Comptroller Of Customs V. Michael Ntiero Effiom (1941)
LawGlobal Hub Judgment Report – West African Court of Appeal
Convictions under Customs Ordinance, Cap. 130 of (a) smuggling Appeal fron, and (b) and (c). being in possession of prohibited imports— conviFtion Lack of evidence in (a)—(b) and (c) should have been struck’ out vide Stated Case immediately hereinbefore reported.
Held : Appeal allowed, convictions quashed.
There is no need to set out the facts.
C. W. Reece for Crown.
E. E. E. Anwan for Appellant.
The following joint judgment was delivered :—
KINGDON, C.J., NIGERIA, PETRIDES, C.J., GOLD COAST, GRAHAM PAUL, C.J., SIERRA. LEONE.
In this case the appellant was charged before Jeffreys, Acting Assistant Judge of the High Court at Buea, with the following offences :—
” 1. –STATIMMT OF OFFENCE •
” Smuggling contra. sec. 221 (1) (a) Cap. 130. ” PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE.
” That Michael Ntiero Effiom on the 24th day of June, 1940, at ” Bimbia Man-of-War Bay, in the Cameroon Province did smuggle ” twelve tierces of tobacco value £959 7s 9d gross weight 4,553 lb.”
” 2.—STATEMENT OF OFFENCE.
” Being in possession of prohibited import contra-. sec. 223 (1) (a) ” Cap. 130.
” PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE.
” He at the same time and place did smuggle one automatic ” pistol.
” 3.–STATEXENT or OFFENCE.
” Being in possession of prohibited import contra. sec. 223 (1) (a) ” Cap. 130.
” PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE.
” He at the same time and place did smuggle twenty rounds of pistol ” ammunition.”
The trial Judge convicted him of all three offences and paseed sentence in the following terms :—
” ON THE FIRST CHARGE.
” I order the forfeiture of the canoe and of the tobacco. I impose ” a penalty under section 231 of the Customs Ordinance of three time. ” the value of the goods namely a fine of £2,700 or in default twelve ” months I.H.L.
” ON THE SECOND CHARGE.
” I order the forfeiture of the pistol and impose a sentence of three ” months I.H.L.
” ON THE THIRD CHARGE.
” I order the forfeiture of the ammunition and impose a sentence ” of one month I.H.L.
” All sentences are to run consecutively.”
On appeal the learned Counsel for the Crown has felt unable to support any of the convictions and we agree that they can none of them stand, for the following reasons:—
On the first charge, Smuggling, there was no evidence at all of any actual smuggling or of any attempt to smuggle.
As to the second alleged offence, the charge and particulars should have been struck out as bad for reasons already explained in the decision of the Court upon the case stated in this matter.
And the same applies to the third offence.
The appeal is allowed all the convictions are quashed, the sentences passed, the penalty imposed, and the orders of forfeiture made in the Court below are annulled and it is directed that in respect of each of the charges a judgment and verdict of acquittal be entered.
