Rex V. Igbinovia (1936)

LawGlobal Hub Judgment Report – West African Court of Appeal

Appellant charged under section 148 (3) (c) and section 152 (3) of Criminal Code. On the first charge the particulars failed to set out possession ” without lawful authority or excuse.” On the second charge the particulars failed to set out guilty knowledge and/or intent to utter.

Held : R. v. Harvey distinguished, that insufficient particulars of offences charged summarily do not vitiate convictions provided that accused has adequate notice of charges.

Appellant in person.

Ivor Brace for Crown.

The following judgment was delivered :KINGDON, C. J., NIGERIA.

In this case all the elements which go to make up the separate offences charged in the two counts were not set out in the particulars, and if the trial had been upon information, it would have been necessary to quash the convictions on the authority of Rex v. Harvey, II Cox 662. But this was a summary trial, and the same considerations do not apply. It is necessary however that the accused should have adequate notice of the charges made against him, and the Court is satisfied that in this case he had. It is desirable that all the elements going to make up the offence should be set out in the charges, but in a summary trial an omission does not vitiate the trial provided the accused knows what he is charged with. On the merits the appellant was clearly guilty.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed.