ETUBOM (DR) ANTHONY ASUQUO ANI & 4 ORS V ETUBOM EKPO OKON ABASI OUT & 4 ORS
April 16, 2025NAPOLEON S. ORIANZI v. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL, RIVERS STATE & ORS
April 16, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2017) Legalpedia (CA) 01621
In the Court of Appeal
Fri Feb 24, 2017
Suit Number: CA/L/891C/2016
CORAM
PARTIES
CHIBUEZE EMMANUEL OJEH APPELLANTS
FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellant was arraigned before a Lagos State High Court on a five count charge of the offences of issuing a dud cheque and uttering contrary to Section 1(1) (a) of the Dishonoured Cheques (Offences) Act Cap D11 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 and Section 468 of the Criminal Code Law Cap C17, Law of Lagos State. At the trial, the Appellant pleaded not guilty and trial commenced with the Respondent calling five (5) witnesses and tendered documents as exhibits, while the Appellant called 3 witnesses including him and also tendered Exhibits. After hearing both parties, the trial Court discharged the Appellant on counts 2, 3 and 4 of the charge, found him guilty of two, counts 1 and 5. He was convicted and sentenced to terms of imprisonment. Dissatisfied with the Judgment of the trial court, the Appellant has appealed against same contending that some of the Exhibits are computer generated documents which ought not to have been admitted as evidence before the lower court as they do not satisfy the provisions of Section 84 of the Evidence Act, 2011 and that the Exhibits were not tendered with any certificate. The Respondent on the other hand submitted that the Exhibits are admissible in evidence being secondary evidence and a proper foundation was established.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed
ISSUES
? Was the learned trial Judge right when he proceeded to convict the appellant on uttering contrary to section 468 of the Criminal Code Law Cap. CI 7 Laws of Lagos State, 2003 based on inadmissible evidence? Was the trial judge under a duty to have expunged the certificate pursuant to Section 84 of the Evidence Act, 2011 identifying the Appellants FCMB statement of account and the said Appellants FCMB statement of account for being inadmissible? Did the prosecution satisfy the evidential requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt pursuant to section 135 of the Evidence Act,. 2011 relating to the issuance of dishonoured cheque under section 1(1) (a) of the Dishonoured (offences) Act, Cap Dll Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Company and Allied Matters Act 2004.Dishonoured Cheque (Offences) Act, Cap D11, Laws of the Federation, 2004Evidence Act, 2011