,,,,, Prosecution fails to secure IPO’s attendance in court.
By correspondent.
A Magistrate’s court in Ikeja, Lagos State, south west Nigeria has discharged a 40-year-old applicant, Omolola Oluwaseye Ajeigbe of conspiracy to commit fraud, obtaining by false pretence, stealing and Threatening to kill.
The Chief Magistrate, Mrs O.A. Akohia, set her free while ruling in the case.
She noted that, whereas Ajeigbe was arraigned on a four-count charge to which she pleaded not guilty and the case was subsequently set down for trial,despite several adjournments, the prosecution was unable to secure the IPO’s attendance in court to give evidence in respect of the case.
” Consequently ,on 17/1/18, upon application by the defence counsel, the case for the prosecution was closed and this matter was adjourned for defence.
Thereafter, counsel on behalf of Defendant filed a “No case submission” dated 15th May 2018, contending that prosecution had not made any case for the Defendant to answer and be convicted upon.
“The prosecution did not file any response to the “No case submission” and so, upon being satisfied that the prosecution had been duly served as evidenced by the acknowledged copy attached, as well as the affidavit of service filed by the Sherriff of this Honourable court,defence counsel was allowed to move the court upon “No case submission” filed.
The magistrate observed that there was no evidence to prove Ajeigbe duped her fiancee,adding that during cross examination the father of the fiancee acknowledged the fact that he did not mention that Ajeigbe duped his son in the statement he made to the police (Exhibit B).
The magistrate further noted that the same father also acknowledge the fact that, he did not mention any account in his statement to the police.
The father of the fiancee said he was not aware that part of the money referred to was directed by his son for the Defendant to arrange for visa to join him in the UK.
The chief magistrate agreed with submission that it was normal for a man proposing to marry a woman to spend money and gifts on that woman and that it was not an offence for a woman to receive such money from her fiancée as gift.
“Going through the foregoing excepts of the testimony of PW1, there is no circumstantial evidence disclosed therein, by which this court could draw an inference of there being a meeting of minds or an agreement between the Defendant and any person(s) for the purpose of committing the alleged offences stated in the charge before this court.
” No other person was mentioned except the Defendants’ fiancée who is the nominal complainant in this matter and it defies logic and common sense to infer that Nominal Complainant conspired with the defendant to defraud himself.
Taking a look at the testimony of PW1 once again, I must state that there is nothing to show that the Defendant misrepresented facts or deceived or applied any form of inducement on the Complainant to make him part with the money alleged to have been taken.
“There is nothing in the in the testimony of PW1 pointing to a dishonest taking or conversion of the complainant’s money by Defendant. Rather the evidence adduced points to there having been some filial relationship-gone-sour between the Nominal Complainant and the Defendant.
“Moreover, the prosecution failed to adduce evidence to show that any money was taken, rather the evidence of PW1 is to the effect that the money alleged to have been taken is in a joint account held by the Nominal Complainant and Defendant.
“There is equally no evidence proffered to substantiate the allegation of threat to kill; there is nothing in the evidence of PW1, to show that the Defendant made any phone call threatening the life of the Nominal Complainant.
“In the circumstances, this Honourable court finds that the prosecution has failed to establish any of the essential ingredients of the alleged offences; no case has been made against the Defendant sufficiently to require her to present a defense in this matter.
This Honourable court ,therefore, agrees with the submission of learned counsel that, the prosecution has failed to establish the allegation of conspiracy leveled against the Defendant.
“I therefore uphold the submissions made by learned defense counsel and Defendant is hereby discharged on all 4 (four) counts of the charge preferred against her in this matter,” the chief magistrate stated.
Edited by Dada Ahmed.
