The Court of Appeal, Enugu Division, has set aside the judgment of the Federal High Court, Enugu, which discharged and acquitted Henry Ugwuede of charges bordering on land fraud amounting to ₦2.91 million.
Ugwuede was earlier arraigned by the Enugu Zonal Directorate of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) before Justice R. O. Dugbo Oghoghorie on a six-count charge bordering on forgery, uttering, and obtaining money by false pretence.
The EFCC accused him of defrauding Capt. Agbor Ubachukwu Solomon, after falsely claiming ownership of Plot 244 at Emehelaku Layout, Nike, in Enugu East Local Government Area.
According to the Commission, the victim paid ₦2,910,000 for the land before discovering that Ugwuede was not the owner and that the signatures on the Deed of Lease were forged.
One of the counts in the charge alleged that between November 2010 and February 2011, Ugwuede obtained ₦1.7 million from Okafor Franklin Chidi for Capt. Agbor falsely presented himself as the owner of Plot 244, a violation of Section 1(1)(a) of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act, 2006.
Another count detailed how he allegedly obtained ₦1.21 million under similar false pretences for Plot 267 in the same layout.
Ugwuede pleaded not guilty, prompting a full trial. EFCC counsel, Chief Superintendent of the EFCC Blessing Obasi, presented five witnesses and tendered multiple documents, including the disputed Deed of Lease.
However, on April 18, 2024, Justice Dugbo Oghoghorie acquitted Ugwuede, ruling that since he had refunded the money to the victims, restitution had eliminated the elements of the offences.
Unhappy with the decision, the EFCC filed a Notice of Appeal on July 17, 2024, arguing that the trial court failed to evaluate critical evidence, including testimonies of all five prosecution witnesses and Exhibit EFCC 1, the Deed of Lease between Umemwene Iji/Alulu Nike Communities and Capt. Agbor.
The Commission further argued that the lower court erred in law by holding that refunding money obtained by false pretence nullifies the ingredients of the offence.
The Court of Appeal has now ruled in favour of the EFCC, setting aside the Federal High Court judgment.
Details of the appellate court’s orders or directives regarding further trial or conviction were not disclosed in the statement.
