In the High Court of Lagos State in the Ikeja Judicial Division holden at High Court No 32, Family and Probate Division Ikeja on June 16, 2011 before Hon Justice Joseph? Oyewole ?
?? ???? ???? Suit No: ID/111c/2008
Federal Republic of Nigeria…Complainant
And
1. Ifeanyi Paddy Eke???? )???????
? ?
2. Black Berry Nig. Ltd)……….Defendants
In a criminal trial, for evidence to warrant or shore up conviction, it must exclude beyond all reasonable doubt every other conceivable imaginable state of affair other than that of the guilt of the defendant as he shall be entitled to acquittal of crime charged if conclusion for conviction is not the only reasonable interpretation of which the facts adduced against him are susceptible.
So held by a Judge of a Lagos High Court in Ikeja, Justice Joseph Oyewole, in his judgment delivered while finding the defendants guilty as charged on each of the two-count charge and sentencing them? accordingly.
The fact of the case is that the defendants were arraigned before this court on? May 6, 2009 on a two- count charge to which they both pleaded ‘not guilty’.
The said charge was subsequently amended and the defendants maintained their pleas of not guilty.
The amended count dated?? March 9, 2010 is hereby reproduced in full as follows:
Statement of offence 1st count
Issuance of dishonoured? cheques contrary to Section 1 (1) (b) and Section 2 of the Dishonoured Cheques (offences) Act Cap D11, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.
Particulars of offence
Ifeanyi Paddy Eke and Blackberry Nigeria Limited, on April 9,? 2008 at Apapa? with intent to defraud, issued a United Mortgage Ltd/Diamond Bank Cheque No 51 dated? July 9, 2008 for the sum of N255m to Petrostar Nigeria Limited which when presented for payment on July 10, 2008 was dishonoured on the ground that the account on which the cheque was drawn did not contain sufficient funds.
Statement of offence -2nd count
Stealing contrary to Section 390 (8) (b) and (9) of the Criminal Code Laws Cap C17 Volume 2, Laws of Lagos State of Nigeria, 2003.
Particulars of offence
Ifeanyi Paddy Eke and Blackberry Nigeria Limited, sometime in May, 2007 within the Ikeja Judicial Division, with intent to defraud did fraudulently convert to your own personal use the sum of N255m property of Petrostar Nigeria Limited.
At the trial, 15 witnesses testified for the prosecution while the 1st defendant testified for the defence from the witness box.
As in all criminal cases onus of proof is on the prosecution as the defendants are pursuant to section 36 (5) of the 1999 Constitution presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Proof beyond reasonable doubt is proof that precludes every reasonable hypothesis except that which it tends to support and it is proof, which is wholly consistent with the guilt of the defendant and inconsistent with any other rational conclusion.
?
It must however be noted that proof beyond reasonable doubt is not proof beyond any shadow of doubt. The degree of proof that would amount to reasonable doubt need not reach certainty, but it will carry a high degree of probability. Once the ingredients of the particular offence the defendant is charged with, are proved, that constitutes proof beyond reasonable doubt. For the defendant to be entitled to the benefit of doubt, the doubt must be a genuine and reasonable one arising from some evidence before the court.
At this stage, it is apposite to point out that none of the prosecution witnesses was discredited under cross-examination. Of the 15 witnesses, only PW1 was subjected to the most rigorous cross-examination but his credit was not shaken. I shall therefore accord the testimonies of these witnesses necessary evidential value subject to the legal elements or ingredients of the particular offence involved.
The court before coming to a conclusion on the guilt of a defendant must consider all the possible defences open to the defendant and as such each of these defences will be examined in toto.
The defendants by the evidence of the 1st defendant were supposedly expecting funds from two sources, the scrap steel consignment and the police housing project.
The 1st defendant did not testify that he was forced or coerced into writing exhibit P15 and he certainly did not state that he was coerced into diverting the sums he stated before the Court that he diverted.
From exhibit P4, he indicated that he was unlikely to meet up with his expectations but where he had neither paid the sums covered by the cheque in full or in part, it will not come within precincts of reasonability to preclude the operatives of
In the circumstances, I hold that the prosecution has established this count 1 beyond reasonable doubt and considering the direct roles played by the 1st defendant in the transaction, I accordingly find each of the defendants guilty as charged on this count.
I shall now proceed to count 2 of stealing contrary to Section 390 (8) (b) and (9) of the Criminal Code Laws Cap C17 Volume 2, Laws of Lagos State of Nigeria, 2003.
The defendants here pleaded to the charge here in full understanding to the Counts including the allegation of stealing and contested the trial in the full understanding thereof. The learned defence counsel even in his address knew the substance of the allegations the defendants were facing, he did not argue his objection in the alternative but proceeded to fully address the substance of the allegation of stealing in his address in the same manner the 1st defendant did so on oath before the court.
The court is therefore not left in any doubt that the defendants were in full understanding of the substance of the count 2 of stealing herein and contested the trial in the said full understanding.
I therefore hold that the contention of the learned defence counsel in this regard is devoid of merit and it is accordingly rejected.
I shall now proceed to the substance of the said count of stealing contrary to Section 390 (8) (b) and (9) of the Criminal Code Laws Cap C17 Volume 2, Laws of Lagos State of Nigeria, 2003.
In exhibit P4, P16 and on oath before the Court the defendants acknowledged diverting N255 million of this sum and applying the said money for their own purposes. The diversion was done without prior notice to the owner, Petrostar and was perpetually covered up by various tissues of lies. The 1st defendant personally collected a substantial part of this money as evident from the testimony of PW4 and exhibit P7.
This diversion is to say the least fraudulent and the mindset of the 1st defendant in exhibiting total lack of regard for due process supports the conclusion on the fraudulent intention of the defendants.
Years after the transaction, when asked the location of the sum of N255 million belonging to Petrostar, the 1st defendant on oath under cross examination stated before the Court that it was on its way to the account of the 2nd defendant. This confirms an intention by the defendants to permanently deprive the owner Petrostar of the said money.
I reject the contention of the learned defence counsel that the transaction here is civil. In view of the unclear circumstances surrounding the issue of the alleged bribe, I shall refrain from commenting on it.
That notwithstanding, from the overwhelming evidence adduced by the prosecution including the far reaching admissions made by the defendants on oath before the Court, I hold that Count 2 of stealing has been proved beyond reasonable doubt against the defendants and I find each of the defendants guilty as charged on the said Count 2.
In the entire circumstances of this case therefore I hold that the prosecution has proved each of the 2 counts herein beyond reasonable doubt against each of the defendants.
I find each of the defendants guilty as charged on each of the two counts alleged against them herein and I hereby convict each of them on each of the said 2 counts accordingly.
?