Legalpedia Citation: (2015-01) Legalpedia (SC) 11852
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
HOLDEN AT ABUJA
Thu Jan 29, 2015
Suit Number: SC. 230/2012
CORAM
MUHAMMAD SAIFULLAH MUNTAKA COOMASSIE, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
MUHAMMAD SAIFULLAH MUNTAKA COOMASSIE, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA APPELLANTS
BABALOLA BORISADE
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
SUMMARY OF FACTS
This is an interlocutory appeal which originated from the case of the Appellant against the Respondents and four others at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja. The Respondent alongside four others were charged for committing various offences under the Penal Code and the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000, during the course of the proceedings, the Prosecution sought to tender the extra judicial statement of the 3rd accused person, but this was stoutly resisted by the his counsel and counsel for other accused persons on the ground that it was involuntarily made. The trial court after holding a trial-within-trial admitted the statement in evidence as Exhibit AX and this resulted to an appeal by the Respondent. On appeal, the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division upturned the ruling of the trial court and expunged the said exhibit from the records. The decision of the Court of Appeal has grossly displeased the Appellant hence the instant appeal.
HELD
Appeal succeeds.
ISSUES
1. Whether or not the Lower Court was right to have discountenanced the appellant’s contention that the third accused person admitted at the trial within trial that he voluntarily made the statement in issue?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
INTERLOCUTORY APPEALS – WHEN DEALING WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPEALS, THE APPELLATE COURT SHOULD BE CAREFUL NOT TO PREJUDICE THE SUBSTANTIVE MATTER PENDING AT THE TRIAL COURT.
“In an interlocutory appeal such as this, the court, while endeavouring to deal with the justice of the complaint, should be circumspect enough not to overreach itself by prejudicing the ultimate outcome of any aspect of the substantive matter still pending at the trial court, Egbe v. Onogun (1972) 1 All NLR 95; Akuma Industries Ltd v. Ayman Enterprises Ltd [1999]13 NWLR (pt.633) 68; Agip (Nig) Ltd. v. Agip Petroleum International and Others [2010] 5 NWLR (pt.1187) 348; Mil Admin of Ekiti State v. Aladeyelu [2007] 14 NWLR (Pt.1055) 619; Ominia (Nig.) Ltd v. Dyktrade Ltd [2007] 15 NWLR (Pt.1058) 576; Ojukwu v. Governor of Lagos State [1986] 2 NWLR (pt.26)39; Iweka v. SCOA (Nig) Ltd.[2000] 7 NWLR (Pt.664) 325; Orji v. Zaria Industries Ltd. [1992] 1 NWLR (pt.216) 124.”
PURPOSE OF RE-FORMULATION OF ISSUES BY THE SUPREME COURT – THE SUPREME COURT HAS THE POWER TO RE-FORMULATE ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLARITY.
“The power of this court to reformulate issues is not in doubt in so far as the issues so re-formulated are within the grounds of appeal. The court, usually, embarks on this option for the purpose of clarity and precision when it observes that the issues, which the parties distilled, are clumsy; imprecise or are proliferated, Reptico S. A. Geneva v Afribank Nig Plc (2013) LPELR -20662 (SC) 35, A-D; Unity Bank Plc v. Bouari [2008] 2 SCM 193; [2008] All FWLR (pt.416) 1825; [2008] 7 NWLR (pt.1086) 372; Emeka Nwana v. FCDA and Ors [2004] 7 SCM 25; Agbakoba v INEC [2008] 12 SCM (pt.2) 159; [2008] All FWLR (pt.410) 799; [2008] 18 NWLR (pt.1119) 489.”
RATIONALE FOR TRIAL WITHIN TRIAL -THE PURPOSE OF A TRIAL WITHIN TRIAL IS TO SIFT THE CHAFF OF INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE FROM THE WHEAT OF ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE
“The raison d’etre of the evolution of the mini trial or voire dire procedure is to arm the trial court with a procedural mechanism for sifting the chaff of involuntary, and, hence, inadmissible evidence from the wheat of admissible evidence whose cogency and probative value are indubitable. The cases on this point are legion: they are countless. Only one or two of them will be cited here, Ogudo v The State [2011] 12 SC (pt.1) 71; Ibeme v The State (2013) LPELR -20138 (SC); Auta v State [1975] 4 SC O125; Effiong v. State [1978] 8 NWLR (Pt.562) 362; Lasisi v. State (2013) LPELR-20183 (SC) 29; The State v Rabiu (2013) LPELR – 19982 (SC); Ogudu v. The State (2011) LPELR-860 (SC); Nwangbonu v. State [1987] 4 NWLR (Pt.67) 748; Ogunye v. State [1999] 5 NWLR (pt.664) 548, 570.”
CONFESSIONS – BEFORE A COURT CAN ACT ON A CONFESSION, THE TRUTH OR OTHERWISE OF THE SAID CONFESSION MUST BE TESTED
“The courts are not, generally, disposed to act on a confession without testing the truth thereof, Onochie and Ors v The Republic (1966) NMLR 307; Jafiya Kopa v. The State (1971) 1 All NLR 150; R. v. Sykes (1913) 8 C.AR 233, 236; Ejinima v The State [1991] 5 LRCN 1640, 1671; Arthur Onyejekwe v The State [1992] 4 SCNJ 1, 9; [1992] 3 NWLR (Pt.230) 444.”
FINDING OF FACT – A FINDING OF FACT BASED ON THE DEMEANOUR OF THE WITNESS IS A PREROGATIVE OF THE COURT.
“A finding of fact based on demeanour is one of those exclusive prerogatives of a trial court which appellate courts do not make the habit of interfering with, Olarenwaju v Governor of Oyo State; Sokwo v. Kpongbo; Woluchem v. Gudi [1981] 5 SC 319, 326; Fatoyinbo and Ors v Williams (1956) 1 FSC 87; Kodilinye v. Mbanefo Odu 2 W.A.C.A 336, 338; Ramonu Atolagbe v Olayemi Shorun [1985] 1 NWLR (pt.2) 360; Mogaji v. Odofin [1978] 4 SC 91; Obisanya v Nwoko [1974] 6 SC 69; Okuoja v Ishola [l982] 7 SC 31.”
COURT – COURTS ARE ENJOINED TO DETERMINE LIVE ISSUES
“Courts should, on no account, spend precious judicial time on issues that are academic. They should determine live issues, and those are issues that would meet the ends of Justice, Oyeneye v Odugbesan [1972] 4 SC 244; Bakare v. A.C.B. Ltd [1986] 3 NWLR (pt.26) 47; Nzon v Iinadu [1987] 1 NWLR (pt.51) 537; Lawal v Morohunfola [1998] 1 NWLR (pt.532) 111; Badejo v Federal Minister of Education [1996] 9-10 SC 51; [1996] 8 NWLR (Pt.464) 15.”
CASES CITED
NONE
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000