PIUS ADAKA VS CHRISTOPHER ANEKWE
June 20, 2025ARJANDAS HIRANAND MELWANI V. FIVE STAR INDUSTRIES LIMITED
June 20, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2002) Legalpedia (SC) 91138
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Feb 1, 2002
Suit Number: SC. 59/2001
CORAM
MUHAMMADU LAWAL UWAIS, CHIEF JUSTICE, NIGERIA
PARTIES
SALISU YAHAYA APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellant was charged and convicted for the murder of the deceased. There was nothing from the records to indicate that the charge was read to the appellant nor did he plead thereto
HELD
The court allowed the appeal on grounds that the trial was a nullity for non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of S.215 of the CPA on plea taking. A fresh trial was ordered.
ISSUES
Whether having regard to the provisions of section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Law, Cap. 29 (sic) Laws of Ogun State, there was proper and valid arraignment of the Appellant.
Whether in the circumstance of this case, this Honourable Court should not order a retrial.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH RETRIAL MAY BE ORDERED
The principles laid down for a retrial, the facts of the case must contain the following factors:-
(a) That there has been an error in law (including the observance of the law of evidence) or an irregularity in procedure of such a character that on the one hand the trial was not rendered a nullity and on the other hand the Court is unable to say that there has been no miscarriage of justice.
(b) That leaving aside the error or irregularity, the evidence taken as a whole discloses a substantial case against the Appellant.
(c) That there are no such special circumstances as would render it oppressive to put the Appellant on trial a second time
(d) That the offence or offences of which the Appellant was convicted, or the consequences to the Appellant or any other of the conviction or acquittal of the Appellant, are not merely trivial.
(e) That to refuse an order of retrial would occasion a greater miscarriage of justice than to grant it.
(f) That to enable the prosecution adduce evidence against the Appellant which evidence may convict him when his success at the appeal is based on the absence of that same evidence. – UwaisJ.S.C
EFFECT OF NON-COMPLAINCE WITH SECTION 215 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW
Once the provisions of section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Law and those of the Constitution referred to above are not followed in a criminal trial, the trial is rendered null and void ab initio. All the other matters that follow thereafter amount to an exercise in futility and are of no significance- UwaisJ.S.C
CASES CITED
Ewe v. The State (1992) 6 N.W.L.R. (Part 246) 147 at pp. 152 – 153;
Samuel Erekanure v. The State, (1993) 5 N.W.L.R. (Part 294) 385 at pp. 329-393 and 396
Udeh v. The State, (1999) 7 NWLR (Part 609) 1 at p.22
Yusufu Abodundu & 4 Ors v. The Queen, 4 FSC 70 at pp. 71-72,
Abu Ankwa v. The State, (1969) 1 ALL NLR 133
Tobby v. The State (2001) 10 N.W.L.R. (Part 720) 23, [2001] 6 SCM 178
STATUTES REFERRED TO
NONE
