There was a viral video last week of a lady who was sentenced by a Magistrate's Court to pay a fine of NGN 450,000 or serve a term of 7 years imprisonment. The circulated videos and media posts allege that she collected NGN 30,000 as transport fare to visit a man in his home, and then refused to show up. Although there is no publicly available copy of the full judgment of the court, the law that is most often invoked in these “transport fare” headline stories is Section 419 (obtaining by false pretence) of the Criminal Code (and similar state provisions). More so, the penalty meted out by the Court matches the provision of this section.
We came across a similar story that took place in January this year in Ilesa, Osun State, where a magistrate court ordered a lady to pay NGN 150,000 after she collected NGN 3,000 and failed to visit. This illustrates that lower court remedies of this nature do happen sometimes.
Which offence would be relied on, and what must the prosecution prove?
The usual legal mould for these facts is “obtaining property by false pretence” (popularly “419”). The Criminal Code criminalises obtaining by false pretence “with intent to defraud” and prescribes imprisonment of 3 years generally, but up to 7 years where the thing obtained is of the value of ₦1,000 or upwards. So, collecting ₦30,000 satisfies the “value” limb that attracts the penalty of 7 years imprisonment.
However, to prove the offence of obtaining by false pretence, the prosecution must show beyond a reasonable doubt that:
There was a pretence (a representation) put forward by the accused;
The pretence was false;
The accused obtained money or induced the delivery of money by that false pretence; and
The accused acted with the intent to defraud at the time of obtaining the money.
In this instance, the prosecution would have been expected to show not merely that the lady accepted transport money and did not show up, but that at the time she had induced the payment of money by the man, she intended to deceive him (i.e. she had no intention to honour the promise). This may be proven through the use of text messages, bank transfer records, witnesses, and the totality of conduct.
In addition, the Law makes it clear that the magistrate's power to fine cannot exceed the maximum fine provided for by the substantive law.
So a magistrate sentencing to 7 years (within the offence maximum) is not impossible under that framework. Moreover, a Magistrate/Judge exercises discretion in meting out specific penalties which must not, however, exceed the maximum penalty stipulated under the relevant statute. The Court would often consider certain factors in exercising this discretion, such as the nature or gravity of the offence, public order/deterrence, first-time offender/repeat offender, among other factors.
In this case, however, the NGN 450,000 fine appears enormous compared to NGN 30,000 at issue. Although it may have been intentionally set that way to serve as a deterrent to others. If appealed, a higher court may reduce either the fine or the prison term if it finds the sentence manifestly excessive.
If you enjoy our weekly newsletters, here are two things we would like you to kindly do:
Share this platform with a friend and encourage them to subscribe to our newsletter.
Follow us on Instagram and X and engage with our posts.
It will mean a lot to us. Thanks in advance, and see you next week!
Best regards,
Ikanke for the Lawpadi Team
