on 18th April 2016, the reply address of the prosecution was filed on 25th august 2016 and on 25th
august 2016, reply on points of law was filed by the learned counsel for the accused person.
In the accused address on no case submission, it was contended that the totality of the evidence led
by the prosecution has no established the essential ingredients of the offence of cheating and there
is no basis for calling the accused to enter his defence. The following cases were referred to in support
1. TONGO VS COP (2007) 12 NWLR (PT 1049) 525@544 (E-F).
2. UGWU VS STATE (2013) 4 NWLR (PT 1343) 1@188 (H- 109A).
3. FRN VS EKWENUGO (2007) 3 NWLR (PT 1021) 209@215 (G-A).
The decision in UZOAGBA VS COP (2014) 5 NWLR (PT 1401) 441@457 (A-B) where the supreme court
identified the ingredients of the offence of cheating was referred to and it was submitted that none
of the ingredients has been proved.
It was further contended that the evidence of the prosecution was centered around the presentation
of dishonoured cheques and there is no evidence to prove that the accused received any property
from the nominal complainant on the basis of which the cheques exh 1 & 2 were issued to him. The
evidence of pw3 under cross examination where he made similar admission was referred to in support
and was it was submitted that since the accused did not receive any property form the nominal
complainant, the issue of the accused deceiving the nominal complainant does not arise.
On the ingredient that the nominal complainant did or omitted to do something which he was not
bound to do; an essential ingredient of the offence under section 320(b) of the penal code, it was
submitted that no evidence was led to prove or suggest what the nominal complainant would have
done or refused to do occasioned by the issuance of the cheques. That the nominal complainant did
not invest any money with the accused person and the accused person did not guarantee repayment
of his investment with New Life Multipurpose Society Limited. That there is no vicarious liability in
criminal jurisprudence that’s makes the son liable for the offence of the father.
In the prosecutions written reply to the no case submission, it was contended that the prosecution
has established through its three witnesses and 6 documentary exhibits that the accused falsely
represented himself as the father of one Dapo Oladimeji, the Chairman/CEO of New Life Multipurpose
Cooperative Society. That the accused deceived PW1 the nominal complainant to abandon the case
against the said Dapo who is at large and undertook to refund the money owed to the nominal
complainant. That the evidence that the accused issued cheques to PW1 knowing fully well that the
account is for a particular purpose and the cheques would not be honoured. It was submitted that a
primafacie case has been established and the accused should be called upon to enter his defence. See
DURU VS NWOSU (1989) 4 NWLR (PT 113) 24@31, AJIBOYE VS STATE (1995) 8 NWLR (PT 414) 418,
FAGBORIOLA VS FRN (2014) ALLFWLR (PT 724) & ADUKWU VS FRN (2009) 9 NWLR (PT 1146) 370.
It was further submitted that the accused took responsibility of the money in Dapo’s custody and
issued the cheques deceiving PW1 into believing that the cheques would be honoured.
On the meaning of prima facie case, UBANATU VS COP (2000) 1 SC 31@37, was referred to. I was
urged to hold that a prima facie case has been established by the prosecution and to call upon the
accused to enter his defence.
In the prosecutions reply on points of Law, the allegation was levelled at the accused written reply to
the no case submission that it was characterized by extraneous materials in the guise of evidence led
at the trial. That no evidence was led by the prosecution that the accused prevailed on the nominal
complainant to drop the complaint of fraud levelled against the president of New Life Multipurpose