CORAM
PARTIES
FRANK KARKITIE APPELLANTS
FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellant as Accused Person/Applicant was arraigned before the High Court of Lagos State, Ikeja Judicial Division. The Accused Person/Applicant/Appellant filed a summons for bail pending trial. The Appellant’s case is that he has sought to be admitted to bail pending his trial and on 20/12/2017 when the said application was heard by the Court below it was apparent that the Appellant was visibly very sick, pale, disorientated and distraught due to his health challenges but the Court below still refused his application for bail pending his trial. However, on 20/12/2017 the Appellant while being conveyed to the Prisons collapsed in the Prison Vehicle and was revived by other detainees and Prison Warders in the Prison Vehicle and on 21/12/2017 he was taken before the Ikoyi Prison Clinic to see the Prison Doctor, who was unavailable as he only attends to patients on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. On many occasions the Appellant has collapsed in the Prison and resuscitated by fellow inmates and on 8/1/2018, the Appellant was eventually able to meet with the Prison Clinic Doctor and after his medical examination, he was referred to the Police Hospital Ikoyi for further Medical Tests and examination on 10/1/2018 but due to logistic problems was only taken to the Police Clinic on 11/1/2018, where examinations and tests revealed that the Appellant has a left ventricular hypertrophy, peri hilar inflammatory shadows bilaterally with hillar fullness, prostate enlargement and dyslipidaemia and was therefore, in dire serious medical state of health which if left untreated would result into his death. However, based on the findings at the Police Hospital the Appellant was further referred to the Military Hospital where his critical medical condition was further confirmed and the need for his frequent medical observation and treatment was stressed but which was not possible with his incarceration at the Ikoyi Prisons where the required facilities are unavailable, with the possibility of deterioration and exacerbation of these diseases, hence the need for him to be admitted to bail to receive adequate and required medical treatment to be kept alive to stand his trial to its logical legal conclusion. On the other hand, the Respondent in opposition to the Summons for bail by the Appellant was that not only was there no time that the Appellant collapsed in the Court below but there was also no record of any time the Appellant collapsed at the Ikoyi Prisons and that despite a letter of inquiry written on 2/2/2018 to the Police Hospital Ikoyi to ascertain the veracity of the treatment and examinations of the Appellant no response has been received from the Police Hospital Ikoyi. However, on 5/2/2018 the Ikoyi Prisons wrote to the Respondent stating that there was no time the Appellant collapsed in the Ikoyi Prisons but admitted that the Appellant was referred to the Police Hospital for abdominal pain evaluation and treatment and was therefore, not aware of the medical reports allegedly issued to the Appellant by the Police Hospital, Ikoyi. Above all and most importantly to the Respondent, is the fact that the Appellant has an antecedent of jumping bail when admitted to bail in that prior to his arraignment the Appellant had been on the run for a period spanning over one year after he was granted bail by the EFCC. The Appellant was served with a copy of the Information against him on 8/7/2016 but his arraignment was aborted by his constant and persistent absence from Court and thus occasioning the resultant amendment of the charges by the deleting of the name of the Appellant so that the trial of the other Defendants could proceed. The Appellant who was also standing trial in a sister charge in which he was granted bail and ordered to deposit his International Passport with the Registry of the Court below still travelled abroad with his other several International Passports, whilst one of them was in the custody of the Registry of the Court below and therefore, stood the highest risk of fleeing from justice if admitted again to bail by the Court, having been re-arrested and arraigned before the Court below to answer to the charges against him. The Summons for bail of the Appellant was duly heard by the Court below and in its ruling, dismissed the Summons for the bail of the Appellant for lacking in merit. The Appellant was peeved with the ruling of the Court below dismissing his application for bail pending trial and lodged this appeal.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed.
