Under the doctrine of finder’s liability, what matters most is whether the finder of a lost item has taken reasonable and necessary steps to locate the actual owner. Where it can be shown that such efforts were promptly and diligently made, the finder may be shielded from criminal liability, as there would be no intent to permanently deprive the true owner — a key element required to establish the offence of stealing.
The position of Nigerian law on finder’s liability was clarified in the case of Solo v R (1961) R. & N. 847, where the court held that a finder of lost property would not be deemed to have fraudulently converted the item if, at the time of taking or using the property, he genuinely did not know the identity of the owner and reasonably believed that the owner could not be found.
In essence, a person may be absolved from the offence of stealing if it can be established that he honestly and reasonably believed that the property in question was abandoned. This principle formed the ratio in the case of v Vega (1938) 4 W.A.C.A. 8, where the accused had removed and used some corrugated iron sheets that belonged to the government. Although he was initially convicted of stealing, the appellate court quashed the conviction, holding that the accused had acted in good faith under a reasonable belief that the sheets were abandoned.
Hope this note and explaination was helpful? Don’t forget leave comment.
NEXT POST IS Criminal Law — Demanding Property with Menaces and Official Corruption Under Sections 406 and 98 of the Criminal Code, check it out.