Sebastian S. Yongo Vs Commissioner Of Police (1992)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

KUTIGI, J.S.C.

The appellants and two others Hangeior Alagh and Simon Atule were at the Senior Magistrate Court, Vendeikya, Benue State, charged as follows

“Count I:

That you Hangeior Alagh on or about the 21st day of March, 1988 at Abakaliki, having been entrusted with property to wit: A peugeot 504 station Wagon not Registered with Chassis No. 4111248 valued N49,000.00 by one Alhaji Veleshe committed Criminal Breach of Trust in that you either Misappropriated; Con-verted it to your use, used it or disposed of it not in accordance with the terms of the trust dishonesty and that you thereby committed an offence punishable under section 312 of the Penal Code.

Count II:

That you, Simon Atule, Sebastine Yongo and Isaac Omishan, on or about the 21st day of March 1988 at Gboko dishonestly received or, retained stolen property to wit: a Peugeot 504 Station Wagon white in colour With Chassis and Engine Nos. 4111248 property of one Alhaji Veleshe Shior knowing, or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, and that you thereby committed an offence punishable under section 317 of the Penal Code.

Count III:

That you, Simon Atule, Sebastine Yongo and Isaac Nomishan on or about the 21st day of March, 1988 at Gboko voluntarily assisted in concealing in dispos-ing of or making away with property to wit: Peugeot 504 Station Wagon white in colour, not Registered with Chassis/Engine No. 4111248 property of one Alhaji Veleshe Shior which you know or had reasons to believe to be stolen property and that you thereby committed an offence punishable under section 319 of the Penal Code.”

Hangeior Alagh who was only charged with the offence of Criminal Breach of Trust in count one pleaded guilty. He was convicted and sentenced. The appellants were convicted of the charge of the dishonestly receiving or retaining stolen property knowing or having reason to believe same to be stolen property under the second count. They were each sentenced to a fine of N300.00 or to one and a half years imprisonment in default of payment. They were however acquitted of the third count of the charge. Simon Atule was acquitted of the second count but convicted under the third count and sentenced.

The facts of the case can be summarised briefly as follows:

On the 21st day of March, 1988, one Alhaji Veleshe Shior who testified as PW1 at the trial, purchased a new Peugeot 504 at Abakaliki forthe sum of N49,000.00. He handed overthe vehicle together with the keys and other particulars to his driver Hangeior Alagh (the 1st accused) to drive to his home town in Gongola State. On his way to Gongola State, Alagh left his route and deviated to Gboko where he handed the said vehicle with the particulars to Simon Atule (the 2nd accused) with instruction to sell same. Atule said he sold the vehicle to Isaac Nomishan (the 4th accused now the 2nd appellant) who was introduced by Sebastine Yongo (the 3rd accused, now 1st appellant).

According to Atule even though there was no final agreed price, he took a deposit of N10,000.00 because of other pressing commitments of the owner (Alagh) to pay custom duties at the border and also to liquidate a debt owed by him. When Alhaji Shior waited in vain without seeing his driver (1st accused) in Gongola State the matter was reported to the police. 1st accused was first arrested and he assisted in the arrest of the 2nd accused. The appellants were also later arrested. The vehicle was discovered in the possession of the 4th accused (2nd appellant). It was found locked up in his garage.

The appellants admitted that the vehicle was brought to them by the 2nd accused on behalf of his brother as a pledge for an advance of N10,000.00 at an interest of N2, 000.00 for a period of two weeks. The 2nd appellant said he prepared the pledge agreement (Exhibit K) for the parties.

In a reserved judgment the learned trial senior Magistrate believed and ac-cepted the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the evidence of the 1st and 2nd accused (co-accused persons) that the 4th accused (2nd appellant) obtained the vehicle by an outright sale through the 3rd accused (the 1st appellant). He further held that the circumstances of the sale of the vehicle were such that would have put the appellants on notice that they were buying a stolen vehicle. He disbelieved the appellants completely. The appellants were therefore convicted and sentenced as stated above.