MR. MICHAEL ARCHIBONG UDO V. THE STATE
August 21, 2025GOZIE MBACHU V FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA
August 21, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2025-05) Legalpedia 35664 (CA)
In the Court of Appeal
Fri May 16, 2025
Suit Number: SC.CR/753/2020
CORAM
Uwani Musa Abba Aji Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Ibrahim Mohammed Musa Saulawa Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Emmanuel Akomaye Agim Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Stephen Jonah Adah Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Jamilu Yammama Tukur Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
PARTIES
AL-AMIN YUNUSA (A.K.A MAKA)
APPELLANTS
THE STATE
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE LAW, APPELLATE PRACTICE, PROLIFERATION OF ISSUES, FAIR HEARING, RAPE, CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY, ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE, PREVIOUS TESTIMONY, TRIAL DE NOVO, CROSS-EXAMINATION, BURDEN OF PROOF, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
On October 4, 2017, at around 01:50 hours, Mr. Hassan Abdullahi, accompanied by Hauwa’u Suleiman and Fatima Ahmed, was traveling to Yelwa Area in Bauchi Metropolis via tricycle. Near A.Y.M. Shafa Filling Station, their tricycle broke down. While attempting repairs, the appellant and two other men, armed with cutlasses, approached and attacked them. They forcibly abducted Hauwa’u Suleiman along with her belongings and fled on a motorcycle.
The abductors took Hauwa’u to a location near Old Airport, Bauchi, where they held her captive for a day, threatening her with cutlasses. Each of them took turns raping her during the period of her abduction.
The appellant, as the 3rd accused person, was arraigned alongside two others before the trial court on a four-count charge of criminal conspiracy. All accused persons pleaded not guilty. The prosecution called three witnesses (PW1, PW2, and PW3).
During the trial, Hon. Justice Gurama, the trial judge, retired. The case was transferred to High Court No. 4, presided over by Hon. Justice Mohammed A. Sambo, and commenced de novo. The accused persons again pleaded not guilty. The appellant testified as DW1, while the other two accused testified as DW2 and DW3.
On October 8, 2019, the trial court found all three accused persons guilty and sentenced them to ten years imprisonment for criminal conspiracy and life imprisonment for rape under the Bauchi State (Special Provision) Law, 2017, both without option of fine.
The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, which dismissed the appeal on July 16, 2020, affirming the trial court’s judgment. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.
HELD
1.The appeal was dismissed as lacking in merit.
2.The Court held that proliferation of issues is reprehensible as it causes procedural inefficiency, confusion, and wastage of judicial time, potentially obscuring main legal issues germane to the case.
3.The Court found that the appellant formulated four issues from three grounds of appeal, which constituted proliferation since issues 2, 3, and 4 were improperly anchored on the same grounds already used for issue 1.
4.The Court held that the Court of Appeal was wrong to strike out issue 1 along with the proliferated issues 2, 3, and 4, as issue 1 was properly anchored on grounds 1, 2, and 3.
5.However, the Court found that no miscarriage of justice occurred because the respondent’s sole issue was broader and more encompassing than the appellant’s issue 1, and the appellant had fully addressed it in his reply brief.
6.The Court held that the evidence of PW1 and PW2 was properly admitted under Section 46(1) of the Evidence Act 2011, as all conditions for admitting previous testimony were satisfied.
7.The Court affirmed that the prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and that medical evidence is not always necessary in rape cases if there is corroborating circumstantial evidence.
8.The judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered on July 16, 2020, was affirmed.
ISSUES
1.Whether the refusal and failure of the Court below to call parties in the appeal before it to address the Court on the issue of proliferation of issues for determination did not shut the door against the appellant’s right to fair hearing and thereby occasioned a miscarriage of justice.
2.Whether the Court below had jurisdiction to enter an order dismissing the appellant’s appeal when the whole issues submitted for determination were not decided on their merit.
3.Whether the Court below was right when it visited the error of counsel on the appellant based on an alleged perceived mistake or inadvertence on proliferation of issues for determination thereby occasioned miscarriage of justice.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
PROLIFERATION OF ISSUES – DANGERS AND JUDICIAL POLICY
“This Court has over the years in a plethora of decisions warned against proliferation of issues… This Court has always warned that proliferation is reprehensible as it causes above all, procedural inefficiency and confusion leading to the wastage of judicial time. The danger in allowing proliferation is the fact that the main legal issues which are germane may become obscured by the multitude of irrelevant ones.” – Per STEPHEN JONAH ADAH, J.S.C.
GROUNDS OF APPEAL – PURPOSE AND FAIR HEARING
“The overall purpose of grounds of appeal is to enhance the fundamental right of fair hearing of the respondent by giving him notice of the case he is going to meet and address at the appellate Court. It is aimed at avoiding surprise, ambush and embarrassment to the other side.” – Per STEPHEN JONAH ADAH, J.S.C.
NATURE OF GROUNDS OF APPEAL – ERRORS AND REASONS
“It is settled law that a ground of appeal is basically a highlight of the error of law or fact or mixed law and fact made by the Court in the decision sought to be set aside in the appeal. It is the sum of total of the reason(s) why the decision on appeal is considered by learned counsel for the appellant to be wrong and liable to be set aside.” – Per ONNOGHEN, JSC in NWANKWO & ANOR V. ECUMENICAL DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY (as quoted by STEPHEN JONAH ADAH, J.S.C.)
