CHARLES C. ACHOR vs THE STATE
March 27, 2025NIGERIAN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LIMITED & ANOR V. KAN BISCUITS COMPANY LIMITED
March 27, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2022-03) Legalpedia 04514 (CA)
In the Court of Appeal
Holden at Calabar
Tue Mar 8, 2022
Suit Number: CA/C/420C/2018
CORAM
MUHAMMED L. SHUAIBU, JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL
BALKISU B. ALIYU, JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL
SAMUEL A. BOLA, JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL
PARTIES
AKINTOLA OLAKUNLE AKINGBADE
APPELLANTS
THE STATE
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
APPEAL, CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, LAW OF EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Complainant, Sundubros Investment Limited was a customer and key distributor of Nigerian Breweries Plc.; an employer of the Appellant herein. As a distributor, the complainant only received supplies after payment for such supplies vide customer’s order and deposits through either cheque, bank draft or any other method approved by the company.
Upon reasonable suspicion that the Appellant in conjunction other employees of the company had fraudulently dealt with her, (leading to huge financial loss and collapse of the complainant’s business), the complainant caused a petition alleging fraudulent dealings against the company and some of her staff. After discrete investigation, it was discovered that a large scale of fraud running into several millions of naira had been committed against the complainant and this resulted in filing a 207 counts of charge against the Nigerian Breweries Plc. and Eight of its employees including the appellant before the High Court of Akwa Ibom State.
At the end of the prosecution’s case, the respondent decided to make a no case submission wherein issues were joined on the said no case submission. Learned trial judge in a considered ruling overruled the no case submission and thereby ordered the appellant to enter his defence on the charge.
Dissatisfied, Appellant approached this court on appeal after securing leave from the trial court.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed
ISSUES
Whether from the proof of evidence before the honourable court, the trial court was right when it held that there is a prima facie case against the appellant when the lower court refused the appellant’s no case submission.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
NO CASE SUBMISSION – CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE A SUBMISSION OF NO CASE TO ANSWER MAY BE PROPERLY MADE AND UPHELD
“In the famous case of Ubanatu –V- C.O.P. (2000)2 NWLR (prt. 643) 115 at 141, the Supreme Court has held that a submission of no case to answer may be properly made and upheld-
(a) When there has been no evidence to prove an essential element in the alleged offence, or
(b) Even when evidence has been adduced on the essential elements, the evidence has been so discredited as a result of cross-examination or is so manifestly unreliable that no reasonable tribunal could safely convict on it.
The apex court also stressed the distinction between the two conditions above, that if an essential element is missing, the question of discredited evidence through cross-examination will certainly not arise. PER M. L. SHUAIBU,J.C.A
NO CASE SUBMISSION – GROUND ON WHICH A COURT OVERRULES A NO CASE SUBMISSION
“It is also imperative to note that where a judge overrules a no case submission, he must be satisfied that a prima facie case is made out against the accused. PER M. L. SHUAIBU,J.C.A
CASES CITED
Not Available
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Not Available
