TUKUR HALILU V KATSINA STATE
April 20, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2025-02) Legalpedia 26030 (SC)
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Holden at Abuja
Fri Feb 7, 2025
Suit Number: SC.217/2016
CORAM
Emmanuel Akomaye Agim-Justice of the supreme court
Chioma Egondu Nwosu-Iheme-Justice of the supreme court
Haruna Simon Tsammani -Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Habeeb Adewale Olumuyiwa Abiru-Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Mohammed Baba Idris-Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
PARTIES
IBRAHIM YUSUF
APPELLANTS
FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
CRIMINAL LAW, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, APPEAL, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, TERRORISM, EVIDENCE, JUDICIAL DISCRETION
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellant, Ibrahim Yusuf, was one of fifteen persons arraigned before the Federal High Court on three counts of offences, namely: conspiracy to commit terrorist acts within Jos and its environs, illegal possession of locally made guns without a valid license, and committing terrorist acts in Kadunu Village in Mangu Local Government Area of Plateau State while armed with dangerous weapons. The Appellant was the second accused person and was named in only two of the counts – conspiracy to commit terrorist acts and committing terrorist acts – to which he pleaded Not Guilty.
The Respondent called five witnesses and tendered various exhibits including six locally made guns, one long knife, one short knife, four bows, thirteen arrows, three axes, one machete, and the extra-judicial statements of the Appellant and his co-accused. The Appellant and co-accused persons called only one witness in their defense and did not testify themselves.
The trial Court convicted the Appellant on two counts and sentenced him to two years imprisonment and ten years imprisonment respectively, without an option of fine. The Appellant was not charged with or convicted for illegal possession of firearms, although seven of his co-accused were convicted of this offense.
The Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, which reappraised the evidence and affirmed the conviction and sentence of the trial Court. The Appellant further appealed to the Supreme Court.
HELD
1. The appeal was struck out as incurably bad.
2. The judgment of the Court of Appeal sitting in its Jos Judicial Division and delivered on the 17th of March, 2013 in Appeal No CA/J/183C/2011 was affirmed.
3. The Supreme Court found that the Appellant had no viable issue for determination and/or useful arguments as the issues formulated were completely alien to the judgment appealed against.
ISSUES
1. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law when they relied on the extra judicial statement of the Appellant (Exhibit A4) in affirming the conviction and sentence of the Appellant as having admitted being in possession of the guns and firearms.?
2. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right when they held affirming the judgment of the trial Court that the Respondent proved the allegation of illegal possession of firearms against the Appellant.?
3. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right when they affirmed the conviction and sentence of the Appellant on Counts One and Two of the criminal charge under wrong sections and without any penalty provided therein.?
4. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right when they affirmed the conviction and sentence of the Appellant when the Records contained in the judgment of the trial Court showed that the judgment of the trial Court was delivered in the absence of the Appellant and such error occasioned a miscarriage of justice.?
5. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right when they affirmed the conviction and sentence of the Appellant on the offence of illegal possession of firearms, when the Appellant was not charged of the offence of illegal possession of firearms as contained in Count Two of the charge before the trial Court.?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION – NECESSITY OF ISSUES BEING PREDICATED UPON THE RATIO DECIDENDI:
“It is settled law that an issue for determination in an appeal and the arguments canvassed thereunder must be predicated upon and be directed at the ratio decidendi of the decision of the Court appealed against – Archianga Vs Attorney General, Akwa Ibom State (2015) 6 NWLR (Pt 1454) 1, Ominiyi Vs Alabi (2015) 6NWLR (Pt 1456) 572, Olawoye Vs State (2023) 2 NWLR (Pt 1867) 1, lronbar Vs Federal Mortgage Finance Ltd (2024) LPELR 62186(SC).” – Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.
INCOMPETENT ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION – CONSEQUENCE OF ISSUES NOT DIRECTED AT RATIO DECIDENDI:
“Where an issue for determination does not arise from and/or is not directed at the ratio decidendi of the judgment appealed against, it is incompetent and liable to be struck out – Atanda Vs Commissioner for Land and Housing, Kwara State (2018) 1 NWLR (Pt 1599) 32, Tabansi Vs Tabansi (2018) 18 NWLR (Pt 1651) 279, Ugwu Vs State (2020) 15 NWLR(Pt 1746) 1.” – Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.
RATIO DECIDENDI – MEANING AND IMPORTANCE IN APPEAL:
“Ratio decidendi is defined as the enunciation of the reason or principle on which a question before a Court has been decided. In other words, it is the general reasons given for the decision or the general grounds on which it is based, detached or abstracted from the specific peculiarities of the particular case which gives rise to the decision. It means what was decided. It is not something which a party imagines or thinks was decided – Onah Vs Schlumberger (Nig) Ltd (2018) 17 NWLR (Pt 1647) 84, Ugwu Vs State (2020) 15 NWLR (Pt 1746) 1, Opene Vs National Judicial Council (2024) 15 NWLR (Pt 1960) 101.”– Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.
APPELLATE COURT’S FUNCTION – DETERMINATION OF DISPUTES BASED ON RECORD:
“Again, it is elementary that an appellate Court determines the disputes of parties and arrives at the conclusion basically on the printed record of what transpired at the lower Court. An appellant therefore is only entitled to contest the judgment of a trial Court on the issues properly raised before the lower Court and pronounced upon by that Court V. Steel (Nig) Ltd Vs Government of Anambra State (2001) 8 NWLR (Pt 715) 454, Akinyanju Vs University of llorin (2005) 7 NWLR (Pt 923) 87 and Netufo Vs Omoolorun (2005) 12 NWLR (Pt 938) 1.”– Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.
