–
REX
V.
OKEREKE IREGBU
WEST AFRICAN COURT OF APPEAL HOLDEN AT LAGOS, NIGERIA
13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 1938
2PLR/1938/51 (WACA)
OTHER CITATION(S)
2PLR/1938/51 (WACA)
(1938) IV WACA PP. 32-33
LEX (1938) – IV WACA PP. 32-33
–
BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIP(S)
DONALD KINGDON, C.J., NIGERIA
BUTLER LLOYD, J.
CAREY, J.
–
BETWEEN:
REX — Respondent
AND
OKEREKE IREGBU — Appellant
–
ORIGINATING COURT(S)
APPEAL FROM CONVICTION BY HIGH COURT
–
REPRESENTATION
C. N. S. Pollard — for Crown
Appellant in person
–
ISSUE(S) FROM THE CAUSE(S) OF ACTION
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE — SLAVERY:- Slave dealing contrary to Section 369 of Criminal Code — Onus of proof on prosecution — Need to record age of person allegedly trafficked into slave when described as a child spouse — Presumption of court — When would be deemed valid as to supplement case of prosecutor
CHILDREN AND WOMEN LAW — SLAVERY:- Young person espoused to a man in marriage and given into his charge — Man unable to account for the whereabouts of the child-spouse — Whether court can validly presume slave trading without evidence
–
DECISION OF THE WEST AFRICAN COURT OF APPEAL
Held:
1. The trial judge’s statement that “I must presume also that this girl was taken or transferred by the accused to be held or treated as a slave” without any direct evidence to support the case is purely a presumption made by the Court that is not justified.
2. A Court can make a presumption of this nature when it is a presumption which must irresistibly be made from the evidence, i.e., when there is no other reasonable presumption which fits all the facts. That is not the case here. There are other possibilities which there is nothing to rebut.
3. The assumption that she has been sold as a slave is, in fact, only one of many which might be made to account for her disappearance.
4. No plea is recorded in the proceedings and that though the girl is spoken of as a child no evidence of her age is recorded.
Appeal allowed, conviction quashed, etc.
–
–
MAIN JUDGMENT
The following joint judgment was delivered:
KINGDON, C.J., NIGERIA, BUTLER LLOYD AND CAREY, JJ.
In this case the appellant was convicted of slave dealing contrary to section 369 of the Criminal Code.
Put shortly the case against him was that having arranged with the parents of a girl to marry her and having paid part dowry he was allowed to take her to Ikot-Ekpene. He returned without her and gave at least two untrue explanations of her non-return and she has never been found since.
After recording his disbelief of the appellant’s stories, the learned trial Judge finishes his judgment with the words
“I must presume also that this girl was taken or transferred by the accused to be held or treated as a slave.”
There is no direct evidence to support the case that the girl was taken or transferred to be held or treated as a slave. It is purely a presumption made by the Court, and we do not think it is justified.
A Court can make a presumption of this nature when it is a presumption which must irresistibly be made from the evidence, i.e., when there is no other reasonable presumption which fits all the facts.
That is not the case here. There are other possibilities which there is nothing to rebut. The facts, for instance, are equally consistent with the appellant having murdered the girl or again with the girl having been accidentally drowned, and the appellant being afraid to say so in case he should be charged with murder. The assumption that she has been sold as a slave is, in fact, only one of many which might be made to account for her disappearance.
For these reasons we think that the conviction cannot be upheld. We must point out also that no plea is recorded in the proceedings and that though the girl is spoken of as a child no evidence of her age is recorded.
The appeal is allowed, the conviction and sentence are quashed and it is directed that a judgment and verdict of acquittal be entered. The appellant is discharged.