MR. OLUROTIMI RHODES & ANOR v. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE & ORS
April 12, 2025SHEBAH EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION COMPANY LTD V OXBOW CONCEPT & RESOURCES LTD
April 12, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2018) Legalpedia (SC) 17119
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
HOLDEN AT ABUJA
Thu Jan 25, 2018
Suit Number: SC.172/2017
CORAM
PARTIES
GABRIEL DAUDU APPELLANTS
FEDERAL REPULIC OF NIGERIA RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
ACTION, APPEAL, CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, JUDGMENT AND ORDER, LAW OF EVIDENCE
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Accused/Appellant and Hon. Albert Soje(then Majority Leader) of the Kogi State House of Assembly were arraigned on 208 and two counts charge respectively by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) before the Federal High Court, Lokoja. The Appellant pleaded not guilty to each of the counts. At the end of the trial, whilst Hon. Soje was discharged and acquitted on the two counts charge, the Appellant was convicted on 75 counts but was discharged and acquitted on the remaining 133 counts. The Appellant appealed against the decision to the Court of Appeal, Abuja. The Respondent filed a preliminary objection attacking some grounds in the Appellant’s brief which was upheld and consequently struck out. The appeal was dismissed hence the instant appeal before this Court.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed
ISSUES
Whether the Court of Appeal was correct in law when it affirmed the decision of the Federal High Court placing the onus of proving his innocence in the 75 counts of money laundering on the appellant? Whether the Court of Appeal was correct in law when it affirmed the decision of the Federal High Court that the prosecution had established all the ingredients of the offence of money laundering against the appellant? Whether the Court below was correct in law in affirming the decision of the trial Federal High Court that all the uncertified documents and Bank generated documents are admissible in evidence and if answered in the negative what is the effect of their expurgation from the case?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
PRELIMINARY OBJECTION – WHETHER RAISING A PRELIMINARY OBJECTION IS THE APPROPRIATE MODE TO COMPLAIN ABOUT SOME GROUNDS OF APPEAL
“The preliminary objection was struck out because it was not the appropriate mode to complain about some of the grounds of appeal. The lower Court stated its reasons for striking out the preliminary objection. It stated clearly that even if the objections were to succeed, hearing of the appeal on the remaining grounds would not be disturbed and the procedure which should have been adopted is to file a motion on notice to dispose of the matter before hearing the appeal, but not to come by way of preliminary objection. This reasoning is well grounded on the dictum of this Court per Rhodes-Vivour JSC in Adejumo v. Olawaiye (2014) 12 NWLR 9 (pt 142) 252 at p.279 where he said:-
“A preliminary objection should only be filed against the hearing of an appeal and not against one or more grounds of appeal which are not capable of disturbing the hearing of the appeal …… Where a preliminary objection would not be appropriate process to object or show to the Court defects in processes before it, a motion on notice filed complaining of a few grounds or defects would suffice”.
EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE – WHETHER AN APPELLATE COURT CAN INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF A TRIAL COURT ON THE CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES
“The findings of the learned trial judge went to the credibility of witnesses. An appellate Court cannot interfere with such findings unless they are shown to be perverse. See: Lagga v. Sarhuna (2008) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1114) 427; Agbakoba v. I.N.E.C (2008) 18 NWLR (Pt.1119) 489”.
RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT OF LAW – WHETHER THE RETROSPECTIVE TENDENCY OF A LAW IS APPLICABLE IN BOTH SUBSTANTIVE AND PROCEDURAL LAW
“Let me state straightaway that it is the substantive law in operation at the time an offence is said to have been committed that has to be referred to when a person is being charged to Court. Thus if a person is charged with offence of Money laundering in 2010, it must be the Money Laundering Act as at 2010 that will be used and not the Money Laundering Act at the time he is finally arraigned for trial in Court but the procedural law to be used would be the current one. Thus if the Evidence Act or the criminal procedure Law has been amended or replaced and a new one is in place at the time of trial, it is the amended or newly enacted Evidence Act/Criminal Procedure code that will be used to guide the trial. Thus it is the Evidence Act 2011 that will be used in the trial or appeal taking place in 2018 notwithstanding that the offence was committed in 2008. The accused will however be charged with the criminal offence as contained in the Criminal law in 2008.”
RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT OF LAW – APPLICABILITY OF THE RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT OF LAW
It is not the law as stated by the learned trial Judge that since the charge was filed on 31 March 2010, the Evidence Act 2011 will not apply because the law does not have retrospective effect. That statement only applies to substantive and not adjectival or procedural law. See: Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Mike (2014) 1 SC (Pt.1) 27.”
