PRINCE ADEMUYIWA ADEDEJI & ANOR v. CFAO NIGERIA PLC
(2014)LCN/6915(CA)
RATIO
WHAT IS THEREFORE REQUIRED TO PLEADED IN ALLEGATION OF FORGERY IN CIVIL CASES.
The Supreme Court has provided the guide. See AINA VS. JINADU (1992) 4 NWLR (Pt.233) 91 at 106, it was stated as follows: “The offence of forgery is committed when a person knowingly makes a document or writing which is false with intent that it may in any way be issued or acted upon as genuine to his prejudice. While it may be necessary to plead all ingredients of forgery as defined in section 465 of the Criminal Code, a party alleging the crime must plead its major ingredients. Theses include the person who committed the offence and the document forged. Of course, he must also plead facts, which will enable the court to infer means rea. A mere loaded vague and nebulous averment is not enough for the purposes of pleading the crime of forgery.”
From the averments of the Respondent, the actions of the Appellants had also amounted to a fraud. On the need to specifically plead and prove the issue of fraud when raise in a civil case. See ADENIRAN VS. OLAGUNJU (2001) 48 W.R.N. 62 at 79; (2001) 17 NWLR (Pt.741) 169 at 190. This court stated as follows:
“Finally, I refer to the issue of fraud raised by the Appellant. It is trite law that where fraud is alleged it must be specifically pleaded and the particulars of the fraud given to enable the party defending the allegation to understand the case he is facing and thereby prepare his defence. HIGH GRADE MARITIME SERVICES LTD VS, FIRST BANK OF NIGERIA LTD (1991) 1 NWLR (Pt.167) 290.Since in the present case fraud was not so pleaded in the statement of defence, the lower court could not go further to consider the issue of fraud because it would have been an exercise in futility, which a court cannot afford. The learned trial judge inspite of the facat that fraud was not specifically pleaded in the statement of defence considered it in his judgment. He came to the conclusion quite rightly, in my view that “the issue of fraud has not been specifically proved.” On this issue also see OTTIH VS. NWAEMEKA (1990) 3 NWLR (Pt.140) 550 at 560. Per SIDI DAUDA BAGE, J.C.A.
