1139, 1141 (INDIANA CT. APP. 1986).
The Defendant must have converted the Property to his own use or for purposes other than those for
which it was entrusted. It is clear that conversion may not ordinarily be a matter of direct proof, but
when it is established that the Property, is entrusted to him or that he had dominion over it and
rendered false explanations for his failure to account for it, then an inference of conversion may
readily be made. A whole series of contemporaneous facts and surrounding circumstances of an event
must be considered together in the circumstances of the case, in order to fix the Defendant irresistibly
with the commission of the offence of Criminal Breach of Trust. See the cases of LORTIM VS THE
STATE (1997) 2 NWLR PART 490, PAGE 711 AT 725 PARAS C-D; AND MAGDALENE ONOGWU VS
THE STATE (1995) 6 NWLR PT 401 PAGE 276.
His Lordship ADEKEYE JCA, (AS SHE THEN WAS) in PATRICK OKOROJI VS THE STATE (2002) 1
NCC PAGE 279 AT PAGE 297, held that the Prosecution must establish the following elements of
Conversion, which are: - 1) Intent to convert the tangible or intangible Property of another to one's
own possession and use; and 2) The Property in question is subsequently converted. It is immaterial
whether the Thing or Money converted is taken for the purpose of Conversion, or whether at the time
of the conversion, it was in the possession of the Person who converts it.
The intention must also be shown that the unauthorized act deprives another of his Property,
permanently or for an indefinite time. See FRANCIS AKILAPA VS COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
(1981) 4 OYSHC AT 558 AT 562-563, where it was held that the intent to permanently deprive the
owner of the Money can be formed either at the time of the receipt of the Money or subsequently after
the receipt. See also the case of OKOROJI VS THE STATE (2002) 5 NWLR PT 759 PAGE 21 AT PAGE
49 PARAS G-H.
In the Act of Conversion, a Person must not only take the Money, but must use it for his own purposes.
However, this does not require that the Defendant actually took the Money and used it to buy
something or otherwise spent it. Courts have held it enough that to transfer the Money to a Bank
Account or even to refuse or fail to hand over the owner's Money when the owner demands it.
As regards Use, the Third Quadruplet Mode, in this Context, refers to a Method or Manner or Purpose
of utilizing or employing something or applying something for a Personal Privilege or Benefit. It could
even extend to using a Particular Service to achieve an end.
Use refers to the applying, taking, holding, employing or deploying something, or consuming an
amount of that thing from a limited supply. It also includes obtaining a benefit from something or
putting into service to attain an end or availing one’s self of something as a means to an end.
Depending on the Context in which it is used, it could have a positive or negative connotation. A
Person who misappropriates Funds with the intent to later return the Money to the rightful owner is
still Guilty of Use or Misappropriation. It also does not matter if the Misappropriation or Use only
lasted for a short amount of time.
To prove Use of the Funds in the Central Bank of Nigeria Cheque as well as Funds of the Plateau State
Government and the Accountant General of Plateau State, the Prosecution is to establish any personal
benefit, whether financial or otherwise, accruing to the Defendant by showing beyond a reasonable
doubt that the deployment of the Funds was to his own personal use. It is expected of the Prosecution
to show that the Defendant got his hands grubby with filthy lucre by gaining from the Funds in a
sordid, distasteful or in a dishonourable and shameful way.
112