ISSUES
Whether the Appellant has placed sufficient materials in support of his present appeal warranting the exercise of the Appellate Courts discretion to set aside the decision of the lower Court refusing him bail?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
BAIL – TYPES OF BAIL
“In criminal procedure law, bail are of two types namely; bail before conviction, which is bail pending trial and bail upon conviction, which is bail pending appeal against conviction. While bail before conviction is a basic right, bail after conviction is not a basic right. Thus, while before or pending trial, where the offence alleged against an accused person is not a capital offence but one which is ordinarily bailable, then by virtue of Section 36(5) of the Constitution of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), which presumes the innocence of an accused person until proved guilty by the prosecution, the onus is on the prosecution to show why an accused person should not be admitted to bail pending his trial for an ordinarily bailable offence. This is so because the real focus and legal aim of bail is to ensure the attendance of an accused person at his trial. It is never meant to be denied as mere punishment. Thus, once an applicant satisfies the Court that favourable circumstances exist as to why he should be granted bail, including even in capital offences charge where he is obliged to show the existence of special or exceptional circumstances, he would be admitted to bail by the Court pending his trial. See Ogbhemhe V. COP (2001) 5 NWLR (PT. 706) 215. See Also Chinemelu V. COP (1995) 4 NWLR (PT. 390) 346; Emordi V. COP (1995) 2 NWLR (PT. 371) 244; Jimoh V. COP (2004) 17 NWLR (PT. 902) 389.”
BAIL PENDING TRIAL – INSTANCE WHEN AN ACCUSED PERSON WOULD BE ADMITTED TO BAIL PENDING TRIAL
“In law, once an Applicant for bail pending trial satisfies the Court that by the material placed by him before the Court that favorable circumstances exist in his application for bail why he should be granted bail, he would be admitted to bail by the Court pending his trial, since bail should never be denied merely as punishment for a Defendant standing trial, particularly for non capital offences in which bail is a basic right and bail should only be refused in such non capital offences if there is cogent reason or ground to do otherwise. See Tanko V. COP (1986) 1 QLRN 58. See Also Nwoke V. FRN (2005) ALL FWLR (PT. 245) 1083 @ P. 1093; Numuoja V. COP (1968) NLR 84; Anaekwe V. COP (1986) 3 NWLR (PT. 32) 156; Ozougwu V. The State (2006) 9 NWLR (PT. 985) 240.”
BAIL PENDING TRIAL – DUTY OF ACCUSED PERSON WHO RELIES ON SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES IN AN APPLICATION FOR BAIL PENDING TRIAL
“Truly, while there is no duty on an Applicant, such as the Appellant standing trial for non capital offences, to rely on or prove special circumstances in order to be admitted to bail, since bail pending trial for such non capital offences is a basic right, where however, the Appellant had relied on special circumstances for his application for bail pending trial, then he is obliged to show the existence of the special circumstances relied upon by him to be admitted to bail.”
BAIL PENDING TRIAL – WHAT CONSTITUTES ‘SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES’ TO WARRANT THE INTERVENTION OF THE COURT TO ADMIT AN ACCUSED PERSON TO BAIL PENDING HIS TRIAL?
“However, what would constitute special circumstances to warrant the intervention of the Court to admit an Applicant to bail pending his trial will depend on the peculiar facts of each case and thus would vary from case to case and therefore, the categories, despite attempts at setting down some guides by the Courts, are never closed. But, it is almost now certain in law that grave ill – health shown by credible evidence to be capable of jeopardizing the very life of the Defendant pending his trial for whatever offence alleged against him no matter how grave or heinous would invariably constitute special circumstances to warrant the intervention of the Court to admit him to bail pending his trial. The rationale for this position of the law is not far to seek and it is that no matter the gravity of offence for which a man is charged with, it is only the living that can be tried, convicted and punished for any alleged offences no matter how heinous. Indeed, dead men and women neither stand trial nor can be convicted and punished upon conviction, only the living do. See Ani V. The State (2001) FWLR (PT. 81) 1715 @ P. 1727. SEE ALSO Ogbhemhe V. COP (2001) 5 NWLR (PT. 706) 215; Chinemelu V. COP (1995) 4 NWLR (PT. 390) 346.”
REPLY BRIEF – PURPOSE OF A REPLY BRIEF
“I have reviewed the submissions in the Appellants reply filed on 23/5/2018, and it is pertinent to observe that a reply brief, filed pursuant to Order 19 Rule 5 (1) of the Court of Appeal Rules 2016, is solely for the purposes of answering to new points or issues raised in a Respondents brief. It is not an avenue for making additional or fresh submissions in support of the Appeal or for the purpose of rehearsing or repeating the submissions in the Appellants brief or making submissions on the facts all over again. The reply brief of the Appellant delving into and rehearsing several submissions of facts, is with due deference to the learned Senior Advocate for the Appellant, not one within the context of the provisions of Order 19 Rule 5 (1) of the Court of Appeal Rules 2016 and thus not strictly so called what a reply brief ought to and should be in law. I will say no more on this! See Paschal Ikenna Ejiogu V. Hon Alphonsus Gerald Irona & Ors (2008) LPELR 4083 (CA). See Also Popoola V. Adeyemo (1992) 8 NWLR (PTT. 257 1; Adebiyi V. Sorinmade (2004) ALL FWLR (PT. 239) 933; Shuaibu V. Maithoda (1993) 3 NWLR (PT. 284) 748.”
UNCONTROVERTED FACTS – STATUS OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS DEPOSED TO IN AN AFFIDAVIT
“The Appellant truly had no answer to this grave allegation and in law, facts deposed to in an affidavit if not controverted or countered by facts by the adversary are deemed admitted and true and a court of law is perfectly in order to act on such facts as good evidence to make appropriate and relevant findings of fact. See Ugochukwu V. Nwoke & Anor (2010) LPELR 11616 (CA). See Also Ejikeme V. Ibekwe (1997) 7 NWLR (PT. 514) 92 @ P. 518; KAMBA V. BAWA (2005) 4 NWLR (PT. 914) 43; Reynolds Ezediaro V. Ghaddar Machinery & Co. Ltd (2011) LPELR – 9061.”
BAIL PENDING TRIAL– FACTORS THE COURT MUST CONSIDER IN DETERMINING AN APPLICATION FOR BAIL PENDING TRIAL
“My lords, once the offences with which a Defendant who is seeking bail pending his trial is ordinarily bailable, not being a capital offence, the Court called upon to determine such an application must consider the following factors, though not by any means intended to be exhaustive, to decide whether to admit or refuse to admit an Applicant to bail pending his trial, namely; a: the nature of the offence charged; b: the severity of punishment upon conviction; c: the character of the evidence against the Applicant; d: the criminal record of the Applicant if any; e: the likelihood of repetition of the offences charged or similar offences thereto; f: the likelihood of the Applicant escaping justice by jumping bail; g: the likelihood of the Applicant interfering with investigation. See Abacha V. The State (2002) 5 NWLR (PT. 761) 638; Ogbhemhe V. COP (SUPRA); Bamaiyi V. The State (2001) 8 NWLR (PT. 725) 270; Ekwenugo V. FRN (2001) 6 NWLR (PT. 708) 171; Chinemelu V. COP (SUPRA); Emordi V. COP (SUPRA).”
PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE – WHETHER RELIANCE ON THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENT SUFFICES FOR THE GRANT OF AN APPLICATION FOR BAIL PENDING TRIAL
“In Ekwenugo V. FRN (SUPRA) @ P. 12 this Court had per Olagunju JCA., succinctly observed, on this issue of presumption of innocence of an accused person, inter alia thus:-
‘With particular reference to the facts of this case, the threshold of the trial when the only issue that came up for resolution was the condition under which the appellant should be admitted to bail, picking upon a violation of the right to be presumed innocent as provided in Section 36(5) of the Constitution is particularly mindless as a pastime of an indolent fault finder who has run out of steam.”
BAIL – INSTANCE WHEN A COURT WOULD EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION TO REFUSE AN APPLICATION FOR BAIL BY AN ACCUSED PERSON
“See Bamaiyi V. State & Ors (2001) LPELR – 731 (SC), where the Supreme Court per Uwaifo JSC., had opined inter alia thus:-
‘Our criminal justice system has its stipulations and safeguards for the prosecutor, the accused and the victim. In the proper operation of that system, it can be said that it is in the interest of the society, and within those safeguards that if in an application for bail pending trial, there is good reason to believe or strongly suspect that the accused will jump bail thereby making himself unavailable to stand his trial and/or will interfere with witnesses thereby constituting an obstacle in the way of justice, the Court will be acting within its undoubted discretion to refuse bail.”
