OKO OGAR ADAMA vs. THE STATE - Legalpedia | The Complete Lawyer - Research | Productivity | Health

OKO OGAR ADAMA vs. THE STATE

SYLVANUS EZE vs. UNIVERSITY OF JOS
April 15, 2025
MR. RASAK DUROSIMI vs. MR. BAMIDELE ADENIYI
April 15, 2025
SYLVANUS EZE vs. UNIVERSITY OF JOS
April 15, 2025
MR. RASAK DUROSIMI vs. MR. BAMIDELE ADENIYI
April 15, 2025
Show all

OKO OGAR ADAMA vs. THE STATE

Legalpedia Citation: (2017) Legalpedia (SC) 71611

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Fri May 5, 2017

Suit Number: SC. 69/2014.

CORAM



PARTIES


OKO OGAR ADAMA APPELLANTS


RESPONDENTS


AREA(S) OF LAW


Not Available

 


SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant, Oko Ogar Adama along with 13 other accused persons were arraigned before a Cross River High Court, charged with conspiracy, unlawful assembly, malicious damage and stealing contrary to Sections 20 (6), 70, 541 and 390 (9) of the Laws of Cross River State of Nigeria 2004 respectively. The Appellant and the other 13 accused persons denied both counts. At the trial, the prosecution called a total of five (5) witnesses while a no case submission was made on behalf of the Appellants. After hearing and evaluation of the testimonies of the five witnesses, the learned trial Judge over-ruled the no case submission and requested the Appellants to enter their defence. Dissatisfied with the ruling, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal which affirmed the ruling of the trial Court dismissed the appeal hence the instant appeal before this Court


HELD


Appeal Dismissed


ISSUES


?    Whether the trial court has jurisdiction to try the appellant when the consent or direction of High Court Judge of Cross River State was not obtained as required by Section 309 (2) (b) of the Criminal Procedure Law, Cap. C17, Laws of Cross River State of Nigeria, 2004 (the CPL) before the information was filed?    ?    Whether the purported arraignment and taking of the plea of the appellant was valid in law?    Whether the written address and the reply on the no case submission did not breach the appellant’s right to fair hearing and thereby consequently rendering the entire trial a nullity?    Whether the decision of the Court below ” to be very brief and to restrict itself ” in reviewing the argument does not amount to a denial of the right to fair hearing of the appellant, and thus rendering the judgment of the court below arrived at in such circumstances liable to be set aside??    Whether, having regard to the entire circumstances of this case, the court below was correct in affirming the ruling of the trial court and thereby calling upon the appellant to enter his defence?


RATIONES DECIDENDI


CASES CITED



STATUTES REFERRED TO


Constitution of the Federal Republic of NigeriaCriminal Code Law of Cross – River State 2004Evidence Act 2011High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules of Cross River State


CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT

Comments are closed.