Latest Supreme Court Judgments, Feb. 7th, 2014
February 10, 2014‘The End of Lawyers’ by Richard Susskind
February 18, 2014 IRENE NGUMA (ALIAS IRENE OKOLI) VS. ATTORNEY- GENERAL, IMO STATE
LEGALPEDIA CITATION: LER[2014] SC. 319/2011
AREA OF LAW- CRIMINAL LAW-CONSPIRACY, ARMED ROBBERY, CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT; LAW OF EVIDENCE- EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellant and the 1st Accused person were tried on a two count charge of conspiracy and Armed Robbery contrary to section 5(b) and 1(2)(a) of the Robbery and Fire arms (Special Provisions) Act Cap 398 Laws of the Federation. They both pleaded not guilty to each of the charge. At the end of the trial, the trial court found the Appellant and the 1st accused guilty as charged, convicted and sentenced them. On appeal, the Court of appeal affirmed the decision of the trial court, hence the instant appeal.
HELD
Appeal dismissed
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
Whether the lower court was right in deciding that despite the provisions of Section 36(11) of the 1999 Constitution and Section 160(a) of the Evidence Act, the confessional extra-judicial statement said to be made by the Appellant which she resiled from, was still admissible in law. (Derived from Ground One of the Grounds of Appeal.)
Whether the lower court’s decision in striking out the issues before it relating to the marriage between Appellant and 1st Accused Person, on the ground that the trial court’s pronouncement on same was obiter, is correct. (Derived from Grounds Two and Three of the Grounds of Appeal).
Whether the lower court was right in its decision that Exhibits 1, 2, 5 and 6 properly corroborated Exhibit 7 and together proved the guilt of the Appellant of the offence charged. (Derived from Ground Four of the Grounds of Appeal).”
RATIOS
EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE-DUTY OF THE TRIAL COURT THERETO
“In evaluating the evidence of the witnesses, the trial court is expected to make full use of the opportunity it had of seeing and observing the witnesses in the course of their testimonies and having regard to applicable law and common sense arrive at the conclusions a reasonable tribunal in that circumstances will arrive at”. PER MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMED JSC
EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE-WHEN AN APPELLATE COURT CAN RE-EVALUATE EVIDENCE
“Where however, the trial court failed to use the opportunity afforded it to properly evaluate the evidence adduced at a trial, the appellate court is competent to re-evaluate the evidence on record in order to obviate miscarriage of justice”. PER MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMED JSC
CONFESSION-VOLUNTARY CONFESSION-WHEN IT CAN SUSTAIN A CONVICTION
“A free and voluntary confession which is direct, positive and properly proved is sufficient to sustain a conviction. Though desirable, corroborative evidence is not necessary. Once the court is satisfied with its truth, it can safely convict on the basis of the confessional statement of an accused alone”. PER MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMED JSC
OBITER DICTUM-MEANING OF
“An obiter dictum is a by the side remark made or expressed by a judge in his decision upon a case which remark or opinion is incidental or collateral and not directly upon the question before the court”. PER MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMED JSC
DEFENCES-DUTY OF A COURT TO CONSIDER ANY DEFENCE RAISED BY AN ACCUSED
“Although a judge or court is not obliged to fish for defences not borne out by the evidence on record, it has long been settled that the court has the duty to fairly and impartially consider any defence raised by a person charged with crime however weak, foolish, unfounded or conflicting the defence is. Any defence to which an accused is, on the evidence entitled to, should be considered however stupid, unreasonable or for whatever it is worth”. PER MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMED JSC
ERRORS IN A JUDGMENT-WHEN WILL ERRORS IN A JUDGMENT RESULT IN THE SETTING ASIDE OF THE JUDGMENT
“Not all errors in a judgment appealed against, however, result in the setting aside of the judgment and allowing the appeal. Only those errors that have caused miscarriage of justice entitle the appellant to real success in the appeal”. PER MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMED
CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT-DUTY OF AN ACCUSED PERSON WHERE HE RESILES THEREFROM
