STOP SEEING INTRUSIVE ADS, & HAVE PREMIUM FEATURES? Stop seeing intrusive ads and have a smoother reading experience, once you sign up on Judicial Poetry. Sign up now!

DISTINCTION BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL & CRIMINAL FORGERY

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

The word forgery is defined as an act of fraudulent making a false document or altering a real one to be used as if genuine. However, in ATUCHUKWU V. ADINDU (2011) LPELR – 3821 (CA), OGUNWUMIJU, JCA (as he then was) drew a distinction between grammatical and criminal forgery and held that the mere speculative observation of the respondent and her witness given flesh by the reasoning of the trial Judge cannot be substituted for conclusive and hard evidence of criminal forgery which must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, the case put forward before the trial Court deserved to be meticulously and reflectively analyzed in order to determine whether such a party has set out to establish the commission of a crime by anybody as would impose on him the necessity to establish a case of forgery beyond reasonable doubt. Now, looking at the circumstances of this case, it was not the case of the 1st and 2nd respondents that any named person had forged Exhibit 1. An examination of paragraph 4 of the statement of defence of 1st and 2nd defendants as well as paragraph 4 of the statement of oath of Chief Elias Ezenagu who testified as DW2 vis-a-vis Section 138 of the Evidence Act shows that the allegation of forgery was not made specifically to a party or against a party. Therefore, the case made by the 1st and 2nd respondents is not one of criminal forgery but that Exhibit 1 was a useless document on account that same was neither signed by the mortgagor nor the mortgagee.

— M.L. Shuaibu, JCA. FBN v Benlion (2021) – CA/C/31/2016

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

forgery

FORGED DOCUMENT IN INTERMEDIATE STEP IN THE SCHEME OF FRAUD

The law is that where a document was used as an intermediate step in the scheme of fraud in which the accused is involved, if it shown that such a document, was false and was presented or uttered by an accused person in order to gain an advantage, an irresistible inference exists that either the accused forged the document with his own hand or procured someone to commit the forgery. It is therefore immaterial who actually forged a document so long as an accused person is a party to the forgery.

— J.H. Sankey, JCA. Brila Energy Ltd. v. FRN (2018) – CA/L/658CA/2017

Was this dictum helpful?

FORGERY ARE CRIMINAL AND MUST BE PROVED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT

Now, allegations bordering on forgery and/or making of false statement to INEC are not only criminal and grievous but are not matters or things one party alleges and then fold his hand akimbo to see how the other party wriggles out of it. Allegations of forgery and or false statements are not issues of mere discrepancies but of commission of crimes which must be proved beyond reasonable doubt by the person who makes the allegations.

– B.A. Georgewill, JCA. Ganiyu v. Oshoakpemhe & Ors. (2021) – CA/B/12A/2021

Was this dictum helpful?

HOW TO PROVE FALSIFICATION OF AN ELECTION RESULT

In order to establish falsification of election result, the Petitioner must produce in evidence two sets of results; one genuine and the other false. See: KAKIH v PDP & ORS (2014) LPELR-23277(SC) at pages 51-52, paras. C-C; and NWOBODO v ONOH (1984) LPELR-2120(SC). Indeed, in ADEWALE v OLAIFA (2012) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1330) 478 at 516, this Court held that: “To prove falsification of results of an election, two sets of results one genuine and the other false must be put in evidence by the party making the accusation. After putting in evidence the two sets of results, a witness or witnesses conversant with the entries made in the result sheets must be called by the party making the accusation of falsification or forgery of results of the election to prove from the electoral documents containing the results of the election how the results of the election were falsified or made up.”

— H.S. Tsammani, JCA. Peter Obi & Anor. v INEC & Ors. (2023) – CA/PEPC/03/2023

Was this dictum helpful?

WHEN IS THE OFFENCE OF FORGERY ESTABLISHED?

The offence of forgery is committed or established where an accused person makes a false document and a document is said to be false or fake, if the whole or part of it is purported to have been made by or on behalf of respondent who did not actually make it or authorized it to be made. See Nathaniel vs State (2019) LPELR 40326 (CA) PP. 9 – 10. The law is trite as espoused in the case of Lambert vs FRN (2021) LPELR. 54672 (CA) that any person who is in possession of a forged document or issues same is guilty of committing the offence of forgery, even though he did not actually make it.

– PER I.S. BDLIYA, J.C.A. Barma v. State (2022) – CA/G/119c/2021

Was this dictum helpful?

FORGERY MUST BE STRICTLY PROVED

It is trite law that forgery is a very serious imputation and needs to be pleaded with particularity and proved strictly. – NNAEMEKA-AGU, J.S.C. Finnih v. Imade (1992)

Was this dictum helpful?

INGREDIENTS THE PROSECUTION MUST PROVE IN ESTABLISHING THE OFFENCE OF FORGERY

In order to prove or establish the commission of the offence of forgery, the following must be proved by cogent and reliable evidence:
a. (i) That the accused made, signed, sealed or executed the document in question or any part thereof; or (ii) That it was made by someone else;
b. That it was made under the circumstances stated in section 363;
c. That the accused mad it dishonestly or fraudulently or with intent that fraud may be committed;
d. That the seal, plate or other instrument was capable of being used for committing forgery;
e. That the accused made or counterfeited it or had it in his possession;
f. That he did as in (b) with the intent that it should be used for committing forgery, or in the case of possession, he knew the same to be counterfeit.

– PER I.S. BDLIYA, J.C.A. Barma v. State (2022) – CA/G/119c/2021

Was this dictum helpful?

No more related dictum to show.