CORAM

---

Uwani Musa Abba Aji- Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Ibrahim Mohammed Musa Saulawa-Z`ZJustice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Emmanuel Akomaye Agim-Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Stephen Jonah Adah-Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Jamilu Yammama Tukur-Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

---

PARTIES

---

SHAMSUDEEN ADAMU (A.K.A DUNA)

APPELLANTS 

---

THE STATE

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

CRIMINAL LAW, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE LAW, APPEAL, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, RAPE, CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY, FAIR HEARING, PROLIFERATION OF ISSUES, CONSTITUTIONAL LAWA

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

On October 4, 2017, at around 01:50 hours, Hassan Abdullahi, accompanied by Hauwa’u Suleiman and Fatima Ahmed, was traveling to Yelwa Area in Bauchi Metropolis via tricycle when their vehicle broke down near A.Y.M. Shafa Filling Station. While attempting repairs, the appellant and two other men, armed with cutlasses, approached and attacked them. They forcibly abducted Hauwa’u Suleiman along with her belongings and fled on a motorcycle.

The abductors took Hauwa’u to a location near Old Airport, Bauchi, where they held her captive for a day, threatening her with cutlasses. Each of the three men then took turns raping her during her abduction. The appellant was tried alongside two co-accused persons on charges of criminal conspiracy and rape.

During the initial trial before Hon. Justice Gurama, two prosecution witnesses (Hauwa Suleiman as PW1 and Hassan Abdullahi as PW2) testified on July 19, 2018. However, Justice Gurama retired before the case concluded, and the matter was transferred to High Court No. 4 presided over by Hon. Justice Mohammed A. Sambo, where the case commenced de novo.

At the new trial, the prosecution applied to tender certified true copies of the previous testimonies of the two witnesses under Section 46(1) of the Evidence Act 2011, as they could not be contacted. The appellant’s counsel raised no objection, and the testimonies were admitted as Exhibits ‘A’ and ‘B’. The trial court found all three accused persons guilty and sentenced them to ten years imprisonment for criminal conspiracy and life imprisonment for rape.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant’s appeal, affirming the trial court’s judgment. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court, primarily challenging the Court of Appeal’s decision to strike out his issues for determination due to proliferation of issues.

 

---

HELD

---

1. The appeal was dismissed.

2. The Court held that proliferation of issues for determination in an appeal is unacceptable and abhorred by appellate courts, as proliferated issues are considered incompetent and unusable.

3. The Court found that appellate courts can raise issues of law or jurisdictional issues suo motu without necessarily calling on counsel to address them.

4. The Court held that the Court of Appeal was wrong to strike out Issue 1 which was properly anchored on grounds 1, 2 and 3, but correctly struck out the other proliferated issues.

5. The Court affirmed that the testimonies admitted under Section 46(1) of the Evidence Act 2011 were properly admitted, as all conditions for admitting previous testimony were satisfied.

6. The Court held that the prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt, and medical evidence is not always necessary in rape cases if there are circumstances corroborating the prosecutrix’s evidence.

 

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether the refusal and failure of the Court below to call parties in the appeal before it to address the Court on the issue of proliferation of issues for determination did not shut the door against the appellant’s right to fair hearing and thereby occasioned a miscarriage of justice.?

2. Whether the Court below had jurisdiction to enter an order dismissing the appellant’s appeal when the whole issues submitted for determination were not decided on their merit.?

3. Whether the Court below was right when it visited the error of counsel on the appellant based on an alleged perceived mistake or inadvertence on proliferation of issues for determination thereby occasioned miscarriage of justice.?

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

PROLIFERATION OF ISSUES – RULE AGAINST MULTIPLE ISSUES FROM ONE GROUND:

---

“It is a hornbook position of the law that an issue can only be distilled or raised from one or more grounds of appeal, however, more than one issue cannot arise from one ground of appeal, doing same offends the rule against proliferation of issues on appeal.” – Per STEPHEN JONAH ADAH, J.S.C.

 

---

PROLIFERATION OF ISSUES – EFFECT AND CONSEQUENCES:

---

“Proliferation of issues for determination in an appeal is unacceptable in law and abhorred by all appellate Courts. It gives no room to maneuver as the so formulated issues go to no issue. Put differently, a proliferated issue is dead and unusable as the irregularity is ordinarily irredeemable.” – Per STEPHEN JONAH ADAH, J.S.C.