“It is trite that if the accused person resiles from his confessional statement, it is his duty to explain to the court as part of his evidence, the reason for the inconsistency but the Appellant in this case could not convince the trial court that his confessional statement was not voluntarily made. PER J.I.OKORO JSC
CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT-WHEN A COURT CAN CONVICT AN ACCUSED PERSON ON HIS CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT
“It is well settled that a court can convict an accused person on the confessional statement made by him provided it is direct, positive and unequivocal about his committal of the crime”. PER J.I.OKORO JSC
CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT-ADMISSIBILITY OF
“Thus, a confessional statement, if it is true, positive and direct becomes proof of an act. Also, where it is voluntarily made stating or suggesting the inference that an accused committed an offence for which he is charged, it is relevant and admissible against him provided the statement was not made as a result of any threat, promise or inducement from a person in authority. It has to be noted that any voluntary information given by the accused at any time during investigation which leads to the discovery of any fact material to the charge against him is equally admissible”. PER J.I.OKORO JSC
CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF LOWER COURTS-ATTITUDE OF THE SUPREME COURT THERETO
“The Supreme Court is slow to review such evidence unless there is proof of miscarriage of justice, or violation of some principle of law or procedure, or the finding is perverse”. PER BODE RHODES VIVOUR JSC
CONSPIRACY-REQUIREMENT FOR CONVICTION
“In a charge of conspiracy all that is required is evidence of agreement of the parties express or implied before there can be conviction. The offence is complete when there is established an agreement to do an unlawful thing and not in doing the thing. Reasonable inferences from the acts of the parties would suffice”. PER BODE RHODES VIVOUR JSC
CASES MENTIONED
Adeye v. Adesanya (2001) 6 NWLR )(Pt 708) 1
Adejobi & anor. V. State 2011 6-7SC (pt. iii) p.65
Anthony Odiba V. Tule Azege (1998) 7 SCNJ 119)
Arowolo v. Olowookere & 2 ors. 201111-12SC (pt.ii) p.98
Bright v. State 2012 I SC (pt.ii) p.47
Cameroon Airlines v. Otutuizu 20111-2SC (pt.iii)p.200
CSS Bookshops Ltd V. The Registered Trustees of Muslim Community in Rivers State & Ors. (2006) 4 SCNJ 310
Elijah Ukoh v. The State (1972) 5 and 6 SC 89
Fatai Olayinka v. The State (2007) 4 SCNJ 53
Fatilewa V. The State (2008) 12 NWLR (pt. 1101) 518, (2008) 4 – 5 SC (pt. 1) 191
Iragunima v. R.S.H.P.D.A (2003) 12 NWLR (Pt 834) 427
Iwoha v Nipost (2003) 8 NWLR (Pt 822) 308 343- 344
Kareem V. Federal Republic of Nigeria (NO. 2) (2002) 4 SC (pt. 11) 42, (2002) 8 NWLR (pt. 770) 664
Kim V. The State (1992) 4 SCNJ 81 @ 110
Mohammed & anor v State (2007) 4 SCNJ 117
Nwachukwu V. State (2007) 7 SC 1, (2007) 17 NWLR (pt. 1062) 31,
Nwarga Nwuzoke v. The State (1988) 2 SC (Pt 11) 272
Okon Osung v The State (2012) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1332) 256
Onwubuariri & 3 ors. v. Igboasoiyi & 4 ors. 2011 1-2SC (ptiii) p.109
Peter V. State (1997) 12 NWLR (pt. 531) I at 22,
Soleh Boneh Overseas Nig. Ltd. V. Agboola Ayodele & Anor (1989) 2 SC (Pt. 1) 108;
State v. Olashehu Salami 2011 12 SC (pt.iv) p.191
Yusufu V. The State (1976) 6 SC 167 at 173,
STATUTES REFERRED TO
The Evidence Act
The 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria
NONYE IWEUNZE VS. THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA
LEGALPEDIA CITATION: LER[2014] SC. 354/2011
AREAS OF LAW – COURT-RULES OF COURT, NOTICE OF APPEAL, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellant was arraigned before a Federal High Court on two count charge for the manufacturing of fake drugs which is an offence contrary to section 1(a) of the Counterfeit and Fake Drugs and Unwholesome Processed Foods (Miscellaneous provisions) Act Cap C. 34 LFN 2004, and punishable under section 3 of the same act. The Appellant pleaded guilty to both counts. At the trial, the Appellant was not represented by any counsel and at the end of the trial he was found guilty and sentenced to five years imprisonment with an option of fine. Dissatisfied with the conviction, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, wherein the Respondent filed a preliminary objection on the ground that the Notice of Appeal was signed by the counsel to the Appellant and not the Appellant thereby making the appeal incompetent. The lower court after considering the arguments by both parties, struck out the appeal for being incurably incompetent. The Appellant have lodged the instant appeal against the judgment of the lower court.
