Jaki and others v. R. Crim. App. 230, 231 and 232-M-70; 29/7/70; Onyiuke, J.

Jaki and others v. R. Crim. App. 230, 231 and 232-M-70; 29/7/70; Onyiuke, J.

The three appellants were jointly charged with and convicted of the offence of obtaining money by false pretences c/s 302 of the Penal Code. the appellants approached the complainant and told him they had secondhand clothes for sale and showed him samples. The complainant was a dealer in second-hand clothing. The appellants further stated that the second-hand clothes were at Gungu Village and gave their price as Shs. 1000/.Thereupon the complainant produced Shs. 100/-. And handed it over to the ten-cell leader who then handed it over to the 3^rd appellant. The complainant and 1^st appellant then left for Gungu village. At Gungu the 1^st appellant could not produce the clothes and attempted, in fact, to run away. The complainant held him and they returned to ten-cell leader’s house without any clothes. While the complainant and 1^st appellant were away, the 2^nd and 3^rd appellant left the ten-cell leader on the pretext of going to answer the call of nature, and disappeared. The appellants were later arrested and charged of obtaining Shs. 100/- by false pretences. They denied receiving any money or offering to sell any clothes to the complainant. They were convicted of the offence. On appeal to the High Court the only question was whether the existence of a contract of sale between the appellant and the complainant could save the appellants from being criminally liable for the false pretences, on the basis of which, the money (Shs. 1000/-) was parted with.

            Held: (1) “I am of the view that the existence of a contract of sale did not negative their criminal liability for false representations which induced the complainant to part with his money. In REGINA v. KENRICK [1843] 5 Q.B.D. 49 it was held that a false pretence, knowingly made, to obtain money was indictable, though the money was obtained by means of a contract which the prosecutor (complainant) was induced by the falsehood to make. In that case the accused persons had conspired to make a representation, knowing it to be false, that certain horses were the property of a private person and not of a horse-dealer, thereby inducing the prosecutor to by the horses. It was held that proof of those facts was sufficient to sustain on indictment for obtaining money by false pretences”. (2) Appeal dismissed.