CHIEF MOSES EDEWOR VS. PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY NIGERIA LIMITED
June 17, 2025HON. JUSTICE K. O. ANYAH (RTD) VS IMO CONCORDE HOTELS LTD.
June 18, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2003) Legalpedia (SC) 11313
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Jan 10, 2003
Suit Number: SC. 392/2001
CORAM
FRANCIS FEDODE TABAI, JSC, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT.
PARTIES
MILTON PAUL OHWOVORIOLE SAN APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellant was accused of giving gratification to the 2nd respondent.
HELD
The court held that there is merit in this appeal and I allow it I set aside the decision of the Court of Appeal confirming that of the trial court. I accordingly substitute an order quashing counts I and II of the charge in so far as they are preferred against the appellant in this case.
ISSUES
Whether the Court of Appeal was right in holding that the discretion of the learned trial judge in granting leave to prefer the charge against the appellant was exercised in accordance with law.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
DISCRETION OF THE JUDGE TO GRANT OR REFUSE AN APPLICATION TO PREFER A CHARGE
“There is no doubt that the learned trial judge has the discretion to grant or refuse leave to prefer the charge but the discretion as usual, must be exercised judicially and judiciously. In that exercise, he must ensure that he has taken into consideration all the materials placed before him including the relevant law applicable thereto.” Kalgo, JSC.
WHAT PROSECUTION MUST ESTABLISH FOR AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO PREFER A CRIMINAL CHARGE
“It is therefore clear that where the prosecution sought to prosecute a person for an offence with leave of the Court, it is manifest that it must be established that: (i) an offence was committed; (ii) it must be shown by the proofs of evidence or statements filed pursuant to the application, that the accused person was linked with the offence. It is needless to add that the evidence may be direct or circumstantial. In my view, however, it is not necessary to get involved in such terms as clear case. It is sufficient if the depositions and statements attached to the information disclose a prima face case against the accused persons.” Kalgo, JSC.
CASES CITED
1. U.B.A Limited V. Stahlabau GMBH & Co. KG. (1989) 3 NWLR (pt. 110) 3742. Ikomi V. the State (1986) 3 NWLR (pt.28) 340 at 3582. R. V. Ajidagba (1958) 3 FSC 53. Bank of Baroda V. Mercantile Bank (Nig) Ltd (1987) 3 NWLR (pt.60) 2334. Bakare V. A.C.B Ltd (1986) 3 NWLR (pt.26) 475. Adejumo V. Ayantegbe (1989) 3 NWLR (pt.110) 417 at 4456. Jammal Engineenng Co. Limited V. Misr (Nig) Ltd (1972)1 All NLR (pt.1) 3227. Abacha V. The State (2002) 7 SCN 4 at page 35; (2002) 11 SCM 1
STATUTES REFERRED TO
NONE