HELD
Appeal dismissed
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
Whether the recall of the prosecution witnesses did not occasion miscarriage of justice and whether the Court of Appeal was right in upholding the conviction and sentence of the appellant by the trial court, solely on the appellant’s plea of guilty notwithstanding that there was break in the chain of causation from the time the alleged fake drugs were recovered to the time same was presented to the laboratory for analysis.
Whether the non service of proof of evidence on the appellant and failure of the trial court to explain the charge to the appellant was not unfair and resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
Whether the appeal was improperly struck out for being incompetent.
RATIOS
NOTICE OF APPEAL-EFFECT OF A DEFECTIVE NOTICE OF APPEAL
“The originating process in all appeal is the Notice of Appeal. Once it is found to be defective the Court of Appeal ceases to have jurisdiction to entertain an appeal in whatever form”. PER RHODES-VIVOUR JSC
The well laid down position of the Law is that the rule governing practice and procedure is the rule in force at the time of the trial or when the application is taken unless there are any provisions to the contrary. PER RHODES-VIVOUR JSC
NOTICE OF APPEAL-PROPER PARTY TO SIGN-EXCEPTIONS THEREON
“By virtue of Order 16 Rule 4(1), (5) and (6) of the Court of Appeal Rules 2007 every Notice of Appeal in a criminal appeal must be signed by the appellant. Exceptions are if the appellant is insane, or is a company. PER RHODES-VIVOUR JSC
RULES OF COURT-NEED FOR SAME TO BE OBEYED
“Rules of Court are meant to be obeyed .Failure to obey can be costly for a recalcitrant appellant”. PER J.I. OKORO JSC
“SHALL”-WHAT IT DENOTES
“The use of the word ‘’shall’’ in the Rules denotes mandatoriness and does not make room for any exercise of discretion. It is a word of command”. PER J.I. OKORO JSC
RULES OF COURT-NEED TO BE FOLLOWED STRICTLY-BINDINGNESS ON PARTIES
“Rule of Court are meant to be obeyed. They are not made for the fun of it. They must be followed strictly, unless the court is given discretion under them. These rules bind all parties before the court .No party is allowed to choose when or which to obey and/or disobey “. PER J.I OKORO JSC
CASES MENTIONED
Afolabi vs Adekunle (1983) 14 NSCC 398 @ 405
Ajayi & Anor vs Omorogbe (1993) 6 NWLR (pt 301)
Akanbi & Ors vs Alao &Anor (1989) 5 SCNJ 10 @ 13
Amokeodo vs I.G.P & 2 Ors (1999) 5 SCNJ. 71 @ 81
G.M.O. Nworah & Sons Co. Ltd vs Afam Akputa (2010) 9 NWLR ( pt 1200) 443
Ikpasa v. Bendel State 1981 9SC p31
Miss Ezeanah vs Alhaji Atta Mamoud (2004) 7 NWLR (pt 873) 468 @502
Olowokere vs African Newspapers 1993 5 NWLR pt.295 p.583.
Onochie vs Odogwu (2006) 6 NWLR (Pt.975) 65
Owata vs Anyigor 1993 1NSCC pt1 p.199.
University of Lagos vs Aigoro (1985) 1 NWLR (PT 1) 143
Uwazuruike vs Attorney-General Federation (2007) 8 NWLR (PT 1035)
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Court of Appeal Rules 2007
Court of Appeal Rules 2011
Supreme Court Rules
MAJOR NICKSON STANLEY DONG & 8 ORS VS A.G of ADAMAWA STATE & 2 ORS
LEGALPEDIA CITATION: LER[2014] SC. 76/2008
AREA OF LAW-CUSTOMARY LAW- APPOINTMENT OF CHIEFS, CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACTS
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Plaintiffs/Appellants issued a writ of summons against the Defendants/ Respondents claiming a declaration that the traditional method and /or procedure for the selection, appointment and/or election of a District Head for Dong District was not followed in the appointment of the 3rd Defendant as the District Head of Dong District, a declaration that the appointment of the 3rd Defendant as the District Head of Dong District is unconstitutional, irregular, invalid, null and void, an injunction restraining the 3rd Defendant from parading himself as the District Head of Dong District and an order directing the 2nd Defendant to supervise the conduct of a fresh election. Pleadings were filed and exchanged. The trial court entered judgment in favour Respondents and the Appellants appealed to the lower court which upheld and affirmed the judgment of the trial court .The Appellant has further lodged an appeal in this court.
