CORAM

---

---

PARTIES

---

MR BENJI ARIOLE APPELLANTS

---

THE STATE OF LAGOS RESPONDENTS

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant was arraigned along with two others namely Mr. Peter Chike Osegbo and Mrs. Grace Onochie on an amended information of two counts to wit: Forgery and Conspiracy to commit Forgery contrary to Sections 465 and 561 of the Criminal Code Law, Cap C17, Laws of Lagos State, 2003. They pleaded “Not Guilty” to the two counts and the Prosecution opened its case, calling two witnesses and tendered exhibits in support of its case. At the close of the Prosecution’s case, the Appellant made a no case submission, to which the Prosecution’s counsel filed a response. After considering the submissions of the respective counsels, the trial judge in his ruling, held that a prima facie case has been made out against the Appellant and the other two accused persons requiring them to enter their defence. Being dissatisfied with the said ruling, the Appellant has filed the instant appeal contending that the Respondent did not make a prima facie case against the Appellant that would require him to defend himself.

---

HELD

---

Appeal Dismissed

---

ISSUES

---

Whether the learned trial judge was right in dismissing the No case submission made by the Appellant?

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

OFFENCE OF FORGERY – ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENCE OF FORGERY THAT THE PROSECUTION MUST PROVE

---

“The elements the prosecution needs proved for the offence of forgery are: (1) That there is a document; (2) that the document or writing is forged; (3) that the forgery is by the accused; (4) that the accused knows that the document or writing is false; (5) That he intends that the forged document to be acted upon to the prejudice of the victim in the belief that it is genuine. See Babalola Vs. The State [1989] 4 NWLR (Pt. 115) 264; Alake Vs. State (1992) LPELR – 403 (SC); Moore Vs. FRN (2012) LPELR – 19663 (CA); Jubril Vs. FRN (2018) LPELR – 43993 (CA); Agbanimu Vs. FRN (2018) LPELR – 43924 (CA). –

---

OFFENCE OF CONSPIRACY –ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENCE OF CONSPIRACY

---

“With respect to the first count of conspiracy, it is beyond dispute that the essential elements of conspiracy is the agreement to do an unlawful act, or to do a lawful act by an unlawful means, and the proof of conspiracy is a matter of inference, to be deduced from certain criminal acts of the parties concerned and which acts were done in pursuance of a criminal purpose that is common between the conspirators. See Daboh & Anor Vs. The State (1977) 2 NSCC 309; Abacha Vs. State [2002] 11 NWLR (Pt. 779) 437”.-

---

NO CASE SUBMISSION – STATUTORY PROVISION ON WHEN A NO CASE SUBMISSION CAN BE MADE

---

“Section 239(1) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Law of Lagos State (ACJL) provides that
“if at the close of the evidence in support of the charge, it appears to the court that a case is not made out against the defendant sufficiently to require him to make a defence, the court shall discharge him in respect of that particular charge.”
This provision clearly gives an accused person or counsel on his behalf the liberty to make an application to the court to discharge him on the ground that there is nothing in the evidence adduced by the prosecution which would persuade the court to compel the accused person to put up a defence. Simply put, a no case submission is made where, even if the evidence adduced by the prosecution is believed by the court, the court will not be persuaded to convict the accused person. See: Fagoriola Vs. FRN [2013] 17 NWLR (Pt. 1353) 322; Ikuforiji Vs. FRN (2018) LPELR – 43884 (SC)”. –

---

NO CASE SUBMISSION – CONDITIONS FOR UPHOLDING A NO CASE SUBMISSION

---

“Although, the ACJL is silent on the conditions to fulfil before a no case submission can succeed, it is of importance to observe that extant judicial authorities are consistent on the position that a submission that there is no case to answer may properly be made and upheld:
When there has been no evidence to prove an essential element in the alleged offence; or
When the evidence adduced by the prosecution had been discredited as a result of cross-examination; or
When the evidence is so manifestly unreliable that no reasonable tribunal could safely convict on it.
See Ibeziako Vs. Commissioner Of Police (1963) 1 ALL NRL 61; Adama Vs. State (2017) LPELR – 42266 (SC); Ubanatu Vs. COP [2000] FWLR (Pt. 1) 138.
My Lords, it is my view, that any of the above conditions must be established by the accused person before a court can reach the conclusion that no prima facie case has been made out by the prosecution that will require an answer from the defence. The Supreme Court, per AKINTAN, JSC did not mince words in Al-Hassan Vs. State [2011] 3 NWLR (Pt. 254) 277, when he held that
“what has to be considered at the stage of a no-case submission is not whether the evidence against the accused is sufficient to justify conviction but whether the prosecution has made out a prima facie case requiring at least some explanation from the accused person.”
–

---

PRIMA FACIE CASE –TEST IN DETERMINING WHETHER A PRIMA FACIE CASE HAS BEEN MADE OUT AGAINST AN ACCUSED PERSON

---

“My Lords, in the Court of Appeal’s decision in Edakarabor Vs. COP, Delta State (2007) LPELR – 8558 (CA), this Court, per ALAGOA, JCA stated the correct position of the law in the following words:
“It is important to state that the elements for disclosing a prima facie case are not the same as the elements for securing a conviction. If the evidence adduced by the prosecution is such that an accused person still has some explanation to do to clear his name even after cross examination of the prosecution’s witnesses the accused must be called upon to defend himself against the charge he is faced with. Such evidence does not necessarily have to be strong enough for the prosecution to secure a conviction. The test as I see it is whether at the end of the prosecution’s case and after the prosecution witnesses have been cross examined by the accused, the accused person is seen to be blameless of the charge that he is confronted with; the entirety of the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not necessary to establish a prim facie case against the accused person sufficient for him to be called upon to defend himself. Thus where a single prosecution has adduced damaging evidence against an accused which evidence appears unshaken despite cross examination, a prima facie case would have been made out against the accused for which he must be called upon to defend himself…” –

---

NO CASE SUBMISSION – WHETHER THE COURT MUST PROCEED TO CONSIDER AND PRONOUNCE UPON THE SUBSTANTIVE CASE IN DELIVERING A RULING ON A NO CASE SUBMISSION

---

“Indeed, I agree with the Appellant’s counsel that where a judge overrules a no case submission, he is expected just like in civil cases, where a Ruling on interlocutory application is being delivered, not to proceed to consider and pronounce upon live issues on the merit of the case before it, but limit himself only to answering the question whether any of the conditions necessary for upholding a no case submission exists in the case. This is because, at this stage, the court is not called upon to determine the guilt or otherwise of the accused person, but to merely determine whether a prima facie case has been made out to justify the calling on the accused to make a defence. See Ekwunigo Vs. FRN [2009] ALL FWLR (Pt. 450) 614, where the Supreme Court held that the question on credibility of witnesses and/or as to whether or not the court believes the evidence led does not arise at that stage of the proceeding. In the words of AKINTAN, JSC at 621;
“.The learned trial Judge misdirected himself of what was expected of him at the stage reached in the trial of the case before him, which was then a no case submission stage at the close of the prosecution’s case. The position of the law on the point is that what was required of him was not to evaluate or give weight to the evidence led by the prosecution at that stage or to write a lengthy judgment in which he concluded by the discharging and acquitting the Appellant. This Court has in fact in a number of cases said that a ruling on a no case submission should be brief as possible and not in any way go into evaluation of the evidence….” –

---

“PRIMA FACIE”- DEFINITION OF THE PHRASE “PRIMA FACIE”

---

“The term “prima facie”, defined by Bryan A. Garner, Editor in Chief of Black’s Law Dictionary, 8th Edition, at page 1228, means:
“Sufficient to establish a fact or raise a presumption unless disproved or rebutted”
Furthermore, a “prima facie case” is defined at same page 1228 of Black’s Law Dictionary, 8th Edition, to mean:
The establishment of a legally required rebuttable presumption.
A party’s production of enough evidence to allow the fact-trier to infer the fact at issue and rule in the party’s favour.
The same phrase “prima facie case” was judicially defined by this court in Grange v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2010) 7 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1192) 135 at 104-165, thus:
“A prima facie case in a criminal trial in a sense, only means that there is a ground for proceeding with the trial. At that stage, whether the evidence is sufficient to ground a conviction, is not the issue. When a Court states that a prima facie case has been made, or that the evidence discloses a prima facie case, it means that the evidence is such that if it is uncontradicted and if believed, is sufficient to prove the case against the accused”
Further see: Mohammed Sani Abacha v. The State (2002) LPELR-16(SC) at pp.21-22; Senator Nicholas Y. Ugbane v. Federal Republic of Nigeria & Ors(2010) LPELR -4945(CA); Akpan v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2012) 1 NWLR (Pt.1281) 403 at 420, Rev. Fr. Dr. E. C. Obiorah v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2016) LPELR (CA). The reverse side of the above statement of the law with respect to a prima facie case, is that where an accused person is not in any way linked with the charge against him, from the statements of potential prosecution witnesses or proofs of evidence, the charge against such an accused person, is liable to be quashed”. –

---

PRIMA FACIE- DEFINITION OF THE PHRASE “PRIMA FACIE”

---

“The expression prima facie case has been defined as meaning that there is a ground for proceeding. Put differently, that something has been produced which makes it worthwhile to continue with the proceeding. On the face of it, it suggests that the evidence produced so far indicates that there is something worth looking at. See Duru vs. Nwosu(1989)1 NWLR (PT 133) 24 at 43 and Ubanatu vs. COP (2000) 1 SC 31 at 36-37”.

---

NO CASE SUBMISSION –WHEN A NO CASE SUBMISSION MAY BE UPHELD

---

“Simply put, a court can uphold a no case submission and discharge a defendant without requiring him to enter upon his defence where the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not sufficient to justify the continuation of the trial and or that a case is not made out against the defendant sufficiently to require him to make a defence. A no case submission can be made and upheld in any of two situations, namely, where there is no legally admissible evidence to prove an essential element of the alleged offence and where the evidence adduced has been discredited as a result of cross-examination or is so manifestly unreliable that no reasonable tribunal can safely convict on it. Where however there is evidence linking the defendant to the commission of the offence, no matter how slight the evidence; then there is a case to answer. See Agbo vs. The State (2013) LPELR (20388) 1 at 15-16, Kalu vs. IGP (2017) LPELR (42857)1 at 14-18 and FRN vs. Saraki (2017) LPELR (43392)1 at 35-36”. –

---

CASES CITED

---

None

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Administration of Criminal Justice Law of Lagos State|Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999|Criminal Code Law, Cap C17, Laws of Lagos State, 2003.|

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT

---