ACCELERATED HEARING – CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN A COURT MAY ORDER ACCELERATED HEARING IN CRIMINAL TRIAL
“In Bamaiyi V. State & Ors (Supra), the option of accelerated hearing, which the court below had adopted in its earlier ruling of 20/12/2017, was highly recommended in circumstances in which a Court finds that there is the probability of flight risk by a Defendant seeking to be admitted if so admitted to bail pending his trial, when it was stated inter alia thus:-
‘In the proper operation of that system, it can be said that it is in the interest of the society, and within those safeguards that if in an application for bail pending trial, there is good reason to believe or strongly suspect that the accused will jump bail thereby making himself unavailable to stand his trial. It may be added that in such a situation, it will be desirable, as far as reasonably practicable, to accelerate the trial.”
APPEAL –
Legalpedia Citation: (2018) Legalpedia (CA) 33236
In the Court of Appeal
HOLDEN AT LAGOS
Wed Jul 4, 2018
Suit Number: CA/L/493C/2018
CORAM
PARTIES
FRANK KARKITIE APPELLANTS
FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellant as Accused Person/Applicant was arraigned before the High Court of Lagos State, Ikeja Judicial Division. The Accused Person/Applicant/Appellant filed a summons for bail pending trial. The Appellant’s case is that he has sought to be admitted to bail pending his trial and on 20/12/2017 when the said application was heard by the Court below it was apparent that the Appellant was visibly very sick, pale, disorientated and distraught due to his health challenges but the Court below still refused his application for bail pending his trial. However, on 20/12/2017 the Appellant while being conveyed to the Prisons collapsed in the Prison Vehicle and was revived by other detainees and Prison Warders in the Prison Vehicle and on 21/12/2017 he was taken before the Ikoyi Prison Clinic to see the Prison Doctor, who was unavailable as he only attends to patients on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. On many occasions the Appellant has collapsed in the Prison and resuscitated by fellow inmates and on 8/1/2018, the Appellant was eventually able to meet with the Prison Clinic Doctor and after his medical examination, he was referred to the Police Hospital Ikoyi for further Medical Tests and examination on 10/1/2018 but due to logistic problems was only taken to the Police Clinic on 11/1/2018, where examinations and tests revealed that the Appellant has a left ventricular hypertrophy, peri hilar inflammatory shadows bilaterally with hillar fullness, prostate enlargement and dyslipidaemia and was therefore, in dire serious medical state of health which if left untreated would result into his death. However, based on the findings at the Police Hospital the Appellant was further referred to the Military Hospital where his critical medical condition was further confirmed and the need for his frequent medical observation and treatment was stressed but which was not possible with his incarceration at the Ikoyi Prisons where the required facilities are unavailable, with the possibility of deterioration and exacerbation of these diseases, hence the need for him to be admitted to bail to receive adequate and required medical treatment to be kept alive to stand his trial to its logical legal conclusion. On the other hand, the Respondent in opposition to the Summons for bail by the Appellant was that not only was there no time that the Appellant collapsed in the Court below but there was also no record of any time the Appellant collapsed at the Ikoyi Prisons and that despite a letter of inquiry written on 2/2/2018 to the Police Hospital Ikoyi to ascertain the veracity of the treatment and examinations of the Appellant no response has been received from the Police Hospital Ikoyi. However, on 5/2/2018 the Ikoyi Prisons wrote to the Respondent stating that there was no time the Appellant collapsed in the Ikoyi Prisons but admitted that the Appellant was referred to the Police Hospital for abdominal pain evaluation and treatment and was therefore, not aware of the medical reports allegedly issued to the Appellant by the Police Hospital, Ikoyi. Above all and most importantly to the Respondent, is the fact that the Appellant has an antecedent of jumping bail when admitted to bail in that prior to his arraignment the Appellant had been on the run for a period spanning over one year after he was granted bail by the EFCC. The Appellant was served with a copy of the Information against him on 8/7/2016 but his arraignment was aborted by his constant and persistent absence from Court and thus occasioning the resultant amendment of the charges by the deleting of the name of the Appellant so that the trial of the other Defendants could proceed. The Appellant who was also standing trial in a sister charge in which he was granted bail and ordered to deposit his International Passport with the Registry of the Court below still travelled abroad with his other several International Passports, whilst one of them was in the custody of the Registry of the Court below and therefore, stood the highest risk of fleeing from justice if admitted again to bail by the Court, having been re-arrested and arraigned before the Court below to answer to the charges against him. The Summons for bail of the Appellant was duly heard by the Court below and in its ruling, dismissed the Summons for the bail of the Appellant for lacking in merit. The Appellant was peeved with the ruling of the Court below dismissing his application for bail pending trial and lodged this appeal.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed.
