stealing

The offence of stealing is created under Section 383(1) of the CCA. It means Mr. A. taking Mr. B’s thing, which thing is capable of being stolen, with a fraudulent intent for his (Mr. A’s) use or for the use of another person.

For the prosecution to convict Mr. A. on the charge of stealing, it must establish, according to Section 383(2), that he took that thing for any one of the following purposes:

1. That he, Mr. A., took it with the intent to permanently deprive the owner, Mr. B., of that thing.

2. That he Mr. A., took that thing with the intent to permanently deprive any person who has any special property in the thing of such property.

3. That Mr. A. took that thing with the intent to use that thing as a pledge or security.

4. That Mr. A. took that thing to part with it on a condition as to its return which the Mr. A. may be unable to perform or accomplish.

5. That Mr. A. took that thing with an intent to so deal with it in such a manner that it cannot be returned in the condition in which it was at the time it was taken.

6. In the case of money, that Mr. A. took it with the intent to use it at his (Mr. A’s) will, although he may intend afterwards to repay the amount to Mr. B., the owner.

Usually, when people see the definition of the offence as rendered in Section 383(1) of the CCA, and do not see added “without the consent of the owner” they jump to doubting the completeness of the definition. The truth is that the taking may be with the consent of the owner that was secured with fraudulent intent. AMAH v. FRN (2019) HELAR; ADEROUNMU V. FRN (2019) HELAR

Yes, A would be held to have stolen B’s motorcycle because, in determining fraudulent intent, gain or profit is not an essential or relevant factor to consider. After all, A could only have done what he did because the motorcycle was more valuable to him than the money he left for B. ADEROUNMU V. FRN (2019) HELAR

This scenario is what is captured under sub-paragraph (f) of Section 383(2)(f) of the CCA which provides that “in the case of money, an intent to use it at the will of the person who takes or converts it, although he may intend afterwards to repay the amount to the owner”. Here are examples: In R v. Orizu (1954) 14 WACA 455 the accused collected money from some persons for the purpose of sending them to United States of America for scholarship studies. He, for some reasons, did not send them to America and did not return or refund them the monies so collected. He was tried and convicted for stealing their. Another instance is as happened in State v Odimayo (1967) NMLR 92 where the accused applied for and received money as loan for building a house on a certain piece of land and which loan he secured by mortgaging the land to the Housing Corporation that loaned him the money. He did not use the money to build the house but used it to contest an election. He was rightly convicted for stealing the money.

The reason is that the money still belongs to the owner until the purpose for which it was collected is fulfilled. Using the money for another purpose (that would not serve the interest of the owner, and without his consent) is permanently depriving him of the use of his money. Therein lies the fraudulent intent.

Of course, to say that the person failed to return or repay the money presupposes that the owner must have demanded it and the accused was unable to return or repay it on demand. That is, there must be evidence of demand for repayment and failure to repay.

Yes. According to S. 383(6) of the CCA, stealing is completely committed once the person moves the thing from the one point where the owner kept it with criminal intent, to another point, no matter how nearby or far away. The act of stealing would be adjudged to be committed if I noticed and shouted or caught the hand of another person who puts his hand into my trouser pocket and pulls out the money inside my pocket where I placed it with the fraudulent intent described in the enacted law, notwithstanding that immediately I noticed and shouted or caught his hand, he dropped it.

But there must have occurred that moving from the point where it was kept to another point. AMAH v. FRN (2019) HELAR; ADEROUNMU V. FRN (2019) HELAR

No. For the offence of stealing to be said to have been committed the fraudulent intention must be established. That is clearly absent in this particular instance. In this example, the person can validly be covered under the defence of Honest Claim of Right or Mistake of Fact as provided under Sections 23 and 25 of the CCA, respectively.

