ALHAJI BELLO USMAN BUWAI & ANOR VS THE STATE

CORAM

ANDREWS OTUTU OBASEKI, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

PARTIES

ALHAJI BELLO USMAN BUWAISULEIMAN YUSUF APPELLANTS

THE STATE RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellants/Applicants were convicted and sentence to various terms of imprisonment ranging from 6 month to 7 year at the high Court on a three (3) count charges of culpable homicide not punishable with death, causing grievous hurt by dangerous means and mischief. An application for bail was refused at the lower court, hence this appeal to the Court of Appeal for bail pending the final determination of the Appeal.

HELD

Appeal Dismissed

ISSUES

Whether the appellants/applicants have discharged the burden on them to enable this court exercise its discretionary power vested in it under Section 29 of the Court of Appeal Act, Laws of the Federation, 1990 and Order 4 Rule 13(6) of the Court of Appeal Rules 2002.

RATIONES DECIDENDI

BAIL PENDING APPEAL- EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES FOR THE GRANT OF BAIL PENDING APPEAL BY THE COURT OF APPEAL

“The law is well settled that the Court of Appeal will not grant an application for bail pending an appeal unless there are exceptional and unusual reasons why bail ought to be granted to the applicants. The following factors will amount to very exceptional circumstances:
“(1) If the applicant being a first offender had previously been of good behavior
2) If substantial grounds of law are involved in the appeal, it is useful to see if there is any prospect of success on appeal; and
(3) Where having regard to the very congestion Of appeal pending in the Court a refusal of bail to the applicant will have the result of the whole or a considerable portion of the sentence imposed on the applicant being served, before the applicant’s appeal can be heard.”

BAIL PENDING APPEAL- DUTY OF AN APPLICANT IN AN APPLICATION FOR BAIL PENDING APPEAL

“It is the duty of every applicant to present the necessary materials before the court in support of his application to enable the court exercise its discretion in his favour.”

CASES CITED

Enebeli vs. Chief of naval staff (2001) 9 NWLR (PT 671) 119 at 125|Fawihnmi vs. The state (1990) 1 NWLR (PT.127) 486, 494 and 496|Hope Rising Vs. William (1982) 1 – 2 S.C. 145 at 153.