ISSUES
Whether the Appellant has placed sufficient materials in support of his present appeal warranting the exercise of the Appellate Courts discretion to set aside the decision of the lower Court refusing him bail?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
BAIL – TYPES OF BAIL
“In criminal procedure law, bail are of two types namely; bail before conviction, which is bail pending trial and bail upon conviction, which is bail pending appeal against conviction. While bail before conviction is a basic right, bail after conviction is not a basic right. Thus, while before or pending trial, where the offence alleged against an accused person is not a capital offence but one which is ordinarily bailable, then by virtue of Section 36(5) of the Constitution of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), which presumes the innocence of an accused person until proved guilty by the prosecution, the onus is on the prosecution to show why an accused person should not be admitted to bail pending his trial for an ordinarily bailable offence. This is so because the real focus and legal aim of bail is to ensure the attendance of an accused person at his trial. It is never meant to be denied as mere punishment. Thus, once an applicant satisfies the Court that favourable circumstances exist as to why he should be granted bail, including even in capital offences charge where he is obliged to show the existence of special or exceptional circumstances, he would be admitted to bail by the Court pending his trial. See Ogbhemhe V. COP (2001) 5 NWLR (PT. 706) 215. See Also Chinemelu V. COP (1995) 4 NWLR (PT. 390) 346; Emordi V. COP (1995) 2 NWLR (PT. 371) 244; Jimoh V. COP (2004) 17 NWLR (PT. 902) 389.”
BAIL PENDING TRIAL – INSTANCE WHEN AN ACCUSED PERSON WOULD BE ADMITTED TO BAIL PENDING TRIAL
“In law, once an Applicant for bail pending trial satisfies the Court that by the material placed by him before the Court that favorable circumstances exist in his application for bail why he should be granted bail, he would be admitted to bail by the Court pending his trial, since bail should never be denied merely as punishment for a Defendant standing trial, particularly for non capital offences in which bail is a basic right and bail should only be refused in such non capital offences if there is cogent reason or ground to do otherwise. See Tanko V. COP (1986) 1 QLRN 58. See Also Nwoke V. FRN (2005) ALL FWLR (PT. 245) 1083 @ P. 1093; Numuoja V. COP (1968) NLR 84; Anaekwe V. COP (1986) 3 NWLR (PT. 32) 156; Ozougwu V. The State (2006) 9 NWLR (PT. 985) 240.”
BAIL PENDING TRIAL – DUTY OF ACCUSED PERSON WHO RELIES ON SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES IN AN APPLICATION FOR BAIL PENDING TRIAL
“Truly, while there is no duty on an Applicant, such as the Appellant standing trial for non capital offences, to rely on or prove special circumstances in order to be admitted to bail, since bail pending trial for such non capital offences is a basic right, where however, the Appellant had relied on special circumstances for his application for bail pending trial, then he is obliged to show the existence of the special circumstances relied upon by him to be admitted to bail.”
BAIL PENDING TRIAL – WHAT CONSTITUTES ‘SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES’ TO WARRANT THE INTERVENTION OF THE COURT TO ADMIT AN ACCUSED PERSON TO BAIL PENDING HIS TRIAL?
“However, what would constitute special circumstances to warrant the intervention of the Court to admit an Applicant to bail pending his trial will depend on the peculiar facts of each case and thus would vary from case to case and therefore, the categories, despite attempts at setting down some guides by the Courts, are never closed. But, it is almost now certain in law that grave ill – health shown by credible evidence to be capable of jeopardizing the very life of the Defendant pending his trial for whatever offence alleged against him no matter how grave or heinous would invariably constitute special circumstances to warrant the intervention of the Court to admit him to bail pending his trial. The rationale for this position of the law is not far to seek and it is that no matter the gravity of offence for which a man is charged with, it is only the living that can be tried, convicted and punished for any alleged offences no matter how heinous. Indeed, dead men and women neither stand trial nor can be convicted and punished upon conviction, only the living do. See Ani V. The State (2001) FWLR (PT. 81) 1715 @ P. 1727. SEE ALSO Ogbhemhe V. COP (2001) 5 NWLR (PT. 706) 215; Chinemelu V. COP (1995) 4 NWLR (PT. 390) 346.”