If a person takes another’s thing in the situation painted above, it will likely not be held to amount to stealing. Nevertheless, the nature of what was so taken and used, and the relationship between the owner and the person that so took it, may provide some relevant factors that will swing the decision one way or the other. If for instance, A takes B’s bicycle to run an errand, intending from the very beginning, to bring it back for B, it will not be stealing.

But in a situation where A took it with the intent of selling it and dispossessing B of it permanently, but after trying to sell it failed to find a buyer, an in frustration, returns it to B, he had committed the offence of stealing.

Where what the person he so takes is something that the use of it means or will lead to dissipation of the value or the worth of the thin, making it that the thing cannot be returned in the condition in which it was when it was taken, then S. 383(2)(e) might have been fulfilled in supplying a necessary ingredient that would make it stealing. If you take somebody’s car, the fuel tank of which he had filled, you use it to run around and use up or much of the fuel in the tank of the car before returning it, you might be convicted for stealing his fuel, if not his car. Consider the very simplified example of the situation where what was taken, with the intention to use and return, is e.g. a bar of soap; used by the person who took it without the consent of the owner to wash his clothes, and indeed returned it very dissipated, a flattened and slender remainder of the bar of soap. Stealing would have been committed.

Most likely not. He may be convicted of another or other offences but not stealing. An example is given of the case of R. V. Eason (1971) 2 All E.R. 945 where an accused person was charged and convicted for stealing of a woman’s purse in a cinema hall but the conviction was set aside on appeal as he was held to have actually stolen nothing. What happened in that case was that the accused actually took the woman’s purse and walked away with the intent of stealing money he hoped to find in the purse. But when he searched the purse he could only find cosmetics, tissues and a few other women things, but not money. He quickly returned the purse from where he took it. The appellate court focused on what his intent was at the taking of the purse – it was money, not the purse.

An example of a case situation that fits into what is contemplated in the offence of stealing under S. 383(2)(d) will occur where the person takes the thing believing that he will return it, but under a condition that may not be under his control or capability, for example, taking another’s property to place a bet which the person so taking it is not sure to win or not, and so knows that there is a good chance of his not winning the bet which would mean that the owner would be permanently deprived of it. If he loses the bet, he permanently loses that thing which is not his own, and which he did not have the permission of the real owner of the thing or property before using it for the bet. It is this knowledge that supplies the fraudulent intent.

They mean exactly the same thing. As a matter of fact, there is no offence in the Nigerian laws distinctly known as Conversion. The use of the word is a carryover from the English common law which we got used to in our colonial association with the English people. It can be noticed that the word ‘conversion’ was actually used in the definition of the offence of stealing. If anybody takes another’s thing capable of being stolen, to use, to sell, destroy, alter, pledge or use as security with fraudulent intent, that person has stolen that thing. AMAH v. FRN (2019) HELAR; ADEROUNMU V. FRN (2019) HELAR

The sum of N20,000.00 was my money. When he bought the article for less than what he told me was the price and the money he received from me, he should inform me and give back the gain of N2,000.00 to me. Keeping it for his own use was fraudulently converting what is mine, and it amounts to stealing. That is exactly the situation that saw the accused person in the case of **Onabamiro v. State (1968) ANLR 102 being convicted and sentenced for stealing the savings he made through discount grant. ADEROUNMU V. FRN (2019) HELAR **

Yes, any of those kind of situations is capable of setting up the kind of interests or property in a thing that qualifies to be treated “special property” in that thing referred to by S. 383(2)(b) of the CCA. The matter is taken as seriously as to even make it that the real owner taking it without the knowledge or consent of the holder of such special property in the thing, would be held to have stolen it under the special case of stealing created under Section 388 of the CCA

The person would be guilty of the offence of stealing the money. The mere fact that he had the hope or expectation of returning or repaying is immaterial if when demanded (may be, repeated demands) he is unable to return or repay the money.

This may turn the case on the fulcrum of sub-paragraph (d) which provides a situation where the accused takes the thing with “an intent to part with it on a condition as to its return which the person taking or converting it may be unable to perform”