AMINU BALA V ALHAJI HASSAN GUR & ORS
April 24, 2025MAINSTREET BANK REGISTRARS LTD. V TEMITOPE O. OSHINUGA
April 24, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2016) Legalpedia (CA) 51015
In the Court of Appeal
Mon Mar 21, 2016
Suit Number: CA/A/135/2013
CORAM
VICTOR AIMEOPOMO OYELEYE OMAGE JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
PARTIES
SUBURBAN BROADBAND LTD NIGERIA APPELLANTS
INTELSAT GLOBAL SALES & MARKETING LTD. RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
Mr. Augumos Okoro, along with another, were arraigned on an eight count information of forgery, uttering forged documents, obtaining money, to wit, $330,000.00 and DM75, 000 by false pretence from Mr. Klaus Munch, a German, and conspiracy contrary and punishable under Section 467, Section 468, Section 419 and Section 516 of the Criminal Code respectively. The Appellant before the Lagos State High Court prayed the court to admit him to bail pending his trial on account of his health. The Respondent opposed the application on the grounds that the sickness complained of by the Appellant was not of any special nature to require being admitted to bail. The court relied on the content of Exhibit A and found the likelihood of further running away from justice and consequently dismissed the application, hence this appeal.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed.
ISSUES
? Whether the learned trial judge having regards to all the material facts before her, exercised her discretion judicially and judiciously in refusing to admit the Appellant to bail pending his trial for non-capital offences?? Was the learned trial judge right in holding that the Appellant had the onus if proving special and exceptional Circumstances why he should be granted bail in the circumstance of this case?? Was the learned trial judge right in applying the decision in Ude v. F.R.N. (2001)5 NWLR (pt. 706)312 in refusing to admit the Appellant to bail?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
BAIL – BURDEN OF PROOF IN THE GRANT OR REFUSAL OF BAIL
“The point must be emphatically made that notwithstanding the fact that an accused has the presumption of innocence and the right to liberty in his favour, the burden of introducing primary facts on the basis of which he asks a court to exercise its discretion in granting or refusing him bail remains squarely his. It is only when this primary burden had been shouldered by the accused that it shifts to the prosecution to show why bail should not be granted”. PER M. D. MUHAMMAD, J.C.A.<foo< p=””></foo<>
GRANT OF AN APPLICATION OF BAIL – DUTY OF THE COURT IN EXERCISING ITS DISCRETION IN GRANTING AN APPLICATION FOR BAIL
“The court in exercising its discretion was certainly required to weigh as it did all the available facts placed before it in order to arrive at a just decision. See Danbaba vs. State (2000)14 NWLR (pt. 687)2396408 and Echaka Cattle Ranch Ltd vs. N.A.C.B. Ltd. (1998)4 NWLR (pt. 547)525”. PER M. D. MUHAMMAD, J.C.A.<foo< p=””></foo<>
LEGISLATION – DUTY ON COURTS TO ENSURE SPECIAL LEGISLATION TO VERIFY PARTICULAR CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR THRIVES
“The point has to be re-emphasized that where a special legislation had been put in place to check particular criminal behaviour, the courts are under duty to ensure that such deliberate policy succeeds. PER M. D. MUHAMMAD, J.C.A.<foo< p=””></foo<>
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)
