FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA v. T. A. DAIRO & ORS

CORAM

OLUKAYODE ARIWOOLA     JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

MUSA DATTIJO MOHAMMAD     JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

PARTIES

FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA  APPELLANTS

 T. A. DAIRO & ORS

RESPONDENTS 

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Respondents were alleged to have committed various offences under the Penal Code and the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000 [ICPC Act]. They were charged on a fifteen counts charge and were arraigned at the High Court of the Federal Capital, Abuja. After arraignment, the parties called their respective witnesses who were examined and cross examined. The prosecution thereafter sought to tender the 1st Respondent’s (who was the 3rd Accused person at the trial court) T. A. Dairo’s statement of July 25, 2008, through him, which was objected by the Counsel for all the Accused persons on the fact that the said statement was elicited from a question and answer session with the 1stRespondent and were involuntary. The Court then ordered that a voire dire (trial within trial). At the end of the trial, the trial court found in favour of the voluntariness of the said statement, partly and consequently admitted the said statement. Aggrieved with the ruling of the trial Court, the Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeal where their appeal was allowed and the admitted statement expunged. Dissatisfied with the decision of the Court of Appeal, the Prosecution appealed to the Supreme Court.

HELD

Appeal allowed

ISSUES

1. Whether the Court of Appeal was right when it held that it was regular and permissible for the first respondent to have argued his appeal upon two Notices of Appeal without withdrawing one?

2. Whether [the] appellant’s right to fair hearing was breached when the Court of Appeal failed, neglected or refused to rule one way or the other on the submissions of the appellant that the firstrespondent abandoned the case he presented at the trial while arguing his appeal at the Court of Appeal?

3. Whether in view of the express admission on the record by the first respondent that the disputed confessional statement was voluntary, coupled with his failure to cross-examine the only prosecution witness in the voire dire on vital issues, the Court of Appeal was right to have relied merely on alleged ‘circumstances’ and ‘state of mind of the first respondent and the failure of the prosecution to call evidence which the Court of Appeal held was vital, to hold that the confessional statement was not voluntary?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

FINDINGS OF FACT- FINDING OF FACTS IS ONE OF THE PREROGATIVES OF THE TRIAL COURT

‘‘A finding of fact based on demeanour is one of those exclusive prerogatives of a trial court which appellate courts do not make the habit of interfering with, Olarenwaju v Governor of Oyo State; Sokwo v Kpongbo; Woluchem v Gudi [1981] 5 SC 319, 326; Fatoyinbo and Ors v Williams (1956) 1 FSC 87; Kodilinye v Mbanefo Odu 2 W.A.CA. 336, 338; Ramonu Atolagbe v Olayemi Shorun [1985] 1 NWLR (Pt 2) 360; Mogaji v Odofin [1978] 4 SC 91; Obimnya v Nwoko [1974] 6 SC 69; Okuoja v Ishola [1982] 7 SC 31.’’PER. C. C. NWEZE, J.S.C.

UNBRIDLED POWER OF COURT TO DO JUSTICE – THE COURT S HAVE UNBRIDLED POWERS TO DISREGARD DISINGENUOUS MANOEUVRES BY PARTIES IN ORDER TO DO JUSTICE.

‘‘Simply put, the wheels of justice must be at liberty, just like the chariot of juggernaut, to coast on their course, unbridled by such disingenuous manoeuvres, deliberately, programmed to clog their majestic movement, Military Administrator of Benue State v Ulegede (2001) 51 WRN 1, 15-16; (2001) 17 NWLR (Pt.74) 194; (2001) 91 LRCN 3044; (2001) 70 SCNJ 43.We are, therefore, compelled to re-iterate the point that this court, and indeed, any other court for that matter, will not brook the practice where technical justice is accorded such free rein that is capable of overwhelming the substance of justice, Hamba v Hueze (2001) 12 WRN 64; (2001) 4 NWLR (Pt 703) 373, 389-391; Aderounmu v Olowu (2000) 4 NWLR (Pt 652) 252, 256-266.’’PER. C. C. NWEZE, J.S.C.

