Full Facts of the Case case of Rex v. R.S. Okorodudu(1947)
The appellant, R.S. Okorodudu, served as the Treasurer to the Jekri Native Administration, with exclusive custody of the Administration’s funds held in a safe, the key of which was solely in his possession. On 16th July 1946, the appellant handed over to a new Treasurer. According to the appellant’s Cash Book, he should have had £447 2s. 2d. in the safe; however, only £8 2s. 2d. was found, leaving a deficiency of £439.
Initially, the appellant was charged with stealing the total deficiency (£439), but at trial, the charge was amended to £75 10s. 7d. Evidence demonstrated that between 27th and 29th June 1946, the appellant had received four sums totaling £83 12s. 9d. The appellant had been in financial difficulty and had consulted a diviner to remedy his monetary problems. Despite previous shortages in the safe, he made no report of the loss. The trial judge inferred, based on these facts and the appellant’s sole access to the safe, that the appellant had converted the money to his own use.
Legal Issues in Rex v. R.S. Okorodudu(1947).
The appeal raised three primary grounds for consideration:
General Deficiency Argument:
Whether the case was one of “general deficiency” rather than specific theft.Proof of Specific Sum:
Whether a specific sum of money was proven to have been stolen.
Misdirection: Alleged misdirection by the trial judge (without specific particulars).
The appellant’s counsel argued that evidence only established a general deficiency in the funds, which under English law principles (as applied in Nigeria) is insufficient to support a conviction for embezzlement. They cited R. v. Ofoni (6 W.A.C.A. 1) and R. v. Nwagbani (8 W.A.C.A. 19), asserting that proof of a general shortage cannot substitute for proof of conversion of a specific sum.
Judicial Reasoning in Rex v. R.S. Okorodudu(1947)
The Court reviewed the principles governing larceny by a clerk or servant under Section 390(6) of the Criminal Code. It emphasized that:
Mere failure to pay over money, or a deficiency in accounts, does not automatically demonstrate conversion.
Conversion must relate to a specific amount at a particular date and place.
Evidence must establish misappropriation beyond mere negligence or accounting errors.
Applying these principles, the Court examined the facts:
The appellant received four identifiable sums totaling £83 12s. 9d.
Only £8 2s. 2d. was accounted for in the safe.The appellant had exclusive access to the safe and offered no explanation for the missing funds.
The appellant’s conduct consulting a diviner to address financial shortagessuggested possible intent to misappropriate funds.
The Court recognized the difficulty in proving conversion in cases involving clerks or servants, noting that a general shortage alone is insufficient, but concluded that the evidence here went beyond a mere deficiency.
The trial judge reasonably inferred that the appellant converted the four specific sums, or part thereof, to his own use.
HELD.
The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that:The trial judge did not err in inferring misappropriation of specific sums.
Evidence established that the appellant converted part or all of the identified amounts to his own use.
A conviction for stealing by a clerk or servant was properly sustained under Section 390(6) of the Criminal Code.
Key Legal Principles Established in Rex v. R.S. Okorodudu(1947)
Larceny by Clerk or Servant: Proof requires evidence of misappropriation of a specific sum at a particular time and place.
General Deficiency: A mere shortfall in accounts does not suffice for conviction; evidence of conversion is essential.
Inference of Guilt: Exclusive access to funds, unexplained shortages, and suspicious conduct may justify the inference of misappropriation.
Case Authority: R. v. Ofoni and R. v. Nwagbani illustrate that proof must go beyond general shortage to establish theft.
This case remains significant in Nigerian criminal law as it clarifies the distinction between general deficiency and specific misappropriation in larceny by clerks or servants. It underscores that judicial inference may support a conviction when circumstantial evidence indicates exclusive access and unexplained loss.
Oshin v. I.G.P (1961) Full Summary, Issues & Judgment
R v. Peter Otubu(1943)Perjury FULL REPORT. L.M.S.R
FOR MORE CASE SUMMARY USE THE SEARCH BAR