DOCUMENT – PROPER CUSTODY OF A DOCUMENT RECOVERED IN THE COURSE OF INVESTIGATION
“I agree with the learned trial judge that the custody of any document recovered in the course of investigation belongs to the body statutorily or constitutionally empowered to possess such documents upon recovery and their admissibility is determined by how relevant they are to the proceedings. At the end of the day it is the weight to be attached to such recovered evidence that should engage the mind of counsel. See: Nwabuoku v. Onwordi (2006) LPELR SC.344/2001; (2006) 5 SC. (Pt. II) 103; Musa Abubakar v. E.l Chuks (2007) 18 NWLR (Pt.1066) 386”.
DOCUMENTS – REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY OF COMPUTER GENERATED DOCUMENTS
“Section 84(1) (2) and (4) of the Evidence Act 2011 states:-
“84(1) In any proceeding a statement contained in a document produced by a computer shall be admissible as evidence of any fact stated in it of which direct oral evidence would be admissible, if it is shown that the conditions in Subsection (2) of this Section are satisfied in relation to the statement and computer in question.
(2) The conditions referred to in Subsection (1) of this Section are:-
(a) that the document containing the statement was used regularly to store or process information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried out over that period, whether for profit or not, by anybody, whether corporate or not, or by an individual;
(b) that over that period there was regularly supplied to the computer in the ordinary course of those activities information of the kind contained in the statement or of the kind from which the information so contained is derived.
(c) that throughout the material part of that period the computer was operating properly or if not, that in any respect in which it was not operating properly or was out of operation during that part of that period was not such as to affect the production of the document or the accuracy of its contents and
(d) that the information contained in the statement reproduced or is derived from information supplied to the computer in the ordinary course of those activities;
(4) In any proceeding where it is desired to give a statement in evidence by virtue of this Section a certificate –
(a) identifying the document containing the statement and describing the manner in which it was produced.
(b) giving such particulars of any device involved in the production of that document as may be appropriate for the purpose of showing that the document was produced by the computer.
(i) dealing with any of the matters to which the conditions mentioned in Subsection (2) above relate; and purporting to be signed by a person occupying a responsible position in relation to the operation of the relevant device or the management of the relevant activities, as the case may be, shall be evidence of the matter stated in the certificate; and for the purpose of this subsection it shall be sufficient for a matter to be stated to the best of the knowledge and belief of the person stating it.”
DECISION OF A COURT- DUTY ON COURTS TO GIVE REASONS FOR ITS DECISIONS
“The appellant had also raised his concern that the grounds for which the Preliminary Objection was despatched was later used by the Court of Appeal in its consideration of the issues before it. That posture is not borne out of what transpired as showcased by the record as what the Court below did in giving reasons for its findings and conclusions in the issues raised may have looked like a revisit to the Preliminary Objection and its related features, that did not remove the right of the Court to state its reasons for the determination in the main appeal however similar those reasons may appear as the ones in the Preliminary Objection earlier struck out. This Court had in the case of Agbanelo v. U.B.N. (2000) 7 NWLR (Pt. 666) 534 at 557 per Karibi-Whyte, JSC stated that it is an elementary and essential ingredient of the judicial function that reasons are to be given for decisions. That it is crucial or important where appeals lie from the decisions and it is to be said that the reasons for decisions enable the determination on appeal whether the decision was merely initiative and arbitrary or whether it is consistent with established applicable principles. It has to be stated and emphatically too that if a judgment is delivered without supporting reasons it is an irritation or arbitrariness, a rule akin to tossing the coin and whatever side shows up is the decision, a situation that would likely produce in judicially anarchy. The point has to be made that a judgment will not set aside just because the reasons given were bad if the judgment itself is right.”
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE- CAN DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE BE TENDERED BY A PERSON OTHER THAN THE MAKER?
“It is not at all times that documentary evidence must be tendered by the maker. See Alaribe v Okwuonu (2015) 1 NWLR (Pt.929) 547 and Ajakaiye v State (unreported). Appeal No.CA/A/OW/71C/2013 delivered on 05/12/2014. The Supreme Court in Omega v OBC (supra) said:
It should not be understood as saying that documentary evidence cannot be admitted in absence of its maker.”
EVIDENCE- DUTY OF A PARTY TO BE CONSISTENT IN HIS CASE
“The law is trite that the Appellant cannot validly complain against the exhibits, when such documents were also referred by him in defence of his case. The appellant therefore cannot approbate and reprobate. He must be consistent in defence of this case. The evidence of DW1, DW2 and DW4 is to the effect that they were summoned to tender the statements of account of the appellant which was also the case of the Respondent. Where material foundation is laid, any contention as to the non-admissibility of the document on ground that it was not tendered by its maker will be of no moment- Olude v State (2014) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1405) 89 at 95 and John v State (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 353.”
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)|Court of Appeal Act|Criminal Procedure Act|Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Establishment) Act 2004|Evidence Act, 2011|Legal Practitioners Act, 2004|Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act 2004|
CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT
