R. O. IYERE V BENDEL FEED AND FLOUR MILL LTD
May 28, 2025NIGERIAN ARMY V MAJOR JACOB IYELA
May 28, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2008-12) Legalpedia (SC) 21111
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
HOLDEN AT PORT HARCOURT
Fri Dec 5, 2008
Suit Number: SC. 232/2006
CORAM
IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD, JSC,JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD, JSC,JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD, JSC,JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD, JSC,JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
COKER , JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD, JSC,JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
PAUL ONYIA APPELLANTS
THE STATE
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellant, after a fight with the deceased, went home and came back with a dagger with which he struck the deceased. The deceased died on the spot. There was no indication that the appellant did not understand the language used during the course of proceedings
HELD
The court dismissed the appeal.
ISSUES
1. Whether the, non-interpretation of the evidence of Pw1, Pw2, Pw3, and Pw4 rendered in Igbo, the translation of the same by the learned trial Judge suo motu culminating in its judgment and the affirmation of it by the Court of Appeal, did not violate the appellant’s right to fair hearing and nullify thereby all the findings and conclusions of guilt against the appellant?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
AN INTERPRETER IS NOT REQUIRED WHEN THE ACCUSED UNDERSTANDS THE LANGUAGE OF THE COURT
AN INTERPRETER IS NOT REQUIRED WHEN THE ACCUSED UNDERSTANDS THE LANGUAGE OF THE COURT
Where an accused person, as in the instant case, understands the language at the trial of the offence an interpreter, whether sworn or unsworn, becomes irrelevant as the purpose or intention of the law is to ensure that an accused person understands the proceedings and that no miscarriage of justice is occasioned by the lack or absence of knowledge in the accused person of the particular language in use at the trial – Onnoghen J.S.C.
APPROPRIATE TIME TO CLAIM THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO AN INTERPRETER
The Constitutional right granted to an accused to have an interpreter could not be invoked on appeal by an appellant who had been represented by counsel at the trial as a ground for setting aside a conviction unless he claimed that right at the proper time and was denied it. An accused must therefore claim his right to an interpreter at the time of his trial, not after, for the first time on appeal. – Muhammad J.S.C
CASES CITED
1. State v. Gwanto (1983) 1 FNR 1322. Anyanwu v. The State (2002) 13 NWLR (Pt.783) 107 at 139-1403. The Queen v. Eguabor (1962) 1 All NLR 284. Ajayi & Anor v. Zaria N. A. (1963) 1 All NLR 169
STATUTES REFERRED TO
The 1999 Constitution