REPLY BRIEF – PURPOSE OF A REPLY BRIEF
“I have reviewed the submissions in the Appellants reply filed on 23/5/2018, and it is pertinent to observe that a reply brief, filed pursuant to Order 19 Rule 5 (1) of the Court of Appeal Rules 2016, is solely for the purposes of answering to new points or issues raised in a Respondents brief. It is not an avenue for making additional or fresh submissions in support of the Appeal or for the purpose of rehearsing or repeating the submissions in the Appellants brief or making submissions on the facts all over again. The reply brief of the Appellant delving into and rehearsing several submissions of facts, is with due deference to the learned Senior Advocate for the Appellant, not one within the context of the provisions of Order 19 Rule 5 (1) of the Court of Appeal Rules 2016 and thus not strictly so called what a reply brief ought to and should be in law. I will say no more on this! See Paschal Ikenna Ejiogu V. Hon Alphonsus Gerald Irona & Ors (2008) LPELR 4083 (CA). See Also Popoola V. Adeyemo (1992) 8 NWLR (PTT. 257 1; Adebiyi V. Sorinmade (2004) ALL FWLR (PT. 239) 933; Shuaibu V. Maithoda (1993) 3 NWLR (PT. 284) 748.”
UNCONTROVERTED FACTS – STATUS OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS DEPOSED TO IN AN AFFIDAVIT
“The Appellant truly had no answer to this grave allegation and in law, facts deposed to in an affidavit if not controverted or countered by facts by the adversary are deemed admitted and true and a court of law is perfectly in order to act on such facts as good evidence to make appropriate and relevant findings of fact. See Ugochukwu V. Nwoke & Anor (2010) LPELR 11616 (CA). See Also Ejikeme V. Ibekwe (1997) 7 NWLR (PT. 514) 92 @ P. 518; KAMBA V. BAWA (2005) 4 NWLR (PT. 914) 43; Reynolds Ezediaro V. Ghaddar Machinery & Co. Ltd (2011) LPELR – 9061.”
BAIL PENDING TRIAL– FACTORS THE COURT MUST CONSIDER IN DETERMINING AN APPLICATION FOR BAIL PENDING TRIAL
“My lords, once the offences with which a Defendant who is seeking bail pending his trial is ordinarily bailable, not being a capital offence, the Court called upon to determine such an application must consider the following factors, though not by any means intended to be exhaustive, to decide whether to admit or refuse to admit an Applicant to bail pending his trial, namely; a: the nature of the offence charged; b: the severity of punishment upon conviction; c: the character of the evidence against the Applicant; d: the criminal record of the Applicant if any; e: the likelihood of repetition of the offences charged or similar offences thereto; f: the likelihood of the Applicant escaping justice by jumping bail; g: the likelihood of the Applicant interfering with investigation. See Abacha V. The State (2002) 5 NWLR (PT. 761) 638; Ogbhemhe V. COP (SUPRA); Bamaiyi V. The State (2001) 8 NWLR (PT. 725) 270; Ekwenugo V. FRN (2001) 6 NWLR (PT. 708) 171; Chinemelu V. COP (SUPRA); Emordi V. COP (SUPRA).”
PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE – WHETHER RELIANCE ON THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENT SUFFICES FOR THE GRANT OF AN APPLICATION FOR BAIL PENDING TRIAL
“In Ekwenugo V. FRN (SUPRA) @ P. 12 this Court had per Olagunju JCA., succinctly observed, on this issue of presumption of innocence of an accused person, inter alia thus:-
‘With particular reference to the facts of this case, the threshold of the trial when the only issue that came up for resolution was the condition under which the appellant should be admitted to bail, picking upon a violation of the right to be presumed innocent as provided in Section 36(5) of the Constitution is particularly mindless as a pastime of an indolent fault finder who has run out of steam.”
