MUHAMMADU TSOFOLI (APPELLANT)

v.

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (RESPONDENT)

(1971) All N.L.R. 339

Division: Federal Supreme Court

Date of Judgment: 17th December, 1971

Case Number: SUIT NO. S.C. 6/1970

Before: Ademola, C.J.N., Madarikan, Fatai-Williams JJ.S.C.

Appeal from the High Court (North-Central).

HELD:

(1)     The question of rewards and compensation in Criminal Cases is never the subject of inherent jurisdiction of any court. In every case, the matter of compensation is governed by statue, and there is no inherent power in any court to award compensation after conviction for larceny and such like offences.

(2)     When an order of compensation is made it is part of the sentence passed by the court. It follows therefore that when a conviction is quashed, the sentence passed must be set aside and this includes any compensation awarded.

(3)     It is clear that the award of compensation under section 70 of the Penal Code can only be after a conviction and it forms part of the sentence passed.

(4)     Having set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the Magistrate Court, the High Court was therefore in error in affirming the order of payment of compensation.

Appeal allowed: Order of High Court set aside.

Case referred to:

R. v. William Jones, (1929) 1 K.B. 211; 21 Cr. App. R. 59.

Acts referred to:

Criminal Law Act, 1826 s. 28 (England).

Forfeiture Act, s. 4 (England).

Larceny Act 1916, s. 45 (England).

Larceny Act 1861, s. 100 (England).

Laws referred to:

Penal Code, ss. 70; 78; 332.

Criminal Procedure Act, s. 261.

APPEAL from the High Court (North-Central).

SUIT NO. S.C. 6/1970.

Irinoye for the Appellant.

Uwais, Solicitor-General North Central State, for the Respondent.

Ademola, C.J.N. (delivering the judgment of the court):-The appellant was convicted and sentenced to a fine of £55 or six months imprisonment in default for cheating contra section 332 of the Penal Code at the Magistrate Court at Kaduna on the 17th July, 1969. He was also ordered by the learned magistrate to refund a sum of £160 which he had obtained as a result of the offence he had committed. He appealed to the High Court Kaduna against his conviction and sentence as well as the order made against him to refund the sum of £160.

On appeal, his conviction and sentence were set aside but the court affirmed the payment of compensation of £160 to the complainant.

The appeal before us is mainly about the compensation of £160. The award of compensation in criminal matters is, in the Northern States, governed by section 78 of the Penal Code which enacts as follows:-

"any person who is convicted of an offence under this Penal Code may be adjudged to make compensation to any person injured by his offence and such compensation may be either in addition to or in substitution for any other punishment."

For the appellant it was argued that since the conviction was set aside, the order for payment of compensation cannot stand. Learned Principal State Counsel, Mr Uwais, for the respondent did not challenge this; he agreed that the order by the court of appeal is not within section 78 of the Penal Code, but argued that the court acted under its inherent jurisdiction.

The question of rewards and compensation in criminal cases, as far as we are aware, is never the subject of inherent jurisdiction of any court. Section 28 of the Criminal Law Act (English) 1826, empowered superior Criminal courts to order costs expenses and compensation to prosecutors and witnesses. Section 8 of the Criminal Justice Administration Act 1851 extend these powers to courts of sessions of the peace. These compensations are only payable to persons who had apprehended an offender and not extended to cases where the offender had escaped, and they are limited to cases where the person apprehending had made an expense or loss of time.