A recent case at a Grade A Customary Court in Ibadan has highlighted the serious legal consequences of alleged violent threats and property damage. The court remanded a 26-year-old man, Kale Mbanu, pending the fulfillment of bail conditions, following charges of threat to life and malicious damage to a high-value smartphone. This report delves beyond the basic facts to explain the legal framework, court procedures, and potential implications of such charges.
The defendant, Kale Mbanu, pleaded not guilty to a two-count charge before the court’s President, Mrs. S.M. Akintayo. The prosecution, led by Inspector Ayodele Ayeni, alleged that on December 6, 2025, at approximately 9:00 a.m. on Kolawole Street in the Bodija area of Ibadan, Mbanu damaged an iPhone Pro Max 16 valued at ₦2.3 million and subsequently threatened to stab the complainant, Aiyat Abubakar, with a knife.
Understanding the Legal Charges and Their Gravity
The prosecutor cited that the offences contravene Sections 86 and 451 of the Criminal Code, Cap. 38, Vol. II, Laws of Oyo State, 2000. These are not minor infractions:
- Section 86 (Threat to Life): This section deals with threats to kill or do grievous bodily harm. A conviction can carry a significant prison sentence, as the law treats such threats as a serious assault on a person’s security and peace of mind, potentially preceding a more violent act.
- Section 451 (Malicious Damage): This covers the wilful and unlawful destruction or damage of property. The penalty often correlates with the value of the property damaged. In this case, the alleged damage to a phone worth ₦2.3 million places it in a category of substantial property loss, elevating the severity of the charge.
The Court’s Procedure: Bail, Remand, and Adjournment
Despite the not-guilty plea, the court did not release the defendant unconditionally. Mrs. Akintayo granted bail in the sum of ₦500,000 with two reliable sureties in like sum. However, as the defendant did not immediately meet these conditions, he was remanded at a correctional centre until he could do so. This is a standard procedure to ensure the defendant’s appearance at future hearings while upholding the presumption of innocence.
The case was then adjourned until February 15, 2026. This two-month period is typical, allowing time for both the prosecution and defence to prepare their cases, gather evidence (such as witness statements, repair estimates for the phone, or any CCTV footage), and engage in potential pre-trial discussions.
Context and Broader Implications
This case sits at the intersection of several societal issues: interpersonal conflict, the protection of personal property—especially high-value electronics—and the legal system’s role in deterring violence. The choice of a Customary Court is also noteworthy; while it handles certain criminal matters in some states, its jurisdiction and procedures can differ from those of the Magistrate or High Courts. The outcome of this case will depend heavily on the evidence presented by the prosecution to prove both the act of damage and the specific threat beyond a reasonable doubt.
The adjourned date in February 2026 will mark the next critical phase. The court will then hear arguments, examine evidence, and listen to testimonies from both the complainant and the defendant, moving the case closer to a resolution.
Edited by Chinyere Omeire. Source: NAN News.
