–
REX
V.
IGBINOVIA
WEST AFRICAN COURT OF APPEAL HOLDEN AT LAGOS, NIGERIA
16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1936
2PLR/1936/57 (WACA)
OTHER CITATION(S)
2PLR/1936/57 (WACA)
(1936) III WACA P. 79
LEX (1936) – III WACA P. 79
BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS:
DONALD KINGDON, C.J., NIGERIA
PETRIDES, C.J., GOLD COAST
WEBBER, C.J., SIERRA LEONE
–
BETWEEN:
REX — Respondent
AND
IGBINOVIA — Appellant
–
REPRESENTATION
Appellant in person
Ivor Brace — for Crown
–
ISSUE(S) FROM THE CAUSE(S) OF ACTION
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE:- Appellant charged under section 148(3)(c) and section 152(3) of Criminal Code – Failure set out the particulars of the charge as to possession “without lawful authority or excuse.” – Failure to set out guilty knowledge and/or intent to utter as to second charge – How treated
–
DECISION OF THE WEST AFRICAN COURT OF APPEAL
Held (Appeal dismissed):
1. All the elements which go to make up the separate offences charged in the two counts were not set out in the particulars, and if the trial had been upon information, it would have been necessary to quash the convictions on the authority of Rex v. Harvey, II Cox 662.
2. This was a summary trial, and the same considerations do not apply. It is necessary however that the accused should have adequate notice of the charges made against him, and the Court is satisfied that in this case he had.
3. In trials generally, it is desirable that all the elements going to make up the offence should be set out in the charges, but in a summary trial an omission does not vitiate the trial provided the accused knows what he is charged with. On the merits the appellant was clearly guilty.
–
–
MAIN JUDGMENT
The following judgment was delivered: per KINGDON, C.J., NIGERIA.
In this case all the elements which go to make up the separate offences charged in the two counts were not set out in the particulars, and if the trial had been upon information, it would have been necessary to quash the convictions on the authority of Rex v. Harvey, II Cox 662.
But this was a summary trial, and the same considerations do not apply. It is necessary however that the accused should have adequate notice of the charges made against him, and the Court is satisfied that in this case he had. It is desirable that all the elements going to make up the offence should be set out in the charges, but in a summary trial an omission does not vitiate the trial provided the accused knows what he is charged with. On the merits the appellant was clearly guilty.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
–