
Larceny and stealing
Doctrine in Criminal. 22 cases, with the principle each one established. By lanbuk.com.
- Bah v S (CR APP 1 of 2012) [2012] SLCA 2 (7 February 2012)
Sierra Leone — Court of Appeal · 2012
Principle established: A person convicted of receiving stolen goods may apply for bail pending appeal, although costs are generally not awarded in such criminal applications.
- Bah v S (CR APP 1 of 2012) [2015] SLCA 4 (23 June 2015)
Sierra Leone — Court of Appeal · 2015
Principle established: An application for bail pending appeal may be considered by the Court of Appeal following a conviction for receiving stolen goods, often supported by medical or legal grounds.
- Bob Maloba Ogola v Republic [2017] KEHC 2026 (KLR)
Kenya · 2017
Principle established: A sentence for burglary following a plea of guilty may be challenged on appeal if it is considered harsh or excessive under the circumstances of the offence.
- Cole v S (CR APP 2 of 1975) [1975] SLCA 1 (21 December 1975)
Sierra Leone — Court of Appeal · 1975
Principle established: An indictment for embezzlement is defective if it omits the word "fraudulently", as fraudulent intention is an essential element that must be specifically averred in the particulars of offence.
- Cole v S (Criminal Appeal 2 of 1975) [1975] SLSC 5 (21 December 1975)
Sierra Leone — Supreme Court · 1975
Principle established: An indictment charging embezzlement must explicitly aver the element of fraudulent intention, and the omission of the word "fraudulently" renders the charge fatally defective.
- David Kargbo V The State (CR APP 2 of 2012) [2012] SLCA 26 (8 March 2012)
Sierra Leone — Court of Appeal · 2012
Principle established: An applicant convicted of receiving stolen goods and sentenced to imprisonment may apply for bail pending the determination of their appeal.
- Fofanah v S (Criminal Appeal 15 of 1975) [1975] SLSC 6 (23 March 1975)
Sierra Leone — Supreme Court · 1975
Principle established: Where evidence in a larceny trial is conflicting and complex, the trial judge must provide adequate guidance in summing up, failure of which renders a guilty verdict unsafe.
- Fornah & 14 Others v S (CR APP 31 of 1975) [1975] SLCA 2 (30 April 1975)
Sierra Leone — Court of Appeal · 1975
Principle established: A conviction for larceny will be quashed where the trial judge fails to guide the jury on conflicting and complex evidence during the summing up.
- Garber v R, 1964-66 ALR S.L. 233
Sierra Leone — African Law Reports · 1964-66
Principle established: A storekeeper who receives his employer's goods into the store and subsequently removes them animo furandi commits larceny by a servant rather than embezzlement.
- Garber v. R (49 of 1964) [1965] SLCA 5 (18 March 1965)
Sierra Leone — Court of Appeal · 1965
Principle established: A storekeeper who receives his employer's goods into the store and subsequently removes them animo furandi commits larceny by a servant rather than embezzlement.
- Henry Clement Solomon & Rex [1923] SLCA 8 (29 January 1923)
Sierra Leone — Court of Appeal · 1923
Principle established: An employee commits larceny as a servant when they take funds belonging to their employer against instructions and without consent with the intent to permanently deprive.
- Johannes Johnson v Regina (CR APP 7 of 1962) [1962] SLCA 1 (16 July 1962)
Sierra Leone — Court of Appeal · 1962
Principle established: An appellate court will not disturb a jury's finding of guilt for larceny unless the verdict is unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence.
- Johannes Johnson v Regina (CR APP 7 of 1962) [1962] SLCA 30 (16 July 1962)
Sierra Leone — Court of Appeal · 1962
Principle established: A conviction for larceny will be upheld on appeal if supported by sufficient credible evidence presented at trial.
- Mohamed Amadu v Regina (CR APP 15 of 1961) [1961] SLCA 24 (30 October 1961)
Sierra Leone — Court of Appeal · 1961
Principle established: A criminal conviction will be quashed where the trial judge errs by failing to present evidence favourable to the accused in the summing-up to the assessors.
- R v Alhaji S. G. Seisay (35 of 1963) [1963] SLSC 24 (14 June 1963)
Sierra Leone — Supreme Court · 1963
Principle established: Conversion of funds received in the capacity of a school board manager constitutes criminal misappropriation rather than a breach of a separate trust deed.
- Regina v Alhaji S.G Seisay (MAG APP 35 of 1963) [1963] SLSC 51 (14 June 1963)
Sierra Leone — Supreme Court · 1963
Principle established: Conversion of funds received as a school board manager constitutes criminal misappropriation rather than a breach of a separate trust deed.
- Republic v Ababio (EAS/AO/DC/B7/28/2026) [2026] GHADC 23 (29 July 2026)
Ghana · 2026
Principle established: A person commits the offence of stealing by dishonestly appropriating property, such as a vehicle, that was temporarily entrusted to them by the owner.
- S v During And Others (CR APP 13 of 1974) [1974] SLCA 1 (14 October 1974)
Sierra Leone — Court of Appeal · 1974
Principle established: Under section 1(2)(iii) of the Larceny Act 1916, 'owner' includes a person having custody of property, and the circumstances of receipt may themselves sufficiently prove that property was stolen.
- S v Harry (36 of 2022) [2022] ZWHHC 36 (19 January 2022)
Zimbabwe · 2022
Principle established: Theft of trust property occurs when a person unlawfully converts goods or money held on behalf of another to their own use in violation of a trust agreement.
- S v Nhemwa (257 of 2022) [2022] ZWHHC 257 (11 March 2022)
Zimbabwe · 2022
Principle established: Theft is committed when a person in a position of trust intercepts and sells property belonging to their employer for personal gain without authorization.
- Samuel Benson Thorpe v Commissioner of Police (MAG APP 21 of 1960) [1960] SLSC 4 (18 November 1960)
Sierra Leone — Supreme Court · 1960
Principle established: A judge sitting alone cannot convict an accused merely because he disbelieves his explanation where that defence might reasonably be true.
- Solomon v Regem [1923] SLCA 1 (29 January 1923)
Sierra Leone — Court of Appeal · 1923
Principle established: Money deposited in a bank account becomes the bank's property as a debtor, so a servant with authority to withdraw it who misappropriates the funds does not commit larceny by a servant against the employer.