ISSUES BEFORE A COURT- AN INTERMIDIATE COURT HAS A DUTY TO PRONOUNCE ON ALL MATERIAL ISSUES BEFORE IT.

‘‘By way of preliminary observations, we note that, except in such recognised exceptions as established in cases like Okonji v Njokanma [1991] 7 NWLR (Pt 202) 131; Oro v Falade [1995] 5 NWLR (Pt 396) 385, citing Anyaduba&Anr v. Nigerian Renowned Trading Co. Ltd (1992) 5 NWLR (Pt. 243) 535; Balogun v Labiran (1988) 3 NWLR (PT. 80) 66 at 80, the long-established rule is that an intermediate court has a duty to pronounce on all material issues placed before it, Samba Petroleum Ltd and Ors v UBA PLC and Ors [2010] 6 NWLR (pt ) 530, 531; Brawal Shipping v Owonikoko [2000] 6 SCNJ 508, 522; Federal Ministry of Health v Comet Shipping Agencies Ltd. [2009] 9 NWLR (Pt. 1145) 193; Adeogunv. Fasogbon [2011] 8 NWLR (Pt. 1250) 427; Ovunwo v. Woko (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt.1277) 522 etc.’’PER. C. C. NWEZE, J.S.C.

ABUSE OF COURT PROCESS – APPLICABILITY OF THE CONCEPT OF ABUSE OF COURT PROCESS

‘‘Even then, the concept of abuse of process applies only to proceedings which are bereft of good faith; which are not only frivolous, but also vexatious or oppressive; which, almost always, have an element of malice in them, having been commenced mala fide, to irritate or annoy the opponent, Okafor v AG Anambra [1991] 6 NWLR (Pt 200) 659 and the efficient and effective administration of justice, Ekpuk v Okom (2001) 44 WRN 85; Saraki v Kotoye [1992] 9 NWLR (Pt 264) 156, 188. They include instances where there are a multiplicity of actions on the same subject matter against the same opponent on the same issue; Okorodudu v Okoromadu [1977] 3 SC 21; NV Scheep v MV. “S. Araz” (2000) 15 NWLR (Pt 691) 622. Such abuse lies more in the multiplicity of the actions rather than in the exercise of the right, FRN v Abiola (1997) 2 NWLR (pt 488) 444; Owonikoko v Arowosanye (1997) 10 NWLR (Pt 523) 61; Morgan v W.A.A. & Eng. Co. Ltd (1971) 1 NWLR 219.’’PER. C. C. NWEZE, J.S.C.

INCOMPETENT NOTICE OF APPEAL – THE ABSENCE OF A COMPETENT NOTICE OF APPEAL TRANSLATES TO THE NON-EXISTENCE OF AN APPEAL

‘‘In effect, the absence of a competent Notice of Appeal, simply, translates to the non-existence of an appeal, Anadi v. Okoti [1972] 7 SC 57; CBN v. Okojie [2004] 10 NWLR (Pt. 882) 488; Olanrewaju v. BON Ltd [1994] 8 NWLR (pt.364) 622; Olowokere v African Newspapers Ltd [1993] 5 NWLR (pt. 295) 583; Erisi v Idika [1987] 4 NWLR (pt.66) 503; Josiah Cornelius Ltd v Ezenwa [1996] 37 LRCN 618; Tukur v Government of Gongola State [1988] 1 NWLR (Pt. 68) 391; First Bank of NigPlc v Maiwada (2012) LPELR -9713 (SC) 187. This must be so for it is a condition precedent to any valid exercise of appellate jurisdiction, OkekeAmadi v. OkekeOkoli (supra); Okotie v Olughor (supra).’’PER. C. C. NWEZE, J.S.C.

CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT-COURTS ARE TO TEST CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS BEFORE ACTING ON THEM

‘‘Courts are not, generally, disposed to act on a confession without testing the truth thereof, Onochie and Ors v The Republic (1966) NMLR 307; Jafiya Kopa v. The State (1971) 1 All NLR 150; R. v. Sykes (1913) 8 C. A. R. 233, 236; Ejinma v The State [1991] 5 LRCN 1640, 1671; Arthur Onyejekwe v The State [1992] 4 SCNJ 1, 9; [1992] 3 NWLR (Pt. 230) 444.’’PER. C. C. NWEZE, J.S.C.

