The Territorial Jurisdcition Of The Court Over A Charge Of Criminal Breach Of Trust

By Chioma Angela Okeke

In Dariye v FRN,[1] the Supreme Court per Ngwuta JSC (of blessed memory) defined territorial jurisdiction to imply:

A geographic area within which the authority of the Court may be exercised and outside which the Court has no power to act. Jurisdiction, territorial or otherwise, is statutory and is conferred on the Court by the law creating it.

An offence may comprise of more than one element and the constituent elements may take place in different jurisdictions. In such case the appropriate means to determine in which jurisdiction to try the accused is to identify what element of the offence in the proof occurred where. Generally, the essential elements of the offence of criminal breach of trust are[2]:-

(a) That the accused person was entrusted with property.

(b) That the accused person misappropriated it, converted it to his own use or disposed the said property.

(c) That the accused person did so in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust was to be discharged or any legal contract expressed or complied which he had made concerning the trust or that he intentionally allowed some other persons to do so as above

(d) That the accused person acted dishonestly.

To confer the court with territorial jurisdiction over the charge, the onus is on the Prosecution to establish that all or any of the above elements of the offence charged took place within the jurisdiction of the court before which the charge is made. Any of the jurisdictions in which an element occurred has territorial jurisdiction to try the accused. So if the defendant was entrusted to look after a car at Adamawa State; he instead drove the car to Lagos State to be using the car as an airport taxi; and on a particular day, he decides to drive his customer to Enugu state where he was apprehended. In this instance, courts in Adamawa State, Lagos State and Enugu State have the territorial jurisdiction to try the defendant. This was the case in Mbah v The State,[3] where the first attempt on the life of the victim took place in October, 2001 in Abuja and the last and final attempt was carried out in 2003 at Aguru, Anambra State. The Court held that the 2003 attempt on the life of the victim in Anambra State was a continuation of the earlier attempt of 2001 in Abuja and that the FCT High Court has territorial jurisdiction to try the accused (defendant).

It is trite that a trial conducted without jurisdiction is a nullity, irrespective of how well it is conducted.[4] So, where the prosecution fails to establish that any element of the offence charged was within the jurisdiction of the court, the court must hold that it lacks the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the charge. The proper order to  make in such instance is that of striking out and not a dismissal.[5]

Chioma Angela Okeke is a lawyer with over 15 years legal experience. She holds a B.L and an MBA. She also has an LLM in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice from the University of Sussex, UK. Chioma Okeke is a Fellow of the Institute of Chartered Mediator/Conciliator, a Member of the Nigerian Institute of Chartered Arbitrators and a member of the Institute of Chartered Secretary/Administrator. She is a writer and has several published works to her credit. Contact: cane_ogbalu@yahoo.com

[1] (2015) LPELR-24398(SC) 29 para B.

[2] Penal Code , s 312.

[3] (2014) LPELR-22729(SC).

[4] Odofin v. Agu (1992) 3 NWLR (Pt. 229) 350; Osa v. Akureju (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 84) 508.

[5] Okolo v Union Bank of Nigeria (2004) LPELR – 2465 (SC) 16 paras A –D; Adelekan v Eculine N. V. (2006) LPELR – 113 (SC) 29 paras D-E.