Stealing

On whether or not the offence of robbery was made out as required by law, I shall reiterate the necessary ingredients the prosecution/respondent must prove to sustain a charge thereof and these are well set out in the case of Henry Otti v. The State (1991) 8 NWLR (Pt.207) 103 at 118 and these ingredients are as follows:
a. That the accused stole something
b. That the thing stolen is in law capable of being stolen
c. That the accused threatened to use violence or actually used violence immediately before or immediately after the time of stealing the thing.
d. The violence could be on either a person or on a property in order to obtain or retain the thing stolen or to prevent or overcome resistance to its being stolen or retained.
An essential element of the offence of robbery is stealing and so what is said to be stolen must be such as could be an item capable of stolen.

I shall recast here under the provisions of the said Section 289 of the Penal Code thus:
"Section 289:
Whoever, being a clerk or servant or being employed in the capacity of a clerk or servant, commits theft in respect of any property in the possession of his master or employer, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years or with fine or with both."
The essential ingredients of the offence of theft or stealing are well set out in the case of:- Muhammed v State(2000) 12 NWLR (Pt.682) page 596 at 603 where Omage JCA held thus:
"The definition of the offence against property of theft is contained in Section 286 (1) of the Penal Code, it reads: Whoever intending to take dishonestly any moveable property out of the possession of any person without that person's consent, moves the property in order to take it is said to commit theft. From the above definition, the vital elements of the offence of theft are:
(1) Absence of the consent of the owner of the moveable property.
(2) movement of the said property.
(3) Intention to take the moveable property."