The case of Lababedi & Absi v. The Queen (FSC 25/1958), decided on 11th March 1959 by the Federal Supreme Court of Nigeria, is a landmark authority on the interpretation of cheating by fraudulent device under Section 421 of the Criminal Code.
Facts of the Case in Lababedi v. The Queen (1959)
The first appellant, Lababedi, was a trader and general merchant trading under the name Lababedi & Company, with offices in Lagos and Manchester. The second appellant, Absi, was the Lagos Manager of the firm. Their business dealings involved importing textiles from Messrs. Lord & Company, Manchester.
In 1956, Nigerian Customs Authorities discovered that in three separate textile importations, the invoices presented for customs clearance declared lower values than the figures appearing in:
The company’s own books of account (Exhibit 1),
The invoices from Messrs. Lord & Company, andThe relevant bank documents.
The lower-valued invoices were prepared by Lababedi in Manchester “for customs purposes,” whereas the true invoices issued by Lord & Company reflected higher values.
This manipulation led to the payment of reduced customs duties. Following investigation, the appellants were charged with 10 counts of cheating, out of which they were acquitted on seven counts but convicted on three (Counts 4, 7, and 10).
Grounds of Appeal
The appellants appealed, arguing that:
1. The trial Judge erred in convicting them since there was no intention to defraud.
2. The learned Judge erred in holding that they were guilty of cheating as charged.
3. A fresh application was made to adduce new evidence, which the Court refused.
The main legal questions were:
Whether a false invoice or Customs Bill of Entry constituted a fraudulent device under Section 421 of the Criminal Code.
Whether there was sufficient inducement leading Customs to release the goods.
Court’s Analysis on 1. Fraudulent Device
The Court carefully examined the exhibits. In every instance, the values stated in Customs Bills of Entry and supporting invoices (Exhibits 4, 5, 6, 7, 2, etc.) were lower than the values in Lord & Company’s invoices and the appellants’ accounts.
This discrepancy clearly demonstrated falsification. Importantly, some false invoices even bore handwritten Arabic inscriptions from the first appellant to the second, openly admitting substitution of values and rebates not reflected in Lord & Company’s true invoices.
The Court rejected the argument that a false document could not constitute a fraudulent device, holding instead that:
“Such cases as R v Power and R v Hales show that a false document can be a fraudulent device and we so hold.”
Thus, by preparing false invoices, the appellants induced Customs to assess duty on understated values, which amounted to cheating under Section 421. See Criminal Law Note: The Offence Of Cheating In Nigeria (Section 421 Criminal Code and Penal Code (Section 325)
2. Inducement
The appellants argued that the inducement leading Customs to release the goods was the physical inspection of sample bales and not the invoices.
The Court dismissed this argument, clarifying that physical inspection was only confirmatory, while the
“Section 421 speaks of obtaining delivery by a fraudulent device. The appellants by presenting false invoices and false bills of entry induced the Customs not only to deliver the goods but also to accept less Customs Duty than ought to have been paid.”
The Court emphasized that it was immaterial whether the appellants, as owners, could have “stolen” their own goods. The offence lay in inducing Customs to part with goods and revenue under a fraudulent device.
Decision principles laid in Lababedi v. The Queen (1959)
False invoices and Bills of Entry are fraudulent devices within the meaning of Section 421.
The inducement was the payment of duty assessed on those false documents.
Intention to defraud was established through the deliberate substitution of values.
“A false document can be a fraudulent device.”
“The appellants by presenting false invoices and false bills of entry induced the Customs not only to deliver the goods but also to accept less Customs Duty than ought to have been paid.”
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeals of both appellants and affirmed their convictions for cheating.
Conclusion
The case of Lababedi & Absi v. The Queen (1959) remains an authoritative precedent on the interpretation of cheating by fraudulent device under Nigerian criminal law. It establishes that false documents, such as invoices and customs entries, qualify as fraudulent devices, and that the inducement to release goods arises once Customs relies on such documents to assess duty.