PRINCIPLE STATEMENT

In law, he is deemed to have fraudulently removed the air-conditioners with the intent permanently to deprive the owner of them.

RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)

Per Karibi-Whyte, JSC, quoting the trial judge, in Akinmoju v. State (2000) NLC-11999(SC) at p. 19; Para E.
"In law, he is deemed to have fraudulently removed the air-conditioners with the intent permanently to deprive the owner of them."
View Judgment

EXPLANATION / SCOPE

Removal of property without the owner’s consent constitutes fraudulent taking if done with intent permanently to deprive. The act of removal itself, without lawful authority, supports inference of fraudulent intent. No separate proof of subjective dishonesty is required where the circumstances—lack of consent, absence of claim of right, and permanent deprivation—establish fraud. The law deems such removal fraudulent because the objective facts demonstrate intent to deprive. This objective standard ensures that unauthorized taking without claim of right constitutes stealing regardless of protestations of honest belief.

CASES APPLYING THIS PRINCIPLE