The Enugu State Division of Court of Appeal has set aside judgment of the Federal High Court sitting in Independence Layout, Enugu which discharged and acquitted one Henry Ugwuede for offences bordering on land scam.
Ugwuede was prosecuted by the Enugu Zonal Directorate of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC before Justice R. O. Dugbo Oghoghorie of the Federal High Court sitting in Enugu on a six-count charge bordering on forgery, uttering and obtaining by false pretence to the tune of Two Million, Nine Hundred and Ten Thousand Naira (N2, 910, 000. 00).
Ugwuede defrauded one Capt. Agbor Ubachukwu Solomon of the said sum after convincing him that he was the owner of a landed property: Plot 244 situated and lying at Emehelaku layout, Nike in Enugu East Local Government Area of Enugu State. After making payments , the petitioner discovered that Ugwuede lied about the ownership of the land and that signatures on the Deed of Lease were forged.
Count one of the charge reads: “That you, Henry Ugwuede between November, 2010 and February, 2011 at Abakpa Nike, Enugu State, within the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court of Nigeria of Nigeria, with intent to defraud, obtained the sum of N1, 700,000.00 (One Million, Seven Hundred Thousand Naira) through your First Bank Plc Account No. 6052010002394, from Okafor Franklin Chidi, the money of Captain Agbor Ubachukwu Solomon by false pretence, when you represented yourself as the owner of Plot 244 situated and lying at Emehelaku layout, Nike in Enugu East Local Government Area of Enugu State, which pretence you knew to be false and thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 1 (1) (a) of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act No. 14 of 2006 and punishable under Section 1 (3) of the same Act”.
Count two reads: “That you, Henry Ugwuede between November, 2010 and February, 2011 at Abakpa Nike, Enugu State, within the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court of Nigeria, with intent to defraud, obtained the sum of N1, 210, 000. 00 (One Million, Two Hundred and Ten Thousand Naira) from Okafor Franklin Chidi by false pretence, when you represented yourself as the owner of plot 267 situated and lying at Emehelaku layout, Nike in Enugu East Local Government of Enugu State, which pretence you knew to be false and thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 1 (1) (a) of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act No. 14 of 2006 and punishable under Section 1 (3) of the same Act”.
Ugwuede pleaded “not guilty” to all the charges preferred against him by the Commission, thereby setting the stage for his trial.
During the course of trial, counsel to the EFCC, Chief Superintendent of the EFCC, CSE Blessing Obasi presented five witnesses and tendered several documents.
However, delivering judgment on April 18, 2024, Justice R. O. Dugbo Oghoghorie ruled that having restituted to the victims in full, the act of restitution has taken away the elements and ingredients of the said offences. The court thereafter discharged and acquitted Ugwuede of all the six charges.
Dissatisfied with the judgement, on July 17, 2024, the EFCC, through a Notice of Appeal, approached the Court of Appeal and urged the court to set aside the judgment of the lower court on the grounds that it failed to evaluate the evidence of the five prosecution witnesses, failed to properly examine the weight of the exhibits particularly exhibit EFCC 1 (Deed of Lease between Umemwene Iji/Alulu Nike Communities and Capt. Agbo Ubachukwu Solomon) amongst others. The prosecution, through its counsel, CSE Obasi also argued that the lower court erred when it held that Ugwuede, having refunded the said money, has taken away the necessary ingredients of the offence of obtaining by false pretence.
In a unanimous judgment of a three-member panel on November 25, 2025, Justice Mohammed Mustapha held that “restitution in itself does not and did not take away the punishment meant and intended for committing the crime. Therefore, the refund of the money collected by the respondent under false pretence has to come along with the punishment prescribed for the offence”
“Judgment of the Federal High Court Enugu, delivered on the 18th of April, 2024 is hereby set aside, along with the order of acquittal. The respondent is accordingly convicted as charged. He is hereby sentenced to the mandatory prescribed minimum of seven years without option of fine”,
The sentences are to run concurrently, in accordance with Section 1 (3) and Section 1 (2) of the Miscellaneous Offences Act, 2004.
