AL-AMIN YUNUSA V THE STATE
August 21, 2025ABBAS USMAN (A.K.A GERO) V THE STATE
August 21, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2025-05) Legalpedia 35123 (SC)
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri May 16, 2025
Suit Number: SC.290/2012
CORAM
Uwani Musa Abba Aji Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Ibrahim Mohammed Musa Saulawa Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Emmanuel Akomaye Agim Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Stephen Jonah Adah Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Jamilu Yammama Tukur Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
PARTIES
GOZIE MBACHU
APPELLANTS
FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
CRIMINAL LAW, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRIMA FACIE CASE, OBTAINING MONEY BY FALSE PRETENCE, FORGERY, UTTERING FALSE DOCUMENTS, ADVANCE FEE FRAUD, QUASHING OF CHARGES, ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL CRIMES, CONCURRENT FINDINGS, APPELLATE PRACTICE, BURDEN OF PROOF, EVIDENCE LAW, TRIAL DELAYS
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellant was arraigned before the High Court of Enugu State on an information dated 14/10/2010 bearing Charge No: E/113C/2010, which was preferred against him by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) Enugu Zonal Office. The information contained eleven counts: Counts 1-9 were for obtaining money by false pretence, while counts 10 and 11 were for forgery and uttering false documents.
The charges arose from allegations that the Appellant contacted one Edith Mbachu Okoye (the petitioner) in 2006, requesting that she send original title documents for two properties (Plot 240 and Plot F/4, New G.R.A., Trans Ekulu, Enugu State) for recertification by the Land Survey and Urban Development Department. The Appellant convinced the petitioner that the recertification would cost $1,500, which she paid. Despite repeated demands, the land documents were never returned.
The EFCC’s investigation revealed that the actual recertification fee was only N10,000, and that the $1,500 sent to the Appellant was not used for recertification but was allegedly fraudulently used by him to secure property for himself. The Appellant allegedly proceeded to sell the plots by forging and uttering a forged Power of Attorney purportedly executed by the petitioner, obtaining various sums totaling $4,600 from the petitioner under false pretences.
On 26/10/2010, the Appellant filed a motion seeking to quash the indictment, arguing that the charge was defective, abusive, oppressive, and that no reasonable tribunal could convict him based on the proof of evidence. The trial court denied the application on 26/1/2011. The Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, which dismissed his appeal on 29/6/2012, affirming the trial court’s ruling. The Appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.
HELD
1.The appeal was dismissed as lacking in merit.
2.The Court held that a prima facie case is established when the evidence presented against an accused is sufficient to require the accused to make a defence, not that the evidence is conclusive or will ultimately lead to conviction.
3.The Court found that there was ample credible evidence which, if uncontradicted, would be sufficient to prove the elements of the offences, including evidence that the actual recertification fee was N10,000 while the Appellant collected $1,500 and other sums.
4.The Court held that the prosecution had disclosed credible evidence through witness statements showing that the Appellant forged signatures and presented false witnesses to execute a forged Power of Attorney to dispose of the petitioner’s properties.
5.The Court found that the Appellant’s contradictory statements about when he last saw the petitioner (claiming 2004) while forged documents purported to be signed in 2006 and 2009 strongly suggested fabrication.
6.The Court held that the property’s registration status was immaterial to the core issue of deception and misappropriation, as the offence lay in the deceitful manner money and documents were obtained and used.
7.The judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered on 29th June 2012 was affirmed.
ISSUES
Whether the Court below was right in its decision that the proof of evidence disclosed a prima facie case against the appellant in respect of the offences set out in the information necessitating him to enter his plea to the charges?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
DEFINITION OF PRIMA FACIE CASE – SUFFICIENCY FOR DEFENCE
“It is trite law that a prima facie case is established when the evidence presented against an accused is sufficient to require the accused to make a defence. It does not imply that the evidence is conclusive or that it will ultimately lead to a conviction. Rather, it denotes that there are reasonable grounds to proceed with the trial.” – Per JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR, J.S.C.
STANDARD FOR PRIMA FACIE CASE – CREDIBLE EVIDENCE TEST
“A prima facie case is made out where, on the face of the proof of evidence, there is some credible evidence which, if uncontradicted, would be sufficient to prove the elements of the offence. It is not necessary at this stage to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.” – Per JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR, J.S.C.
