afikpo in Abakaliki Province being a clerk employed by the Afikpo District Council stole the sum of £80 property of the said Council.

 

 


HELD


Appeal dismissed

 

 


ISSUES


Not Available

 


RATIONES DECIDENDI


AN ACCUSED NEEDS SUFFICIENT NOTICE OF THE MATTERS WITH WHICH HE IS CHARGED


Where the nature of the offence is such that the particulars required by section 151 and subsections (1) to (3) of this section do not give the accused sufficient notice of the matter with which he is charged, the charge shall also contain such particulars of the manner in which the offence was committed as will be sufficient for that purpose. Per BAIRAMIAN F.J.

 

 


CASES CITED


1. R. v. Okorodudu, 12 W.A.C.A. 129

2. R. v. Ofoni 6 W.A.C.A., 1

3. R. v. Robertson, 25 Cr. App. R. 208;

4. R. v. Lawson, 36 Cr. App. R. 30; and

5. R. v. Tomlin, (1954) 2 Q.B. 274; 38 Cr. App. R.82.

6. Kwame Aboah, 14 W.A.C.A., 252

7. R. v. Lloyd Jones, 1838, 8 Car. & P. 288

8. R. v. Wolstenholme, 1869, 11 Cox 313

 

 


STATUTES REFERRED TO


1. The Criminal Procedure Act

2. The Larceny Act, 1861

3. The Criminal Procedure Ordinance

 

 


CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT 

Comments are closed.