PROPER ISSUE FORMULATION – JUSTICE AND EFFICIENCY
“It is justice decked with dexterity, poised and proficiency to have many grounds of appeal boxed into an issue rather than having many issues framed from one ground of appeal. The latter is antithetical to the interest of justice and the appellate Court is at liberty to strike down any issue of proliferation.” – Per STEPHEN JONAH ADAH, J.S.C.
RULE AGAINST PROLIFERATION – PERMISSIBLE AND IMPERMISSIBLE FORMULATIONS
“While it is permissible to formulate one issue from several grounds of appeal, it is not proper to formulate more than one issue from a single ground of appeal.” – Per the Court of Appeal (as quoted by STEPHEN JONAH ADAH, J.S.C.)
ERRORS OF COUNSEL – COURT’S ATTITUDE TOWARDS LITIGANTS
“It is trite law that the Court does not normally punish a litigant for the mistake of his counsel… Courts do not normally punish a litigant for the mistakes of his counsel… The Courts will generally not punish a litigant for the mistake or inadvertence of his counsel when the mistake or inadvertence is in respect of procedural matters.” – Per ONU, JSC in OGUNDOYIN & ORS. V. ADEYEMI (as quoted by STEPHEN JONAH ADAH, J.S.C.)
CONDITIONS FOR ADMITTING PREVIOUS TESTIMONY – SECTION 46 EVIDENCE ACT
“Evidence given by a witness in a judicial proceeding, or before any person authorized by law to take it, is admissible for the purpose of proving in a subsequent judicial proceeding or in a latter stage of the same judicial proceeding the truth of the facts which it states, when the witness cannot be called for any of the reasons specified in Section 39, or is kept out of the way by the adverse party.” – Per Section 46(1) of the Evidence Act 2011 (as quoted by STEPHEN JONAH ADAH, J.S.C.)
REQUIREMENTS FOR ADMITTING PREVIOUS TESTIMONY – FIVE CONDITIONS
“The following conditions must be fulfilled before a previous testimony can be admitted in evidence: 1. The evidence must have been given in a judicial proceeding. 2. The first proceedings must be between the same parties and the second proceeding, and the identity of the parties in the two proceedings must be substantial and not nominal. 3. The party against whom the testimony is tendered must have had the opportunity of cross-examining the witness when his testimony was taken. 4. The issues in both proceedings must be the same or substantially the same. 5. The witness must be incapable of coming to Court in the subsequent proceeding on account of death, or incapability of giving evidence or prevented from coming to Court by the adverse party, or bringing him to Court would entail huge expense or unreasonable amount of delay.” – Per STEPHEN JONAH ADAH, J.S.C.
MEDICAL EVIDENCE IN RAPE CASES – NOT ALWAYS NECESSARY
“In our law, it is not only medical evidence that can prove in a trial Court that the victim was raped or violated. If there are circumstantial evidence corroborating the evidence of the prosecutrix that she was raped, the conviction would not be voided… medical report of penetration in rape cases may not be necessary if there are circumstances corroborating the evidence of the prosecutrix.” – Per STEPHEN JONAH ADAH, J.S.C.
COURT JURISDICTION – DISMISSING APPEALS ON MERIT
“The object of the Court, it is well known, is to do justice. The justice that is required is not technical justice, but justice accordingly to the law. The Court must administer justice sitting on law and equity. The Court is mainly to determine the rights of the parties and not to punish them for the blunders, errors or mistakes which they make in the conduct of their cases but to accord their right substantially without occasioning injustice.” – Per STEPHEN JONAH ADAH, J.S.C.
APPELLATE COURT POWERS – REFORMULATING ISSUES
“The law is trite that an appellate Court has the right or duty where appropriate, to formulate, re-formulated or reframe issue or issues for determination of an appeal especially in a situation where it is of the opinion that the issue(s) as formulated by learned counsel to any of the parties did not encompass the actual points in controversy in the appeal.” – Per STEPHEN JONAH ADAH, J.S.C.
TRIAL DE NOVO – EVIDENCE FROM PREVIOUS PROCEEDINGS
“At the trial before Sambo, J., the prosecution informed the Court that he had two more witnesses who he could not contact. But that he had the certified true copy of their previous evidence in this case taken in the proceeding before Gurama, J. That he would like to tender the certified true copies of the recorded testimony of the two witnesses… The appellant was represented by a counsel called Lotanna Okoye… Okoye: No objection.” – Per STEPHEN JONAH ADAH, J.S.C.
PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT – EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE
“From the evidence at the trial Court, the offence for which the appellant was convicted was truly proved beyond reasonable doubt as found concurrently by the lower Courts… The evidence of the prosecutrix was concrete and credible as to the fact that she was abducted by the appellant and two others from the ‘keke-napep’ she was in with her fiancé and was taken to a house that night and was raped by the appellant and the two others under threat to her life.” – Per STEPHEN JONAH ADAH, J.S.C.
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
1. Bauchi State (Special Provision) Law, 2017
2. Evidence Act 2011
3. Section 46(1) of the Evidence Act 2011
4. Section 39 of the Evidence Act 2011
5. Section 239(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code
6. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)
7. Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution
8. Order 7 Rule (3) of the Court of Appeal Rules
9. Order 11 Rule (3) of the Supreme Court Rules 2024
