LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – Charge – Minor Discrepancies in Date Not Fatal
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
It is not compulsory for the prosecution to prove the precise date an offence was committed. It is sufficient to give a date without substantial variance with the real date.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Mohammed, JSC, in Awopejo & Ors v. State (2001) NLC-2782000(SC) at p. 7; Paras C–D.
"It is not compulsory for the prosecution to prove the precise date an offence was committed. It is sufficient to give a date without substantial variance with the real date."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
The prosecution need not prove the precise date of an offence—a date without substantial variance from the real date suffices. Minor discrepancies in date do not invalidate the charge or conviction. The critical factor is whether the accused was misled or prejudiced. If the date is not an essential element of the offence (e.g., alibi defence relying on specific date), minor variations are harmless. The court considers whether the accused knew the case to meet. The principle prevents technical acquittals based on immaterial date discrepancies. The prosecution must still prove the offence occurred within the limitation period and on a date reasonably certain. Substantial variance may be fatal.