Larceny: Whether The Defence Of Bona fide Claim Of Right Will Avail Alleged Looters Of Covid19 Palliatives -By Ekenobi ThankGod Chinonso

Introduction

The recent #ENDSARS protests in Nigeria, which lasted 3 weeks, and which saw youths troop out in their thousands across different parts of Nigeria to protest against police brutality and extra Judicial killings of innocent citizens by men and officers of the Nigeria police, especially the defunct Special Anti Robbery Squad (SARS), has left behind remarkable impacts not only on the nation’s economy, it also left behind terrible scars and bitter stories for some individuals. Several properties belonging to the government were destroyed and raised down, these properties include Court buildings across different States i.e Lagos, Delta, Anambra, etc, Police Stations, BRT Buses belonging to the Lagos State government, etc. On the part of individuals, properties belonging to private individuals were equally destroyed, these properties include: Trucks conveying goods, cars belonging to private individual; taxis, Cars sampled at car stands, cars belonging to Protesters were also burnt. Shops, private TV Station, etc, were also raised down. The Campaign ended with series of lootings of warehouses where Covid19 Palliatives meant to be distributed to the masses to cushion the harsh impact of the Covid19 pandemic were hoarded by the government, and several items were carted away including bags of rice, garri, cartons of indomie, pharmaceutical equipments, etc. NYSC camps were also invaded and several properties including mattresses, were allegedly carted away by the rampaging youths. Sadly, private owned warehouses where not exempted as there were reported incidences of looting of private warehouses at Abuja and other parts of the country, and several goods carted away and some destroyed. Various States Governors have given ultimatum to alleged Looters Of their Covid19 Palliatives to return them, some of these Governors include those of Edo, Adamawa, Lagos, Ekiti; threatening to take decisive actions against those who fail to obey the order, infact the Governor of Adamawa State was reported to have threatened those who fail to comply, with revocation of their “R of O” and consequently, demolition of their houses. Meanwhile, a certain police Commissioner was also reported to have made it clear that merely returning the looted items may not save the Looters from prosecution, information also has it that some of the alleged Looters have been arrested across the country to be charged to court soon. This article will examine the offence of Larceny which they’ll most likely be charged for, the defence of bona fide claim of right, and end with the writer’s opinion as to whether the defence of bona fide claim of right will avail them.

Conceptual Clarifications:

     Larceny

Larceny (also known as theft or stealing): this has been defined as “the unlawful taking and carrying away of someone else’s tangible personal property with the intent to deprive the possessor of it permanently”¹ “Larceny is what most people think of as common theft – the taking of someone else’s property without the use of force”² it has equally been defined as “the unlawful taking of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it permanently”³. Larceny is a crime involving the unlawful taking or theft of the personal property of another person or business⁴. It can be in the form of ‘theft, stealing, robbery, pilfering, thieving, thievery, purloining, burglary, housebreaking, breaking and entering, appropriation, expropriation, misappropriation, lifting, filching, swiping, nicking, pinching, half-inching, blagging, and peculation’. The Criminal Code Act defines stealing (Larceny) under Section 383 (1) thus ” A person who fraudulently takes anything capable of being stolen, or fraudulently converts to his own use or to the use of any other person anything capable of being stolen, is said to steal that thing”. For the offence of Larceny to be established, Certain ingredients must be proved and until they are proved, no conviction can be successfully founded. These ingredients which must be present for an offence of Larceny to be founded are: 1. The unlawful taking and carrying away; 2. Of someone else’s property; 3. Without the consent of the owner; 4. and With the intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property⁵; 5. the property must be taken without a claim of right made in good faith; 6. The property must be taken dishonestly⁶ the two elements of Actus Reus and Mens Rea must co-exist for the offence of Larceny to be established. The Punishment for Larceny is imprisonment for upto 3 years, according to Section 390 of the Criminal Code.

The defences to a charge for Larceny are: 1. Mistake of fact (s.25, criminal code act).

2. Bona fide claim of right (s.23, criminal code act).
3. The Defence Of De Minimis Non Curat Lex (s.58, penal code act), etc.

 

Bona Claim of Right.

