CORAM
MONICA BOLNA’AN DONGBAN-MENSEM JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
PARTIES
EGBELE AUSTIN EROMOSELE? APPELLANTS
FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA? RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellant and two others were arraigned at the Federal High Court on a Six count charge for offences of manufacturing and distribution of adulterated drug known as my pikin Baby Teething Mixture contrary to Section 1(a) of the Counterfeit and Fake Drugs and unwholesome Processed Foods (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act Cap C34 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 and punishable under Section 3 of the same Act, conspiracy to sell and selling of adulterated drug contrary to Section 1(18)(a)(ii) of the Miscellaneous Offences Act Cap M17 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 and punishable under Section 1(18) (a)(ii);1(18)(b)(ii) and 3 of the same Act, amongst others. The trial judge after considering arguments of parties discharged and acquitted the Appellant and the Co-accused on count 1,2, 5 and 6 but convicted them for the offence of conspiracy to sell and selling of dangerous drug. They were sentenced to 7years imprisonment on each of the counts which were to run concurrently. Dissatisfied with the judgment of the court, the Appellant and the Co-accused filed separate appeal to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal entered judgment affirming the judgement of the trial court. Upon a further appeal to the Supreme Court, the apex court declared the judgment a nullity and remitted the appeal back to this court for hearing de novo on grounds that the judgement by the was based on an abandoned Notice of Appeal.
HELD
Appeal Allowed.
ISSUES
? Whether the learned trial Judge was right in failing to consider and evaluate the evidence of the defence tendered by DWI. Grounds I and 2? Whether the sentence of seven years imprisonment against the Appellant was justified in the circumstance of the case. Ground 13? Whether the lower Court made a finding, based on scientific evidence that the drug “My Pikin Baby Teething Mixture” with Batch No 02008 was dangerous which therefore support the conviction of the appellants.? Whether the argument canvassed vis-a-vis the evidence adduced by the Respondent was not credible enough to support the conviction of the Appellants.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Counterfeit and Fake Drugs and Unwholesome Processed Foods (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act Cap C34 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004Miscellaneous Offences Act Cap M17 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.