Legalpedia Citation: (2023-07) Legalpedia 13650 (SC)

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Fri Mar 3, 2023

Suit Number: SC.401C/2015

CORAM

Uwani Musa Abba Aji JCA

Ibrahim Mohammed Musa Saulawa JCA

Adamu Jauro JSC

Emmanuel Akomaye Agim JSC

PARTIES

GBENGA OJO

APPELLANTS

FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

APPEAL, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, JUDGMENT, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant, being the Vice Chairman of the Akure North Local Government Council, was made the Chairman of the Planning Committee set up by the then Chairman of Akure North Local Government Council, to organize events for the hosting of the then Governor’s visit to Akure North Local Government Council. The sum of N1.3 million was officially approved and released to the Committee for that purpose. The charge is that the Appellant with the 2nd Accused at the trial misappropriated N70,000.00 and N90,000.00 out of the money voted for the official visit of the Governor. At the end of the trial, he was sentenced to five- years imprisonment with an option of N2 million fine on each count. He paid the aggregate sum of N6 million and appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal upheld the Appellant’s conviction on count one but allowed his appeal on counts two and three, hence this appeal.

HELD

Appeal dismissed

ISSUES

Ø Whether the lower Court was not wrong in holding that the Appellant did not suffer miscarriage of justice or breach of right to fair hearing or fair trial by the way the learned trial Judge wrote the judgment in this case.

Ø Whether the lower Court was not wrong to have affirmed the conviction of the Appellant on count one of the information in this case.

RATIONES DECIDENDI

JUDGMENT WRITING – JUDGMENT WRITING IS A STYLE EXCLUSIVELY RESERVED FOR THE JUDGE

The “damaging conclusions” insinuated cannot affect the validity of the judgment delivered except the Appellant has suffered injustice therefrom.

A trial Judge may not, cannot and must not adopt or follow the style or approach of judgment writing suggested by Counsel. Judgment writing is a style exclusively reserved for the Judge and not for the Counsel. The Counsel should rather master the art of writing written address or brief of argument and not how the Judge will write his own judgment. – Per U. M. Abba-Aji, JSC

JUDGMENT WRITING – JUDGMENT WRITING SHOULD COMPLY WITH CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION

Once a judgment complies with the constitutional provision, and the components and requirements of a valid judgment are found therein as the above, the style notwithstanding, the judgment cannot be attacked by Counsel except there is by it a miscarriage of justice to the party concerned. What is essential is that a Judge should show a clear understanding of the facts in the case, of the issues involved, of the law applicable; and from all these, he should be able to draw the right conclusions and make a correct finding on the evidence before him. – Per U. M. Abba-Aji, JSC

JUDGMENT – ONCE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS ARE PRESENT IN THE JUDGMENT

…the learned trial Judge may not have followed the proper approach for the writing of a good judgment, in particular by coming to specific conclusions rightly or wrongly on the facts presented before a review and/or evaluation of the cases of the parties. Nevertheless, the pertinent question in relation to Appellant’s issue 1 is whether this erroneous approach per se could be said to have led to miscarriage of justice, bias and/or denial of fair hearing in all the circumstances of the case.

​Judgment writing is an art and once the essential elements are present in the judgment, it will not matter what method was employed in writing the judgment. See Per NGWUTA, JSC, in REVEREND KING V. STATE (2016) LPELR-40046(SC) (PP. 56 PARAS. B). – Per U. M. Abba-Aji, JSC

EVIDENCE – WHERE THERE ARE CONFLICTS IN ORAL OR DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

Where there are conflicting or different versions of oral testimonies from the prosecution and the defence, it is the documentary evidence that can resolve such a conflict. On the contrary, where there are conflicts in documentary evidence, oral evidence is called to resolve same. – Per U. M. Abba-Aji, JSC

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE – DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IS A HANGER FROM WHICH TO ASSESS ORAL TESTIMONY

Where documentary evidence supports oral testimony, oral testimony becomes more credible. This is premised on the position of the law that documentary evidence serves as a hanger from which to assess oral testimony. See Per RHODES-VIVOUR, JSC, in ODUNLAMI V. NIGERIAN NAVY (2013) LPELR-20701(SC) (PP. 32 PARAS. C). – Per U. M. Abba-Aji, JSC

BURDEN OF PROOF – BURDEN OF PROOF SHIFTS WHEN THE PROSECUTION PROVES THE COMMISSION OF THE OFFENCE BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT

The burden on the prosecution in a criminal charge is to establish the guilt of the accused person beyond reasonable doubt. In order to discharge the burden, all the ingredients of the alleged offence must be established and this may be done through the evidence of witnesses, circumstantial evidence and/or the confessional statement of the accused admitting the commission of the crime. See: Smart Vs The State (2016) LPELR-40827 (SC) @ 27 A – E; Igabele vs The State (2006) 6 NWLR (Pt. 975) 100; Yongo vs C.O.P. (1992) 4 NWLR (Pt. 501) 511; Sani vs The State (2020) LPELR – 53905 (SC) @ 24 D – F. By Section 135(3) of the Evidence Act, once the prosecution proves the commission of a crime beyond reasonable doubt, the burden of proving reasonable doubt shifts to the accused person. See: Bakare vs The State (1987) LPELR – 714(SC) @ 12 B – D;lgabele vs The State (supra). – Per K. M. O. Kekere-Ekun, JSC

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE – DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE MAKES ORAL EVIDENCE MORE CREDIBLE

While the Appellant and the 2nd accused person testified that they disbursed money to PW2, PW4 and PW7, the said Prosecution witnesses denied receiving any such money. In such a situation, the logical and proper thing to do is to resort to documentary evidence where same is available as documentary evidence makes oral evidence more credible. In BUNGE V. GOV. RIVERS STATE & ORS (2006) LPELR – 816 (SC), this Court per Ogbuagu, JSC stated thus:

“It is also settled that the importance of documentary evidence is that it could be used to resolve an issue or conflicting evidence. It could be used as a hanger from which to test the veracity of the oral testimonies.”

See also OYEWUSI & ORS V. OLAGBAMI & ORS (2018) LPELR- 44906 (SC); EZE V. STATE (2018) LPELR – 43715 (SC); UDO V. STATE (2018) LPELR – 43707 (SC); KIMDEY V. MILITARY GOVERNOR, GONGOLA (1988) 2 NWLR (PT. 77) 445. – Per Adamu Jauro, JSC

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

1. Evidence Act

Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act 2000

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT