Citation: (1964) FSC 291/1963
Court: Supreme Court of Nigeria
Coram: Brett, J.S.C.; Taylor, J.S.C.; Bairamian, J.S.C.Date: 26th March, 1964
Relevant Law: Sections 331 and 346 of the Western Nigeria Criminal Code (corresponding to Sections 390 and 406 of the Federal Criminal Code).
The case of Commissioner of Police, Western Region v. Smart Ededey is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of Nigeria that clarified the meaning of “demanding with menaces with intent to steal” under the Nigerian Criminal Code. The Court addressed a crucial legal question—whether proof of an unsettled mind on the part of the complainant is necessary to establish the offence of demanding with menaces.
This decision not only set a vital precedent on the interpretation of criminal intimidation and extortion but also illustrated how threats or menaces, when made with intent to steal, constitute a felony under Nigerian law.
Facts of the Case C.O.P, Western Region v. Smart Ededey (1964)
The case began at the Sapele Magistrate’s Court where Smart Ededey, a police constable, was charged on two counts:
Count 1: Under Section 346 of the Western Nigeria Criminal Code (equivalent to Section 406 of the Federal Code), for Demanding Property with Menaces and intent to steal.
Count 2: Under Section 331 (equivalent to Section 390 of the Federal Code), for stealing £5 belonging to one Michael I. Ihegboro.
The prosecution alleged that on 2nd March, 1962, Ededey, while acting in his official capacity as a police constable, threatened to arrest Ihegboro for allegedly possessing Indian hemp unless he paid him £30. To avoid arrest and inconvenience, Ihegboro paid him £5, which Ededey received.
Findings of the Magistrate’s Court C.O.P, Western Region v. Smart Ededey (1964)
The trial magistrate found that:
The accused demanded money under threat of arrest.The complainant, out of fear and compulsion, paid £5 to avoid being arrested.
The magistrate rejected Ededey’s defence of alibi and fabrication.
Consequently, the accused was convicted on both counts.
The magistrate further stated that the threat “induced the complainant to part with his money” and that the accused had arranged circumstances leaving the complainant with “no other option but to pay up.”
Decision of the High Court (Warri Division)
Upon appeal, Ekeruche, J. of the Warri High Court upheld the factual findings but acquitted the accused on legal grounds. He relied heavily on Halsbury’s Laws of England (3rd Ed., Vol. 10, para. 1543), which suggests that menaces must be of such nature as to unsettle the mind of the victim and deprive them of free and voluntary action.
The High Court held that although Ededey made a threat and received payment, there was no evidence proving that the complainant’s mind was unsettled. The judge thus ruled that the offence of demanding with menaces was not made out.
Issue Before the Supreme Court Court C.O.P, Western Region v. Smart Ededey (1964)
The principal issue before the Supreme Court was:
Whether, to establish the offence of demanding with menaces and intent to steal, there must be proof that the complainant’s mind was actually unsettled by the threats.
Judgment of the Supreme Court Court C.O.P, Western Region v. Smart Ededey (1964)
Bairamian, J.S.C., delivering the lead judgment, disagreed with the High Court’s reasoning and held that the learned trial judge had misinterpreted the law.
The Supreme Court reinstated the conviction and clarified that the test for “menaces” under Section 406 of the Criminal Code is objective, not subjective.
“The test is whether the threats or words used were such as would naturally and reasonably operate on the mind of a reasonable person as to deprive him of the free and voluntary action of his mind.”
The Court explained that it is not necessary to prove that the complainant’s mind was in fact unsettled. What matters is whether the threats were serious enough that a reasonable person would feel compelled to comply.
Key Legal Principles & Ratios Established in this case.
1.Objective Test of Menace:The Supreme Court affirmed that the appropriate test is whether the threats would unsettle a reasonable person, not whether they actually unsettled the complainant.
Intention to Steal:The offence of demanding with menaces under Section 406 is complete once there is:
- A demand for something,
- Threats of injury or detriment, and
- Intent to steal.
Whether or not the complainant’s mind was unsettled is immaterial.
3.Nature of Threats:
Threats that are “calculated to deprive a person of reasonably sound and ordinarily firm mind of the free and voluntary action of his mind” are sufficient to amount to menaces.
“When a man, with intent to steal, threatens either to do violence or commit acts calculated to injure the property or character of another, it is a menace within the meaning of the section.”
4.Extortion by a Police Officer:
The Court condemned the abuse of police authority, holding that threats of false arrest or fabricated charges are classic examples of menaces.
“A threat by a policeman to arrest a man upon a fictitious charge is a menace within the plain meaning of the statute.”
Authorities Cited in support of court judgment in Supreme Court Court C.O.P, Western Region v. Smart Ededey (1964)
The Court drew from several English cases, including
R. v. Boyle and Merchant (1914) 3 K.B. 339R. v. Walton and Ogden (1863) 9 Cox C.C. 268
R. v. Bernhard (26 Cr. App. R. 137)
These authorities reinforce that demanding with menaces is based on the effect of the threats on a reasonable person, not the subjective feelings of the victim.
Final OrdersThe Supreme Court ordered:
The High Court’s decision of acquittal in Warri Suit No. W/67 Cr./1962 (20th February 1963) be set aside.
The conviction and sentence passed by the Sapele Magistrate’s Court on 29th August 1962 be restored.
The High Court should enforce this order, considering any time already served in prison.“The appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence are hereby restored.” in words of the Apex court.
FOR MORE CASE SUMMARY, USE THE SEARCH BAR.
The Offence of Stealing/Theft in Nigerian Legal Jurisprudence
Ingredients or Elements of the Offence of Stealing in Nigeria.