–
REX
V.
STEPHEN OZEKWE OBIASE
WEST AFRICAN COURT OF APPEAL HOLDEN AT LAGOS, NIGERIA
7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 1938
2PLR/1938/49 (WACA)
OTHER CITATION(S)
2PLR/1938/49 (WACA)
(1938) IV WACA 16-17
LEX (1938) – IV WACA PP. 16-17
BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS:
DONALD KINGDON, C.J., NIGERIA
BUTLER LLOYD, J.
CAREY, J.
–
BETWEEN:
REX — Respondent
AND
STEPHEN OZEKWE OBIASE — Appellant
–
ORIGINATING COURT(S)
APPEAL FROM CONVICTION BY HIGH COURT
–
REPRESENTATION
A. Soetan — for Appellant
C. N. S. Pollard — for Crown
–
ISSUE(S) FROM THE CAUSE(S) OF ACTION
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE — PROOF OF CRIME:- Unlawful Possession of counterfeit coins contrary to section 150A of the Criminal Code — Onus of Proof — When would be deemed discharged
–
DECISION OF THE WEST AFRICAN COURT OF APPEAL
Held:
1. Although the section casts onus on accused once possession is proved, the onus remains on Crown to prove conclusively such possession. That is to say the prosecution must prove facts which are not capable of any other reasonable explanation than that the coins were in accused’s possession, that is to say in the present case that the coins found in accused’s house were there with his guilty knowledge.
2. There is in this case no one fact or combination of facts which conclusively negatives the alternative possibility that the coins were in accused’s house unknown to him, having been “planted” there by someone else. There is nothing conclusively inconsistent with the appellant’s innocence. For these reasons we think that it is unsafe to convict in such a case as this.
Appeal allowed and conviction quashed.
–
–
MAIN JUDGMENT
The following joint judgment was delivered:
KINGDON, C.J., NIGERIA, BUTLER LLOYD AND CAREY, JJ.
This is a case where the appellant was convicted in the High Court of the Enugu-Onitsha Division of having in his possession thirteen counterfeit shillings without lawful authority or excuse contra. section 1504 of the Criminal Code. The evidence against him was that when his house was searched, under a warrant, for illicit liquor these coins were found in a tin on a wall of the house a wall to which access could be obtained either from within or without the house. His defence was that the coins were “planted” by an enemy. The case is somewhat similar to that of Rex v. Ogugu Onuoha* where this Court in giving its reason on the 4th November, 1936, for quashing the conviction pointed out that when an Appeal Court is asked to quash a conviction on the ground that it cannot be supported having regard to the evidence every case must depend on its own particular circumstances.
In the present case, under the new section 150A, although once possession is proved the onus is cast upon the accused to prove lawful authority or excuse, the onus still remains upon the prosecution to give conclusive evidence of possession.