Obtaining by False Pretence

It is to be noted that for the prosecution to prove the offence of obtaining by false pretence it must be established thus:-
a. A pretence was made by the accused person.
b. The pretence was false.
c. The accused knew the pretence to be false and did not believe it to be true.
d. The pretence operated on the mind of the person from whom the property was obtained.
e. Some property must have been obtained as a result of the pretence.

In resolving this issue, I must point out that the trial Court found that the Prosecution proved all the ingredients of the said offence of obtaining property by false pretence, which is that –
(a) A pretence was made by the Accused person;
(b) The pretence was false;
(c) The Accused knew the pretence to be false or did not believe it to be true.
(d) The pretence operated on the mind of the person from whom the property was obtained; and
(e) Some property must have been obtained as a result of the pretence.
It is clear that the Appellant is not quarreling with findings of the trial Court on the ingredients per se. His bone of contention is that the evidence on which it based its decision to convict him is riddled with serious and material contradictions, which makes nonsense of the case before it as presented by the prosecution.

Section 1 (1) and (2) of the Decree creates the offence of obtaining property by false pretence. The offence is committed when any person, by false pretence and with intent to defraud, obtains any property, including money, from any other person.

In the case of BUA V. DAUDA (2003) 13 NWLR (Pt. 838) 657 UWAIFO JSC, describes the term undue influence in the following language; "Undue influence is no doubt elusive of satisfactory definition but it may be regarded as a state of mind of a person who has been subdued to any improper persuasion or machination in such a way that he is overpowered and consequently induced to do or forbear an act which he would otherwise do or not do of his free will. It is a product of the abuse or misuse of the confidence reposed in someone who is able to put some pressure on or take unfair advantage of another: or who takes an oppressive and unfair advantage of another necessities or distress." Per PATS-ACHOLONU, J.S.C. Being a criminal offence, the criminal intent or false pretense is important and must be supported by evidence. False pretense was described in the case of ABATAN OLUWASHEUN V THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA (2016) LPELR-40768 thus: The term false pretences denotes the offence of knowingly obtaining someones property by misrepresenting a fact with the intent to defraud that person. In Blacks Law Dictionary, tenth edition it is also termed; the crime of knowingly obtaining title to another persons property by misrepresenting a fact with the intent to defraud. The offence has also been fittingly defined in Section 20 Advance Fee Fraud and other Related Offences Act, 2006, in this way: 20. In this Act- false pretence means a representation, whether deliberate or reckless, made by word, in writing or conduct, of a matter of fact or law, either past or present which representation is false in fact or law, and which the person, making it knows to be false or does not believe to be true. Per Sankey, J.C.A.