DR. AUGUSTINE N. MOZIE & ORS V. CHIKE MBAMALU & 2 ORS
June 5, 2025BENJAMIN OYAKHIRE V. THE STATE
June 5, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2006-07) Legalpedia 74927 (SC)
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Abuja
Fri Jul 14, 2006
Suit Number: SC.83/2005
CORAM
S. U. ONU JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
I. P. ACHOLONU JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
N. TOBI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
A. M. MUKHTAR JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
F.F. TABA JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
PIUS EDEM UDO
APPELLANTS
THE STATE
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
APPEAL- MURDER -MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS OF AN ARRAIGNMENT
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellant suspecting that a servant of the deceased stole his cassava and farm tools went to the deceased house to complain and ask for his tools. The deceased left for the bush but never came back alive. The appellant reported himself to the police and confessed that he killed the deceased with a matchet. The appellant said it was in self defence but the Court of Appeal found him guilty and affirmed the conviction of the trial court.
HELD
The Supreme Court held that the appeal lacked merit and substance and was dismissed. The decision of the lower court affirming the conviction and sentence of the trial court was affirmed.
ISSUES
Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal are right in finding that the arraignment of the appellant at the trial court met the mandatory requirement as envisaged by Section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Law of Cross River State and Section 33 (6) (A) and (E) of the 1979 Constitution.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CASES
“It must however be said that each case must be treated on its peculiar facts. The mode of compliance will differ from case to case. Let me explain. It is not every requirement that must appear on record. For example the requirement that the judge should be satisfied that the charge has been read and explained to the accused need not appear on the record. It is however a good practice to so indicate”. Per .A.M. MUKHTAR, JSC
PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY IN ARRAIGNMENT
” It is a matter of commonsense really. For once the record of the court shows that the charge has been read over and explained to the accused and the accused pleaded to it before the case proceeded to trial, it is to be presumed that everything was regularly done, that the judge was satisfied” Per Katsina-Alu JSC in Adeniji V. State 2001 13 NWLR part 730 page 375. Per A.M. MUKHTAR, JSC
CASES CITED
Cases referred to in the Judgment:
Adeniji V. State 2001 13 NWLR (Pt. 730) 375, (2001) 7 SCM 1
Egbevom V. State 2000 4 NWLR (Pt. 654) 559,
Emiowe V. The State 2000 1 NWLR (Pt. 641) 408.
Erekaure V. The State 1993 5 NWLR (Pt. 294) 385,
Ewe V. State 1992 6 NWLR (Pt. 246) 147,
Idemudia V. State 1997 7 NWLR (Pt6. 10) 202,
Ijioffor V. State 2001 9 NWLR (Pt. 718) 371, (2001) 5 SCM, 107
Kalu V. State 1978 13 NWLR (Pt. 583) 531
Kwaghir V. State 1995 3 NWLR (Pt. 386) 651,
Lori V. State 1990 8-11 SC. 81,
Miller V. Minister of Pensions 1947 2 All E. R. page 372
Oduneye V. State 2001 2 NWLR (Pt. 697) 311, (2001) 2 SCM, 81
Okpulor V. State 1990 7 NWLR (Pt 164) 581.
State V. Ajie 2000 11 NWLR (Pt. 678) 434,
State V. Ogbubunjo 2001 2 NWLR (Pt. 608) 576, (2001) 3 SCM, 119
Sunday Kajubo V. The State 1998 1 NWLR (Pt. 73) 721.
Udedibia V. State 1976 11 SC 133,
8Udoh V. State 1994 2 NWLR (Pt. 329) 626
Uwaekwechinva V. State 2005 FWLR (Pt. 259) 1911, (2005) 4 SCM, 167
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1979
Criminal Procedure Law of Cross River State
Adeniji V. State 2001 13 NWLR part 730 page 375