 

---

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION – RELATIONSHIP TO GROUNDS OF APPEAL:

---

“This reasoning is predicated on the principle that in the Appellate Courts, appeals are determined on issues and not on the grounds of appeal, the issues presented for determination are the life givers of an appeal hence an issue must find its base on an independent ground.” – Per STEPHEN JONAH ADAH, J.S.C.

 

---

PROLIFERATION OF ISSUES – INCOMPETENCE OF PROLIFERATED ISSUES:

---

“Therefore, when issues are proliferated, the said issues are to be regarded as non-issues, incompetent and cannot to that end be used to determine any appeal whatsoever.” – Per STEPHEN JONAH ADAH, J.S.C.

 

---

SOU MOTU ISSUES – COURT’S POWER TO RAISE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES:

---

“The lower Court is empowered to take an issue of law or jurisdictional issue suo motu and determine same without necessarily calling on counsel to address it.” – Per STEPHEN JONAH ADAH, J.S.C.

 

---

FAIR HEARING – EXCEPTIONS TO CALLING PARTIES:

---

“the need to give parties a hearing when a Judge raises an issue on his own motion or suo motu would not be necessary if; (a) the issue relates to the Court’s own jurisdiction. (b) both parties are/were aware or ignored a statute which may have a bearing on the case. That is to say where by virtue of statutory provision the Judge is expected to take judicial notice of the proceedings is evidence.” – Per STEPHEN JONAH ADAH, J.S.C.

 

---

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION – SOURCE OF APPELLATE COURT POWER:

---

“Issues for determination are the forces that invoke the powers of an appellate Court to sit and determine the justice of an appeal, without which the Court is robbed of its intrinsically endowed powers to determine one way or another the justice of an appeal.” – Per STEPHEN JONAH ADAH, J.S.C.

 

---

GROUNDS OF APPEAL – PURPOSE AND FUNCTION:

---

“Let me clearly say here that the overall purpose of grounds of appeal is to enhance the fundamental right of fair hearing of the respondent by giving him notice of the case he is going to meet and address at the appellate Court. It is aimed at avoiding surprise, ambush and embarrassment to the other side.” – Per STEPHEN JONAH ADAH, J.S.C.

 

---

GROUNDS OF APPEAL – DEFINITION AND REQUIREMENTS:

---

“It is settled law that a ground of appeal is basically a highlight of the error of law or fact or mixed law and fact made by the Court in the decision sought to be set aside in the appeal. It is the sum of total of the reason(s) why the decision on appeal is considered by learned counsel for the appellant to be wrong and liable to be set aside.” – Per STEPHEN JONAH ADAH, J.S.C.

 

---

PREVIOUS TESTIMONY – CONDITIONS FOR ADMISSIBILITY:

---

“This section of the law lays down the condition under which secondary evidence of the testimony of a witness given in a former proceeding, be it civil or criminal is admissible in a subsequent proceeding, or in a later stage of the same proceedings. This is premised on the position of the law that the best evidence available must always be produced and used by the Courts so that the right of litigants are correctly decided.” – Per STEPHEN JONAH ADAH, J.S.C.

 

---

MEDICAL EVIDENCE IN RAPE CASES – NOT ALWAYS NECESSARY:

---

“In our law, it is not only medical evidence that can prove in a trial Court that the victim was raped or violated. If there are circumstantial evidence corroborating the evidence of the prosecutrix that she was raped, the conviction would not be voided.” – Per STEPHEN JONAH ADAH, J.S.C

 

---

COUNSEL’S ERRORS – EFFECT ON CLIENT’S RIGHTS:

---

“The object of the Court, it is well known, is to do justice. The justice that is required is not technical justice, but justice accordingly to the law. The Court must administer justice sitting on law and equity. The Court is mainly to determine the rights of the parties and not to punish them for the blunders, errors or mistakes which they make in the conduct of their cases but to accord their right substantially without occasioning injustice.” – Per STEPHEN JONAH ADAH, J.S.C.

 

---

APPELLATE COURT CONSIDERATION – BALANCED ASSESSMENT:

---

“The lower Court took time to consider the evidence before the trial Court and the argument of the parties before it before dismissing the appeal of the appellant. The decision of the lower Court from the record before us has not been established to be perverse. It was a balanced and fair decision which in our view, thoroughly assessed the evidence adduced and decided that the guilt of the appellant for the offences charged was established beyond reasonable doubt.” – Per STEPHEN JONAH ADAH, J.S.C.

 

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

• Evidence Act 2011

• Criminal Procedure Code

• Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)

• Bauchi State (Special Provision) Law, 2017

• Supreme Court Rules 2024

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT