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