HELD
Appeal dismissed
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
Whether having regard to the fact that Dong District was a new creation and the requirement to prove a custom as a question of fact, the Court of Appeal was right when it held that the Chief of Batta the representative of the 2nd respondent by the mere fact of his being chief, was in a position to determine the traditional or customary method in existence in Dong District for the selection of the District Head and did so in this respect when the members of the ruling families and the kingmakers.
Whether the lower court was right when it based its decision on the fact that the appellants having pleaded the existence of a tradition or custom for the appointment of the chief of Dong ought not to be heard to contend that an Electoral College of the village Head be convened even though, this was the Appellants’ Alternative Relief.
Having regard to the larger size of Dong and its more advanced chieftaincy institution, whether there was any basis for the appellants claim of the custom or tradition for the appointment of the chief of Dong as being the applicable tradition or custom for the appointment of the district head of Dong district.
RATIOS
APPOINTMENT OF CHIEFS- WHETHER IT IS THE DUTY OF A COURT TO MAKE DECLARATION RELATING TO APPOINTMENT OF CHIEFS
“It is not the business of the court to make declaration of customary law relating to the selection or appointment of Chiefs but it the business of the court to make a finding of what the customary law is and apply the law for declaration.” PER FABIYI JSC
CUSTOMARY LAW- NATURE OF UNDER THE EVIDENCE ACT
“A customary law is a matter of fact to be pleaded and proved by evidence unless it has been judicially noticed.” PER FABIYI JSC
CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT-ATTITUDE OF THE SUPREME COURT THERETO- CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE IT CAN BE REVERSED
“The Supreme Court is always slow to disturb or interfere with concurrent findings of fact established by the trial court and affirmed by the Court of Appeal, but would be compelled to reverse them and state the correct position of the facts if found that the findings cannot be supported by evidence or are perverse, or that there was miscarriage of justice, or the court overlooked some principle of law or practice”. PER FABIYI JSC
RELIEF-GRANT OF-WHERE PLAINTIFF SETS INCONSISTENT MATERIAL FACTS AND CLAIMS RELIEF IN THE ALTERNATIVE-DUTY OF COURT.
“Where a plaintiff sets up two or more inconsistent sets of material facts and claims relief in each of them in the alternative, he will be granted such relief as the set of facts he established would entitle him to where the first and principal relief is exhaustive of his remedy there would be no need to consider the alternative relief.” PER KEKERE -EKUN
CONCURRENT FINDING OF LOWER COURTS – ATTITUDE OF THE SUPREME COURT THERETO-WHEN CAN BE INTERFERED WITH
“It is well settled that this court is always reluctant to interfere with concurrent finding of the lower courts unless it is shown that the finding are perverse or not supported by the evidence on record, or that there is a manifest error that leads to a miscarriage of justice , or a violation of some principle of law or procedure”. PER KEKERE- EKUN
CASES MENTIONED
Agidigbi vs Agidigbi (1996) 6 NWLR (Pt. 454) 300 @313
Amadi vs Nwosu (1992) 5 NWLR (Pt. 241) 273 @ 283- 284 H-A
Cameroom Airline v. Otutuizu 2011 1-2 SC (pt.iii) p. 200
Haruna v. A.G.Federation 2012 3 SC(pt iv) p. 40
Lipede vs Sonekan (1995) 1 NWLR (PT. 374) 668.
M.V.Caroline Maersk Vs Nokoy Investment Ltd (2002)12 NWLR (Pt. 782) 472 @508-509 H-E
PDP V. INEC & 3Ors 2012 2 SC (Pt iii) P.I
Yusuf vs Adegoke & Ors .(2007) 4 sc (Pt. 1) 126 @146- 147
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Adamawa State (District Creation) Law 1992 (as amended)
Evidence Act
2 Comments
i really appreciate you for allowing me access decided cases on this site. thank you.
Thanks, it’s quite informative