–
REX
V.
DAVID OSAIGBUDU OKADIKE
WEST AFRICAN COURT OF APPEAL HOLDEN AT LAGOS, NIGERIA
22ND DAY OF APRIL, 1941
2PLR/1941/31 (WACA)
–
OTHER CITATION(S)
2PLR/1941/31 (WACA)
(1941) VII WACA P. 26
LEX (1941) – VII WACA P. 26
BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS:
DONALD KINGDON, C.J., NIGERIA
PETRIDES, C.J., GOLD COAST
GRAHAM PAUL, C.J., SIERRA LEONE
–
BETWEEN:
REX – Respondent
AND
DAVID OSAIGBUDU OKADIKE – Appellant
–
ORIGINATING COURT(S)
BRACE, ASSISTANT JUDGE, IN THE ABA JUDICIAL DIVISION
–
REPRESENTATION
C.W. Reece — for Crown
Appellant not present
–
ISSUE(S) FROM THE CAUSE(S) OF ACTION
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE:- Conviction for preparation to coin gold and silver coin — Where evidence referred to pennies only — Question of use of W.A.C.A.’s discretion under section 11(2) of Ordinance No. 47 of 1933 — Proper decision for court to make where facts proved by section do not fit the law under which charge brought
–
DECISION OF THE WEST AFRICAN COURT OF APPEAL
Held:
The only possible section under the Criminal Code which comes near to fitting with the facts proved is section 154 (2), but counsel for the Crown has felt unable to ask us to record a conviction under that section for the reason that upon examination the exhibits do not appear to be adapted for making counterfeit nickel coins.
Appeal allowed, conviction quashed.
–
–
MAIN JUDGMENT
The following joint judgment was delivered:-
KINGDON, C.J., NIGERIA, PETRIDES, C.J., GOLD COAST, GRAHAM PAUL, C.J., SIERRA LEONE
The appeal was charged before Brace, Assistant Judge, in the Aba Judicial Division upon two counts one for “counterfeiting coin contra. section 147 Criminal Code” and the other for preparation for coining gold and silver coins contra. section 148(3)(c) Criminal Code.”
He was acquitted on the first count on the ground that there was “no evidence of making or beginning to make.”
But he was convicted upon the second count and sentenced to four years I.H.L. Both sections 147 and 148 refer only to “gold and silver coin”, an expression which by definition includes the coins of mixed metal of greater value than 1d current in Nigeria. But the whole of the evidence relates to the preparation for making pennies, there is no suggestion that the appellant or anyone else was thinking of making coins of a higher denomination. Therefore the conviction upon the second count cannot stand. We have carefully considered whether this is a case in which we should exercise our powers under section 11(2) of the West African Court of Appeal Ordinance and substitute a verdict of guilty of some other offence. The only possible section under the Criminal Code which comes near to fitting with the facts proved is section 154(2), but counsel for the Crown has felt unable to ask us to record a conviction under that section for the reason that upon examination the exhibits do not appear to be adapted for making counterfeit nickel coins.
The appeal is accordingly allowed, the conviction and sentence are quashed and it is ordered that a judgment and verdict of acquittal be entered, and the appellant discharged.
–