Bona fide claim of right is a combination of the Latin term ‘Bona fide’ and the English words ‘claim of right’.

Bona fide (also known as bona fidei) Is a Latin term for “of good faith” or in good faith” something made in good faith without; fraud or deceit; Sincere and genuine intent⁷. It is a standard of conduct expected of a person when engaging in any affair or transactions, it presupposes the existence of honest intent and purpose, and the absence of fraudulent, mendacious, malicious, or dubious intent⁸.

Claim on the other hand, has been defined as “the assertion of an existing right; any right to payment or to an equitable remedy, even if contingent or provisional; A demand for money, property, or a legal remedy to which one asserts a right”⁹.

Right is an interest, claim, or privilege to which one asserts ownership. Black’s Law Dictionary defines A Right as “that which is proper under the law, morality, or ethics; something that is due to a person by just claim, legal guarantee or moral principle; A power, privilege, or immunity secured to a person by law; A legally enforceable claim that another will do or will not do a given act; a recognized and protected interest the violation of which is a wrong; the interest, claim, or ownership that one has in tangible or intangible property”¹⁰.

 

The Defence of Bona fide claim of right:

As was defined by a learned Writer, “The Defence of Claim of Right Involves A Genuine Belief Held by An Accused That They Are Entitled to The Property Stolen; A genuine belief held by a person that they have a bona fide claim of right to certain money or property is a defence to any crime of which larceny is an element; The defence also extends to any person who takes the property on behalf of another, or in collaboration with another, whom they believe to have a bona fide claim of right to the money or property in question”¹¹.

The Court have elucidated the meaning of bona fide claim of right thus, “It is not ignorance of the criminal law which founds a claim of right, but ignorance of the civil law, because a claim of right is not a claim to freedom to act in a particular manner – to the absence of prohibition. It is a claim to an entitlement in or with respect to property which goes to establish the absence of mens rea. A claim of that sort is necessarily a claim to a private right arising under civil law: see Cooper v Phibbs.” Secondly, the claim must be made honestly, leading to the proposition expressed by Callaway JA in R v Lawrence that, although an honest claim “may be both unreasonable and unfounded”, if it is of that quality then the claim “is less likely to be believed or, more correctly, to engender a reasonable doubt”.

Thirdly, particular considerations arise where, fraud being inconsistent with a claim of right made in good faith to do the act complained of, that act has, as a necessary element of criminal liability, the quality of dishonesty according to ordinary notions”¹².

The scope of the defense of bona fide claim of right was expounded in the English case of R v Renee Julie Fuge¹³ which is the leading case on this principle,

“1. the claim of right must be one that involves a belief as to the right to property or money in the hands of another.

2. the claim must be genuinely, i.e., honestly held, it not being to the point whether it was well founded in fact or law or not.
3. while the belief does not have to be reasonable, a colourable pretence is insufficient.
4. the belief must be one of a legal entitlement to the property and not simply a moral entitlement: Bernhard and Harris v Harrison (1963) Crim LR 497;
5. the existence of such a claim when genuinely held, may constitute an answer to a crime in which the means used to take the property involved an assault, or the use of arms; the relevant issue being whether the accused had a genuine belief in the legal right to the property rather than a belief in a legal right to employ the means in question to recover it.
6. the claim of right is not confined to the specific property or banknotes which were once held by the claimant, but can also extend to cases where what is taken is their equivalent in value, of which Langham and Lopatta provide examples; although that may be qualified when, for example, the property is taken ostensibly under a claim of right to hold them by way of safekeeping, or as security for a loan, yet the actual intention was to sell them.
7. the claim of right must, however, extend to the entirety of the property or money taken. Such a claim does not provide any answer where the property or money taken intentionally goes beyond that to which the bona fide claim attaches: Astor v Hayes (1988) 38 A Crim R 219 at 222.
8. In the case of an offender charged as an accessory, what is relevant is the existence of a bona fide claim in the principal offender or offenders, since there can be no accessorial liability unless there has in fact been a foundational offence, and unless the person charged as an accessory, knowing of the essential facts which made what was done a crime, intentionally aided, abetted, counselled or procured those acts
9. It is for the Crown to negative a claim of right where it is sufficiently raised on the evidence, to the satisfaction of the jury, Astor v Hayes (1998) 38 A Crim R 219.