BAIL – INSTANCE WHEN A COURT WOULD EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION TO REFUSE AN APPLICATION FOR BAIL BY AN ACCUSED PERSON
“See Bamaiyi V. State & Ors (2001) LPELR – 731 (SC), where the Supreme Court per Uwaifo JSC., had opined inter alia thus:-
‘Our criminal justice system has its stipulations and safeguards for the prosecutor, the accused and the victim. In the proper operation of that system, it can be said that it is in the interest of the society, and within those safeguards that if in an application for bail pending trial, there is good reason to believe or strongly suspect that the accused will jump bail thereby making himself unavailable to stand his trial and/or will interfere with witnesses thereby constituting an obstacle in the way of justice, the Court will be acting within its undoubted discretion to refuse bail.”
ACCELERATED HEARING – CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN A COURT MAY ORDER ACCELERATED HEARING IN CRIMINAL TRIAL
“In Bamaiyi V. State & Ors (Supra), the option of accelerated hearing, which the court below had adopted in its earlier ruling of 20/12/2017, was highly recommended in circumstances in which a Court finds that there is the probability of flight risk by a Defendant seeking to be admitted if so admitted to bail pending his trial, when it was stated inter alia thus:-
‘In the proper operation of that system, it can be said that it is in the interest of the society, and within those safeguards that if in an application for bail pending trial, there is good reason to believe or strongly suspect that the accused will jump bail thereby making himself unavailable to stand his trial. It may be added that in such a situation, it will be desirable, as far as reasonably practicable, to accelerate the trial.”
APPEAL – BASIS FOR HEARING AN APPEAL ON EVIDENCE NOT ON RECORD AT THE LOWER COURT
“An appeal is by way of rehearing of the case and evidence not on record at the lower Court will be discountenanced without the leave of the appellate Court first sought and obtained. See the cases of Ihunwo V Ihunwo & Ors (2013) LPELR 20084 (SC); Ibrahim V Ojomo & Ors (2004) 4 NWLR (PT 862) 89; Dickson V Okoi (2003) 16 NWLR (PT 846) 397; Agbom V State (2012) LPELR – 7910 (CA); Customary Court Of Appeal Benue State V Abura Tsegba & Ors (2010) LPELR – 4009 (CA).”
UNCONTROVERTED FACTS – UNCONTROVERTED FACTS ARE DEEMED TO BE ADMITTED
“It is settled law that facts not controverted will be deemed as an admission of same. See the cases of Habib Nigeria Bank Ltd V Wahab Opomulero & Ors (2000) 15 NWLR (PT 690) 315; Lawson-Jack v SPDC Nig Ltd (2002) 13 NWLR (PT 783) 180; New Nigeria Bank Plc V Denclag Ltd & Anor (2001) 1 NWLR (PT 695) 542; Adelaja & Ors V Alade & Anor (1999) 6 NWLR (PT 608) 544.”
CASES CITED
Not Available
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)|Court of Appeal Rules 2016|
OTHER CITATIONS
ON RECORD AT THE LOWER COURT
“An appeal is by way of rehearing of the case and evidence not on record at the lower Court will be discountenanced without the leave of the appellate Court first sought and obtained. See the cases of Ihunwo V Ihunwo & Ors (2013) LPELR 20084 (SC); Ibrahim V Ojomo & Ors (2004) 4 NWLR (PT 862) 89; Dickson V Okoi (2003) 16 NWLR (PT 846) 397; Agbom V State (2012) LPELR – 7910 (CA); Customary Court Of Appeal Benue State V Abura Tsegba & Ors (2010) LPELR – 4009 (CA).”
UNCONTROVERTED FACTS – UNCONTROVERTED FACTS ARE DEEMED TO BE ADMITTED
“It is settled law that facts not controverted will be deemed as an admission of same. See the cases of Habib Nigeria Bank Ltd V Wahab Opomulero & Ors (2000) 15 NWLR (PT 690) 315; Lawson-Jack v SPDC Nig Ltd (2002) 13 NWLR (PT 783) 180; New Nigeria Bank Plc V Denclag Ltd & Anor (2001) 1 NWLR (PT 695) 542; Adelaja & Ors V Alade & Anor (1999) 6 NWLR (PT 608) 544.”
CASES CITED
Not Available
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)|Court of Appeal Rules 2016|