CONSISTENCY IN CASE PRESENTATION – PROHIBITION AGAINST MAINTAINING DIFFERENT CASE ON APPEAL:
“A party is not allowed to maintain on appeal a different case from that pursued at the trial Court; he must be consistent in stating his case Suberu Vs State (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt 1197) 586, Ologun Vs Fatayo (2013) 1 NWLR (Pt 1335) 303, lliyasu Vs State (2014) 15 NWLR (Pt 1430) 245, Aiyeola Vs Pedro (2014) 13 NWLR (Pt 1424) 409.” – Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.
INCOMPETENT ISSUES – EFFECT OF ISSUES NOT RAISED AND PRONOUNCED UPON BY TRIAL COURT:
“It is trite law that an issue which is not raised, argued and pronounced upon by a trial Court, cannot be validly raised as a ground of appeal or as issue for determination before the appellate Court, as such issue or argument made thereon are not competent and therefore go to no issue.– Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.
FRESH ISSUES ON APPEAL – REQUIREMENT OF LEAVE OF COURT:
“The option opened to a party who desires to raise on appeal an issue that was not canvassed before the lower Court is to seek leave of this Court to do so. Where no leave is sought and the issue is raised by the party, the issue will be incompetent and this Court will have no jurisdiction to entertain same Alamieyeseigha Vs Federal Republic of Nigeria (2006) 16 NWLR (Pt 1004) 1, Abdullahi Vs Bani (2014) 17 NWLR (Pt 1435) 1 and Ubani Ukoma Vs Seven Up Bottling Co Plc (2023) 2 NWLR (Pt 1867) 117.” – Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.
DISTINCTION BETWEEN LEAVE TO APPEAL AND LEAVE TO RAISE FRESH ISSUES:
“There is a whole world of difference between an application for leave to appeal and an application for leave to raise fresh issues in an appeal. They are not synonymous or similar – Adio Vs State (1986) LPELR 183(SC), Ajuwon Vs Adeoti (1990) LPELR 310(SC), Fiogret Ltd Vs Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (2022) LPELR 57714(CA). The conditions for the grant of the two applications are different Ezeonwuka Vs Ezeononuju (2018) 15 NWLR (Pt 1642) 347.– Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.
CONDITIONS FOR GRANT OF LEAVE TO APPEAL:
“In an application for leave to appeal, an applicant must show good and substantial reasons for the failure to appeal within the prescribed period and the grounds of appeal must show prima facie a good cause why the appeal must be heard. Both conditions must co-exist lbodo Vs Enarofia (1980) 5-7 SC 42, Nigeria Laboratory Company Ltd Vs Pacific Merchant Bank Ltd (2012) 15 NWLR (Pt 1324) 505, Adigwe Vs Federal Republic of Nigeria (2015) 18 NWLR (Pt 1490) 105.” – Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.
CRITERIA FOR RAISING FRESH ISSUES ON APPEAL:
“With regard to an application to raise fresh issues on appeal, this Court in Okenwa Vs Military Governor, Imo State (1996) 6 NWLR (Pt 455) 394 at 408 stated the criteria it considers in the exercise of its discretion to grant same as (i) when the point of law discloses ex-facie that the Court has no jurisdiction; (ii) where the point of law raised arose out of the decision of the Court of first instance and could not have been raised earlier in that Court; (iii) where the point of law raised involves the interpretation of documents relevant to the determination of the case before the Court; (iv) where all materials necessary for the determination of the point of law raised are present in the records of the Court; or (v) where the Court is satisfied that the evidence is such that establishes beyond doubt, that the facts, if fully investigated, would have supported the new plea.” – Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.
IMPORTANCE OF ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION IN BRIEF OF ARGUMENTS:
“It is trite that issues for determination are an essential, important and integral part of every brief of arguments filed in the appellate Court and this is because appeals in this Court and in the Court of Appeal are argued on the issues formulated by Counsel as arising from the grounds of appeal – Momodu Vs Momoh (1991) 1 NWLR (Pt 169) 608, Bamgbade Vs Balogun (1994) 1 NWLR (Pt 323) 718, Daniel Tayar Transport Enterprises Nigeria Company Ltd Vs Busari (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt 1249) 387, Husseini Vs Mohammed (2015) 3 NWLR (Pt 1445) 100.”– Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.
CONSEQUENCE OF ABSENCE OF VALID ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:
“Thus, it has been held that where an appellant has presented no issues for determination before an appellate Court in a brief of arguments, it is sufficient by itself to render the brief incompetent, and the appeal liable to be struck out -Orji Vs Zaria Industries Ltd (1992) 1 NWLR (Pt 216) 124, Adehi Vs Atega (1995) 5 NWLR (Pt 398) 656, Nigerian Air Force Vs Shekete (2002) 18 NWLR (Pt 798) 129, Abayomi Vs Attorney General, Ondo State (2006) 8 NWLR (Pt 982) 211, Mbaji Vs Amobi (2011) LPELR 3988(CA), Nyameh Vs Independent National Electoral Commission (2023) LPELR 59999(SC).” – Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.
DEFECTIVE BRIEFS OF ARGUMENT – NOT A MATTER OF TECHNICALITY:
“The brief of arguments is defective and irredeemably bad and it is not an issue of technicality but an established principle and settled law -Adegboyega Vs Awe (1993) 3 NWLR (Pt 280) 224, Folorunsho Vs State (1993) 8 NWLR (Pt 313) 612, Premier Records Ltd Vs Nwachukwu (2008) LPELR 4866(CA), Oyegun Vs Nzeribe (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt 1220) 568, Lawal Vs Adeloye (2022) LPELR 58509(CA), Ogbuji Vs Ogbonna (2024) LPELR 62168(SC).– Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)
African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act (Cap A9) LFN 2004
Terrorism (Prevention) Act 2011