It is worthy of note that even the Nigerian Constitution, and our various Criminal statutes also afford an accused person the right to defend himself, and the courts are mandated to ensure that right is accorded such person in any criminal proceedings, and any defence the accused person chooses to rely on, no matter how stupid and unreasonable, must be given due and adequate consideration.

Furthermore, the criminal code act provides for the defence of bona fide claim of right in the following provisions: “ A person is not criminally responsible, as for an offence relating to property, for an act done or omitted to be done by him with respect to any property in the exercise of an honest claim of right and without intention to defraud”¹⁴. As has been stated by a learned Writer “A genuine belief held by a person that they have a bona fide claim of right to certain money or property is a defence to any crime of which larceny is an element. The defence also extends to any person who takes the property on behalf of another, or in collaboration with another, whom they believe to have a bona fide claim of right to the money or property in question”¹⁵. This is in accordance with the principle of fair hearing as guaranteed under the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, to the effect that “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations, including any question or determination by or against any government or authority, a person shall be entitled to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by a court or other tribunal established by law and constituted in such manner as to secure its independence and impartiality.”¹⁶. For a hearing to be adjudged fair, the defendant must be given adequate opportunity and facility to defend himself, and that includes the opportunity to explore any defence which he deems relevant to establishing his innocence¹⁷. It has been held that a defence of Boniface claim of right may be unfounded, the criminal code provides “A person who does or omits to do an act under an honest and reasonable, but mistaken, belief in the existence of any state of things, is not criminally responsible for the act or omission to any greater extent than if the real state of things had been such as he believed to exist.”¹⁸. However, the court is obliged to give same adequate consideration whenever an accused person raises it as a defence to a criminal trial. This defence is applicable to claims of interest in money and property, “property” has been defined to include “everything, animate or inanimate, capable or being the subject of ownership”¹⁹ . In the Case of Nwakire v C.O.P, (1992) LPELR-2097(SC), the appellant was charged before an Nnewi Magistrate Court, for removing 4 electricity poles and florescents mounted by one Albert Anachili, with whom he has a dispute over the land and which suit was still pending before the High Court, at the trial, the appellant raised a defense of bona fide claim of right under section 23 of the Criminal Code Laws of Eastern States 1963, the Magistrate Court rejected this defense, on appeal to the high Court, the judgment of the Magistrate Court was upheld, on further appeal to the Court of Appeal, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal by majority of 2 to 1 (Katsina-Alu and Oguntade J.C.A. with Uwaifo J.C.A dissenting), he further Appealed to the supreme Court which allowed the Appeal and held that the defence of bona fide claim of right availed the appellant, the Apex Court per Oguntade JSC, held “It is my view, after a full consideration of the authorities, that R. v. Clemens was wrongly decided. In my respectful view, once it is shown that an accused person has a bonafide claim of right the required mens rea is negatived. The extent of the damage done by him while it may be a factor to be taken into consideration in determining as a fact, whether his claim of right is honest or bona fide, cannot restore the mens rea that is already negatived by the finding that he had the honest belief that he had the right to do what he did. In view of this conclusion therefore I must hold that all Nigerian authorities that followed R. v. Clemens are wrongly decided”. His lordship went further so state “It is my humble view that what is required to be proved by an accused person under section 23 is his honest belief in his claim to the right to do what he is accused of doing, provided of course that what he did would have been lawful on the assumption that the right he claimed existed”.

On Whom Rests The Burden Of proof and rebuttal.

The burden of proving a bona fide claim of right rests on the accused who asserts a claim of right, to prove he actually acted under an honest belief of the existence of Certain rights which accrued to him in the money or property to which the charge relates. The defendant must establish sufficiently to the satisfaction of the Court the absence of fraudulent intent, malice, hatred, bad faith, and ill motive; there must be an honest belief of ownership right in the money or property (s.131(1) & s. 136(1), Evidence Act 2011). Only when the defendant establishes the existence of these attributes will the burden shift to the prosecution to rebut or negative the claim of right, by proving the absence of any reasonable ground to found such belief by the defendant, this must be done by proving through evidence that the defendant actually acted under fraudulent, dishonest intent and such must be proved beyond reasonable doubts²⁰.