NOTICE OF APPEAL – WHERE TWO NOTICES OF APPEAL ARE VALIDLY FILED, AN APPELLANT CAN APPLY TO CONSOLIDATED SUCH NOTICES OR WITHDRAW ONE

“Where validly filed, an appellant would be right to apply for leave to either consolidate such notices into one or to withdraw all except one of them, Tukur v Government of Gongola State (supra). Thus, where such an appellant, timeously, withdraws one of the two notices which are of the same nature, his process would not be an abuse of process, Diamond Bank Ltd v P. I. C. Ltd [2010] All FWLR (Pt 512) 1098, 1126, C-F. In effect, an appellant can, validly, withdraw one of two notices of appeal and then proceed to argue his appeal on the outstanding notice of appeal, Savannah Bank of Nigeria Plc v CBN [2009] All FWLR (Pt 481) 939, 969. As a corollary, the notice of appeal, which was withdrawn, would be deemed abandoned, Diamond Bank Ltd v P. I. C. Ltd (supra) at 1126 C-F.’’PER. C. C. NWEZE, J.S.C.

FILING OF NOTICE OF APPEAL – THE EXERCISE OF RIGHTS TO APPEAL WARRANTS THE FILING OF NOTICES OF APPEAL BY AN APPELLANT

‘‘The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) creates categories of rights of appeal from the trial court to the lower court. While section 241 consecrates appeals as of right from the Federal High Court or a High Court, section 242 ordains rights of appeal with the leave of the Federal High Court; High Court or the Court of Appeal. In effect, the exercise of each category of a right of appeal would warrant the filing of a Notice of Appeal. Thus, an appellant, desirous of exercising both rights, could file two Notices of Appeal within time. As Oputa JSC put it in Tukur v Government of Gongola State (supra):’’PER. C. C. NWEZE, J.S.C.

NOTICE OF APPEAL – NOTICE OF APPEAL IS THE FOUNDATIONAL PROCESS THAT TRIGGERS OFF AN APPEAL

‘‘As it is well-known, it is a Notice of Appeal that initiates an appeal from a High Court to the lower Court, [see, Order 6 Rule 2 (1) of the Court of Appeal Rules,2011], Dingyadi v INEC (2010) LPELR -952 (SC) 60. Put differently, the Notice actually, a competent notice of appeal is the foundational process that triggers off an appeal from a High Court to the lower Court, Adelekan v. ECU-Line NV [2006] 12 NWLR (Pt. 993) 331 Uwazurike v AG Federation [2007] All FWLR (Pt 367) 834,835, paragraphs E-F, and sustains it, Okotie v Olughor [1995] 5 SCNJ 2171.’’’PER. C. C. NWEZE, J.S.C.

EXERCISE OF RIGHTS TO APPEAL- WHERE THERE EXIST MORE THAN ONE RIGHT OF APPEAL, A PARTY CAN FILE TWO NOTICES OF APPEAL IN EXERCISE OF EACH RIGHT OF APPEAL

‘‘To utilise and exercise any right of appeal, an appellant is obliged and obligated by the Rules to file a Notice of Appeal. Where therefore the Constitution gave one and the same Appellant in one and same case two rights of appeal – one as of right, without leave, and the other qualified by and limited to the grant of leave – there and then it is logical to conclude that for each right of appeal being exercised one Notice of Appeal is required so that for the exercise of the two constitutional rights two Notices of Appeal will technically be required.’’PER. C. C. NWEZE, J.S.C.

CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT- DUTY OF AN ACCUSED PERSON WHO SEEKS TO CHALLENGE HIS CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT TO BE CONSISTENT

‘‘An accused person who seeks to challenge his confessional statement to be consistent both at the point of raising the objection and throughout the trial including a trial-with – trial.’’ PER. M. U. PETER-ODILI, J.S.C

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended)Court of Appeal Rules, 2011

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT