AWA OKORIE UCHENDU & ORS VS CHIEF EYO OGBONI & ORS
June 27, 2025CHIEF ASABA EMIRI & ORS VS CHIEF DOMINIC IMIEYEH & ANOR
June 27, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1999) Legalpedia (SC) 58119
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Apr 23, 1999
Suit Number: SC. 47/1997
CORAM
A.B. WALI
A.I. IGUH
S.O. UWAIFO – JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
PELE OGUNYEAYINDE LIWOFABIAN MUOKAKAMSELA KILADOMOHAMMED HASSAN APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellants, Pele Ogunye, Ayinde Liwo, Fabian Muoka , Kamsela Kilado and Mohammed Hassan along with two others were on the 1st day of March, 1984 jointly arraigned before the High Court of Lagos State, Holden at Ikeja, charged in count one with the offence of conspiracy to commit armed robbery contrary to Section 403 of the Criminal Code Law. Cap. 31. Laws of Lagos State, 1973 and in count two with armed robbery contrary to section 402 of the said Law ?
HELD
That the arraignment of the 4th and 5th Appellants was perfectly in order and valid and that the 5th Appellant be acquitted and discharged
ISSUES
“(i) Whether the 4th and 5th Appellants had a fair hearing when the charge was not read or explained to them to the satisfaction of the court?(ii) Whether the 4th and 5th Appellants had a fair hearing when the charge was read out in a language they did not understand. (iii) Whether it was right to have relied on Exhibits A and S in relation to which a plea of non est factum had been made and in respect of which plea the trial court made no finding.”
RATIONES DECIDENDI
PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY
The language of the court is English Section 150(1) of the Evidence Act and the maxim omnia praesumutur rite et solemniter esse acta donec probetur in contrarium are fully applicable with regard to the procedure adopted by the learned trial Judge in the absence or any proof to the contrary. -Per Anthony Ikechukwu Iguh JSC
PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY
In my view, well established maxim of law, omnia praesumuntur rite et solemniter esse acta donec probetur in contrarium, upon which ground it will be presumed that judicial and particular official acts has been done rightly and regularly until the contrary is proved seems to me fully applicable in the present case.- Per Anthony Ikechukwu Iguh JSC
WHEN TRIAL WITHIN TRIAL WILL BE CONDUCTED
Where on the production of a confessional or any statement, it is challenged by the defence on the ground that the accused did not make it at all, such an objection does not go to the admissibility of the statement and the trial court is entitled to admit the confession in evidence as a statement the prosecution claims to have obtained from the accused person and thereafter to decide or find as a matter of fact whether or not the accused person in fact made the statement at the conclusion of the trial. The position will however be different where the admissibility of a statement is challenged on the ground that it was not made voluntarily. In the latter case it will be incumbent on the trial court to call upon the prosecution to establish the voluntariness of the statement by conducting a trial within a trial. -Per Anthony Ikechukwu Iguh JSC
CASES CITED
Agyuluwa v Commissioner of Police (1961) All NLR (Pt.4) 850Akpiri Ewe v The State (1992) 6 NWLR (Part 246) 444Azeez Okoro v The State (1988) 14 NWLR (Part 584) 181Damina v The State (1995) 8 NWLR (Part 415) 513 at 540Edet Effiom v The State (1995) 1 NWLR (Part 373) 507Effiom v The State (1995) 1 NWLR (Part 373) 507 at 609?
STATUTES REFERRED TO
The Criminal Procedure Law, Cap 32, Laws of Lagos State of Nigeria. 1973The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1979