The test for ascertaining a bona fide claim of right is a subjective one, to be ascertained from the mind of the accused, as has been stated by Oputa J. (as he then was),  in the case of Onwukwalonye & Anor. v. Commissioner of Police (1967) F.N.L.R, 44 at 48 the question to ask should be  ‘did there exist in the appellant’s mind an honest belief in the justice and legality of his action’

How to Successfully Raise the Defence of Bona fide Claim of Right:

There must be an honest belief in the existence of some legal (not moral) right in the property or money, in the hands of another²¹.

Such belief though need not be reasonable, must be genuine and honest, not fraudulent, mendacious or fallacious, and it may be founded either in law or fact²².

What is taken by the defendant to which he asserts a claim of right must however be proportionate to the money or property to which he claims. In other words, a defendant cannot lay claim to a car belonging to another worth over 2 million naira, as a lien for a fifty thousand naira debt allegedly owed him by that person²³.

Also, the claim must extend to the entire property claimed and not merely a fraction of it. The defendant must not take more than the value of the property covered in the claim.

An accessory will be exempted from criminal liability where a defence of bona fide claim of right is successfully raised, unless the accessory was aware of any illegality forming the foundation of act but nevertheless, aided, abetted, procured or counseled the defendant to carry on with the act.

The defence must be raised as early as possible, not later on in the trial, or on Appeal. A person who asserts a claim of right must raise the defence without unreasonable delay, failure to do so will deprive him the right to seek to rely on the defence later. In the case of BALA ATAGUBA v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (CA/A/90/C/08) [2011] NGSC 16, the appellant was charged before a Kogi State Magistrate Court and subsequently, convicted for criminal trespass and Mischief, contrary to s.348 and s.327 of the penal code law, he did not raise the defence of bona fide claim of right at the trial Court, on Appeal to High Court of Kogi State, he unsuccessfully tried to rely on the defence of bona fide claim of right without seeking leave of the high Court, on further Appeal to the Court of Appeal, the Appeal Court held that his failure to raise the defence at the trial Court, and subsequently, his failure to obtain leave of the high Court to argue same as a fresh issue, was very fatal to his defence.

 

Effect Of The Defence Of Bona fide Claim Of Right.

In the case of MR. CHRISTIAN SPIESS VS MR. JOB ONI (2016) SC 197/2013, the supreme Court per J.I Okoro, held “There is no doubt that both the Criminal Code and the Penal Code agree that once it is shown that an accused has a bona fide claim of right, the required mense rea is negatived. The extent of damage done by him, while it may be a factor to be taken into consideration in determining as a fact whether his claim of right is honest or bona fide, cannot restore the mease rea that is already negatived by the finding that he had the honest belief, the right to do what he did. See Ohonbamu V. COP (1990) 6 NWLR (pt. 155) 204”

Will the defence of Bona fide claim of right Avail Alleged Palliatives looters?

As has been stated earlier, for the defence of bona fide claim of right to avail a defendant, he must show a genuine and honest belief in the existence of a legal right over the money or property in the hands of another, belief in the existence of a moral right is not enough to establish a bona fide claim of right²⁴. The alleged Looters must have acted under an honest belief that they were entitled to these palliatives, considering the fact that these items were meant to be disbursed to the masses so as to cushion the negative impacts of the Covid19 pandemic and the attendant hunger and hardships it occasioned on the populace. The conduct of the government by hoarding these items for no just reasons, despite the hunger and horrendous hardship in the land was enough indication that they actually do not wish to distribute them to the real owners i.e the masses, for whose benefits these items were donated. Hence, it is the writer’s submission that the alleged Looters acted under an honest claim of right, considering the fact that these items actually belonged to them by right, it was unreasonable and malicious for the governments to have actually withheld them in the first place.

