Section 383(1) prescribes the offence of stealing. It provides:
“A person who fraudulently takes anything capable of being stolen, or fraudulently converts to his own use or to the use of any other person anything capable of being stolen, is said to steal that thing.”
Takes, capable of being stolen, taken by the defendant for his own use. For a thing to be taken, it must be for use. What then constitutes taking? It implies that the defendant takes into possession of the thing capable of being stolen. Thus the AR istakingor conversion.
The term conversion is not defined in the code but in the common law in a case to mean dealing with a good in a manner inconsistent with the right of the true owner. A thing must be moved and physical possession taken thereof.
Section 382 delineate things capable of being stolen. It provides:
“Every inanimate thing whatever which is the property of any person, and which is movable, is capable of being stolen.
Every inanimate thing which is the property of any person, and which is capable of being made movable, is capable of being stolen as soon as it becomes movable, although it is made movable in order to steal it.
Every tame animal, whether tame by nature or wild by nature and tamed, which is the property of any person, is capable of being stolen: but tame pigeons are not capable of being stolen except while they are in a pigeon-house or on their owner’s land.
A thing in action is capable of being stolen.
Animals wild by nature, of a kind which is not ordinarily found in a condition of natural liberty in Nigeria, which are the property of any person, and which are usually kept in a state of confinement, are capable of being stolen, whether they are actually in confinement or have escaped from confinement.
Animals wild by nature, of a kind which is ordinarily found in a condition of natural liberty in Nigeria, which are the property of any person, are capable of being stolen while they are in confinement and while they are being actually pursued after escaping from confinement, but not at any other time.
An animal wild by nature is deemed to be in a state of confinement so long as it is in a den cage, sty, tank, or other small enclosure, or is otherwise so placed that it cannot escape and that its owner can take possession of it at pleasure.
An ostrich on an enclosed ostrich farm is capable of being stolen.
The term “animal” includes any Living creature other than mankind.
Wild animals in the enjoyment of their natural Liberty are not capable of being stolen, but their dead bodies are capable of being stolen.
Everything produced by or forming part of the body of an animal capable of being stolen is capable of being stolen.”
Thus, from the foregoing, a human being is not capable of being stolen but can still be an object of crime.
*find the meaning of the word “asportment” in relation to “stealing”.
Note that a definition refrain of a thing capable of being stolen is that the thing must have an owner. A thing without an owner cannot be stolen. See the case of Onofowoma (Onogbuwa?) v. State.
In a foreign case where an English tourist, not knowing the conversion rate to Italian lira asked the driver to pick the precise amount, the driver picked more than the amount from the tourist’s proffered wallet, and was convicted with stealing.
The intention must be fraudulent. S. 383(2) provides:
“(1) A person who fraudulently takes anything capable of being stolen, or fraudulently converts to his own use or to the use of any other person anything capable of being stolen, is said to steal that thing.
(2) A person who takes or converts anything capable of being stolen is deemed to do so fraudulently if he does so with any of the following intents-
Section 390 of the C.C. prescribes 3 years (a felony) for the offence of stealing.