COURT’S DUTY IN DETERMINING PRIMA FACIE CASE – LIMITED EVALUATION
“At the stage of determining whether a prima facie case has been established, the Court is not required to evaluate the credibility of witnesses or the weight of the evidence. The Court’s duty is limited to ascertaining whether there is sufficient evidence linking the accused to the offence charged.” – Per JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR, J.S.C.
ESSENCE OF FALSE PRETENCE CHARGE – DECEPTION AND MISAPPROPRIATION
“The essence of the charge is that he deceived the petitioner into parting with money and title documents through fraudulent representations, and unlawfully sold her property through forged instruments. Whether or not the title was eventually registered or not is immaterial to the core issue of deception and misappropriation.” – Per JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR, J.S.C.
PROPERTY REGISTRATION STATUS – IMMATERIAL TO FRAUD CHARGE
“The Appellant’s focus on whether the property remains registered in the name of the petitioner is misplaced. The offence lies in the deceitful manner in which the money and documents were obtained and subsequently used. The property’s status does not erase the fraudulent conduct.” – Per JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR, J.S.C.
INTENT TO DEFRAUD – MATTER FOR TRIAL EVIDENCE
“Intent to defraud is not required to be particularised in the charge but is a matter to be proved during trial through evidence.” – Per JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR, J.S.C.
EVIDENCE OF FORGERY – CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS AS INDICATION
“Looking at the statement made by the Appellant to the Respondent, the appellant gave contradictory statements about the last time he saw the petitioner (stating it was in 2004), yet the forged documents purport to have been signed by the petitioner in 2006 and 2009, which contradictions strongly suggests fabrication from the part of the Appellant.” – Per JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR, J.S.C.
APPEALS AGAINST CONCURRENT FINDINGS – REQUIREMENT FOR SPECIFICITY
“An appeal against concurrent findings of facts or decisions cannot validly proceed or be based on the mere contention or complain that the Court of Appeal erred in making the decision of finding of fact without pointing out the error. Such an appeal invites this Court to reconsider the totality of the case and proffer an alternative view or decision on the matter.” – Per EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.S.C.
PRESUMPTION OF CORRECTNESS – CONCURRENT FINDINGS
“The law presumes that the concurrent findings of facts are correct and should not be interfered with unless they are shown not to be correct because they are perverse and violate the law and have caused injustice thereby. This presumption limits the scope of the appellate jurisdiction of this Court to entertain such appeals to only appeals on grounds that the findings are perverse or contrary to law.” – Per EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.S.C.
REQUIREMENT FOR SPECIFIC ERRORS – APPELLATE ISSUES
“The issue raised for determination in the appellant’s brief is not valid for consideration because it has not isolated any specific error in the concurrent decisions or any of the specific findings of facts that resulted in the final conclusion… The issue is general, vague and devoid of preciseness and specificity.” – Per EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.S.C.
COMMENCEMENT OF CRIMINAL TRIAL – ARRAIGNMENT REQUIREMENT
“It is well settled that a criminal trial commences with arraignment of the accused person… In criminal trial, therefore, proceedings are said to have commenced with the reading of the charge to the accused person.” – Per STEPHEN JONAH ADAH, J.S.C.
PROTRACTED PROCEEDINGS – NEED FOR PRAGMATIC APPROACH
“It is worrisome that as a result of this protracted proceedings, this trial had never commenced fifteen solid years after the charge landed in Court. There is the need for the Court and legal practitioners to adopt a positive and pragmatic approach to trial to allow criminal prosecutions to be seamless and fast.” – Per STEPHEN JONAH ADAH, J.S.C.
CHALLENGES TO CHARGE COMPETENCE – EFFICIENCY CONCERNS
“It does not seem to make any meaning for a challenge to the competence of a charge to come all the way to this Court while the charge had not yet been pleaded to.” – Per STEPHEN JONAH ADAH, J.S.C.
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
1. Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act, No. 14 of 2006
2. Criminal Code Act
3. Criminal Law of Enugu State
4. Section 1(1) of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act
5. Sections 443, 444, 474, and 478 of the Criminal Code
6. Section 443 of the Criminal Law of Enugu State
7. Section 444 of the Criminal Law of Enugu State