As has been Stated also, such belief need not be reasonable, mere belief in the existence of a legal right and entitlement to the subject matter suffices to establish the Defence of a bona fide claim of right. The mere belief by the masses that these items legally belonged to them suffices to actually exonerate the alleged Looters of any alleged fraudulent intent.

Whatever approach adopted by the accused in the taking of the property or money is immaterial, as the genuine belief in the existence of a right over such property will in most cases furnish a defense in justification of the means used in taking or attempting to take the property, more like the end justifying the means. In R. v. Skivington (1967) I All E.R. 483 the appellant stormed the offices of his employers and his wife’s on a Wednesday, with a knife and demanded for his wages and his wife’s wages, which he claimed he had her authority to collect. He pushed an assistant manager into an office where a safe was opened and there, amidst duress, the appellant was given two wage packets containing money. Though wages were not due until Friday. At his trial on a charge for offence of robbery with aggravation, contrary to section 23(1) of the Larceny Act, 1916, the appellant contended that he had an honest belief that he was entitled to the money. The the trial Judge directed the jury that before the appellant could maintain a defence to the charge, they must be satisfied that he had an honest belief that he was entitled to take the money in the way in which he took it. On an appeal against his conviction, it was held that an honest claim of right was a defence to robbery or any aggravated form of robbery, and it was unnecessary to establish that the accused must have had also honest belief that he was entitled to take the money in the way in which he did take it. Consequently, his appeal was allowed, and his conviction reversed. So therefore, the alleged Looters may be justified in breaking into the warehouses where these palliatives were stored, just by the existence of a mere belief that they were legally entitled to these palliatives stored therein, not by a belief that they were entitled to take it in the manner they adopted.

The items taken must not exceed those covered by the claim, hence the alleged Looters would be held guilty of larceny if they had carted away other items which to their knowledge, were not part of the palliatives. This would be the case for those who went beyond the precinct of their legal rights to criminally loot warehouses and stores which to their knowledge belonged to private individuals, and those who looted NYSC Camps and Court Buildings. Such conducts, exceeds the purlieu of their rights and so therefore, can not be justified under the defence of Bona fide claim of right.

It follows therefore that the defence of bona fide claim of right, may likely avail the alleged Looters in Court, considering the fact that their actions may have been prompted by the honest belief that they had a legal entitlement to these palliatives which were unreasonably and unjustifiably withheld from them by the government even at a time of serious hunger and hardships, at a time when the masses are struggling to survive no thanks to the long periods of lockdown, plus the harsh economic realities that followed. Of course You can not beat a child and expect the child not to cry! Likewise also, government can not hoard foods meant to be distributed to the masses at a time of serious hardships and hunger, and expect them to remain calm, civilized, and law abiding, starving to death while these palliatives waste away in the warehouses.

The defence of bona fide claim of right is also available to an accused, who asserts it for or on behalf of another²⁵. This would be the case where a person acted on the honest belief that a property belonged to another, such person may rely on the defence in Court to exonerate himself of any fraudulent or criminal intent.

It must however relate to a legal right which is already due and payable, and not an anticipatory right or a right which will accrue in future, for instance a right to a debt in the hand of another will only accrue when the debt is due and payable, not before the due date²⁶.

The defence can be made in relation to properties other than that to which the debt relate, the value of the property to which a lien is claimed must however be of equal proportion to the property to which the debt relate. In the case of R v Bowman²⁷ Bowman was charged for converting to his personal use a Toyota Land cruiser given to him as his official vehicle by his ex employer, he raised the defence of bona fide claim of right on the grounds that the company owed him monies he spent repairing a certain Chevrolet vehicle which he sold to the company, the purchase price of which also, the company has not paid. The Court held that he raised an honest claim of right, the Court observed the following:

“… Although a claim of right may arise with respect to dealing with a particular chattel, (for example R v Wade (1869) 11 Cox CC 549) there is no reason why the claim cannot be honestly though mistakenly made with respect to property, other than that which was first the matter in dispute. In this sense the only relevance of the dealings between the accused and the company with respect to the chevrolet truck is that in the mind of the accused, if his version is to be accepted, that created a debt which he believed he could enforce by some form of seizure of another chattel as security. An act with respect to property in the exercise of an honest claim of right need not necessarily be an act in respect of the property concerning which the alleged debt was incurred, any more than a writ of execution need relate only to the property, the purchase of which first created the debt. It is the exercise of the claim which occasions the act with respect to property; and if specific property is then taken, the person taking it is claiming a right in respect of that property peculiar to him; but it is the claim which is peculiar or special or particular to him, not necessarily the property. This can be illustrated by R v George (1890) NSWLR 373 where the accused demanded from the prosecutor one pound which he had lent him the day before. On the prosecutor saying that he had not got the pound, the accused threatened him and then seized his watch, saying that when he gave him the pound he would give the watch back. He was charged with robbery. It was held that the proper question to leave to the jury was whether the accused took the watch in the honest belief that he was entitled to do so to secure repayment. Now, the watch was obviously not property which had any connection with the original debt, but the taking became an act with respect to property and the right claimed was a right relating to the property to which the charge related. See also R v Lopatta (1984) 35 SASR 101. In R v Langham (1984) 36 SASR 48 at 51 King C.J., referring to the defence of claim of right and commenting on R v Skivington (1967) 51 CAR 167 said, as to that case, “I think that properly understood, it is authority for the proposition that what is required is simply a genuine belief in the accused’s legal entitlement to the property taken and not necessarily to his right to take it, either in the particular way in which he has taken it or in any other way. I think the older authorities referred to in Skivington confirm that view.”²⁸.

In the Nigerian case of NWAKIRE V. C.O.P²⁹. the Nigerian supreme Court held  “Once an accused raises, by the evidence, a claim of right in an offence involving property with which he is charged, such as malicious damage to property, the burden is on the prosecution to prove the absence of a claim of right made in good faith because that defence negatives the requisite mens rea for malicious – or what is also known as wilful and unlawful – damage to property.”

Though the belief may be unfounded in law or in fact, however the mere honest belief in the defendant that he has a right to take such property is enough to negative an existence of a mens rea³⁰.

From the foregoing authorities therefore, it is obvious that the mere honest belief in the existence of a legal right over a property or money when successfully raised, is an answer to a charge of Larceny and as such, would work to exonerate the person charged, of any criminal liability. However, this defence must relate to some legal right arising either from statute, property, Marriage, contract, etc, for it to be sustainable,  moral rights which are not absolute in character, are not enough to establish a bona fide claim of right. It is therefore submitted that the defence of bona fide claim of right will avail those concerned with invasion of warehouses where Covid19 Palliatives were stored, and carting away the items stored therein.

Such defence may not however, avail those who went to the extreme; those who broke into and looted private shops and warehouses, as that is a clear case of larceny. It might also not avail those who invaded and looted NYSC Camps.

The defence might also not avail those who invaded, looted, desecrated, and burnt Court buildings, and police Stations at different parts of the country, as there is no justification for such heinous, irresponsible acts, those are clear case of arson.

Conclusion

Larceny as has been defined, is the act of stealing, or fraudulently taking properties or monies belonging to another, with the intent of permanently depriving the rightful owner of its enjoyment. The two elements of Actus Reus and Mens Rea must be present for the taking to be termed Larceny. We also examined the defences available under the Nigerian Criminal Laws, to a person charged for Larceny, and then specifically treated the Defence of Bona fide claim of right in details, citing authorities (both Nigerian and foreign authorities) to show how the defence might be relevant and applicable to those concerned with the charge for alleged Larceny. And then concluded by listing the cases exempted from this defence. It is the writer’s hope and optimism that these Nigerian masses who took the bold step in forcefully taking what rightfully belonged to them and which the governments have unreasonably, and unjustifiably withheld from them, would be given justice and not punished for forcefully taking what they’re legally entitled to. However, those who went to the extreme to deliberately destroy public facilities, and those who looted private owned shops and warehouses, should be dealt with in accordance with the law so as to serve a deterrent to others.

 

Authorities

1. Black’s Law Dictionary, BRYAN A. GARNER, tenth edition, p.1012.
2. https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/definition-of-larceny.html, (Updated, January 22 2019)> accessed on October 31 2020.
3. Merriam Webster online dictionary website, “Larceny”, available at < https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/larceny > accessed on October 31 2020.
4. Wikipedia Online website, “Larceny”, <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larceny> accessed on October 31 2020.
5. Unknown author, “definition of Larceny”, (Created on January 22 2019), <https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/definition-of-larceny.html> accessed on October 31 2020.
6. https://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/publications/benchbks/criminal/larceny.html> accessed on October 31 2020; see also, section 383(2), Criminal Code Act (Southern Nigeria).
7. Black’s Law Dictionary (Supra) p.210.
8. Alkali Ibrahim Ahmed (Barr), “Claim of right as a defence under the Nigerian Criminal Jurisprudence”, (Scribd website, uploaded on Jan 24 2011), < https://www.scribd.com/document/46862031/Claim-of-Right-as-a-Defence-Under-the-Nigerian-Criminal-Jurisprudence> accessed on November 1 2020.
9. Black’s Law Dictionary (Supra), p.301.
10. ibid, p.1517.
11. Unknown author, “CLAIM OF RIGHT”, <https://www.armstronglegal.com.au/criminal-law/defences/claim-of-right/> accessed on November 1 2020.
12. 11. Macleod v The Queen (2003) 214 CLR 230, Gleeson CJ, Gummow and Hayne JJ said at 243-244.
13. [2001] NSWCCA 208 at p.24, Wood CJ at CL ( Heydon JA and Sully J concurring).
14. Criminal Code Act (Applicable to Southern States), section 23; also, similar provision is also contained in section 45, Penal Code (Northern States).

15.https://www.armstronglegal.com.au/criminal-law/defences/claim-of-right/ > accessed on November 03 2020.

16. Section 36(1), Constitution of the federal republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).
17. ibid. S. 36(6)(b).
18. Criminal Code Act (Supra), S. 25.
19. ibid. S. 1.
20. Chris Nowlan, Claim of Right Defence R v Fuge (2001) 123 A Crim R 310, (PDF), p. 2; Lopatta at 108, Astor v Hayes (1998) 38 A Crim R 219; Youssef v R (1990) 50 A Crim R at 2; Kamara v. Director of Public Prosecutions (1973) 2 All ER 1242 at 1252 (per Lord Hailsham LC)
21. Harris v Harrison (1963) Crim LR 497;
22. Ufele and 4 Ors. v. Commissioner of Police (1973) 3 E.C.S.L.R. 42 at 44; Nguta & Ors. v. Commissioner of Police (1962) 6 E.N .L.R. 68; Iroaghan v. Commissioner of Police (1964) MNLR 48; Onwukwalonye v. Commissioner of Police (1967) FNLR 44; The State v. Anah & Ors. (1976) 6 ECSLR 21. Walden v Hensler; and Langham at 52-53; See also, sections 22, 25 Criminal Code Act, (Southern Nigeria).
23. Astor v Hayes (1988) 38 A Crim R 219 at 222.
24. Bernhard and Harris v Harrison (1963) Crim LR 497.
25. R v Williams (1836) 7 C & P 354; 173 ER 158.
26. R v Kastratovic (1985) 19 A Crim R 28 at 32-33, per King CJ.
27. R v Bowman (No2) [1987] NTSC 47; 49 NTR 48; 87 FLR 472.
28. ibid., Esche CJ, at pp. 21-24.
29. NWAKIRE V. C.O.P, (1992) LPELR-2097(SC), Per OGUNDARE, J.S.C. (P. 13, paras. B-C).
30. Dabierin v. State (1968) 1 All NLR 138.

 

About the Writer.

Ekenobi ThankGod Chinonso is a 200 level Student, at the faculty of Law, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, Nigeria. An astute writer, who has written several articles on diverse Areas of Law.

Phone/WhatsApp: 07067942565

Email: [email protected]

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ekenobi-thankgod-chinonso-a4a1821aa

DISCLAIMER:

The opinion contained herein is simply the writer’s own perspective, and may not necessarily reflect the true position of the law on the subject, you are advised to engage the advice of a professional, as the write-up above is not meant to substitute the need for professional advice, but to promote scholarship.