ISMAILA LASISI VS THE STATE

CORAM

ABIMBOLA OSARUGUE OBASEKI – ADEJUMO FHC

PARTIES

ISMAILA LASISI APPELLANTS

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

CRIMINAL LAW, MURDER, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellant was charge at the trial court for murder, he was found guilty and convicted and to death by hanging. On appeal, the lower court held that the entire proceeding leading to the conviction of the Appellant as well as other accused persons was a nullity. The judgment of the trial court was set aside and an order of retrial was entered. Aggrieved by the above decision of the lower court the Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

HELD

APPEAL DISMISSED

ISSUES

“Whether the order of retrial made by the lower court was justified in view of the fact that the offence involved is that of murder.”

RATIONES DECIDENDI

RETRIAL- ORDER OF-GUIDING PRINCIPLES

“In my view the principles laid down for ordering a re-trial have been stated in the following cases: Yesufu Abodunde V. The Queen 4 FSC 70 at 71 – 72 and; Kajubo v. The state (1988) 1 NWLR (PT. 75) 721 AT 723 and these are: –
1. That leaving aside the error or irregularity in the proceedings, the evidence taken as a whole discloses a substantive case against the appellant.
2. That there are no special circumstances as would render it oppressive to put the appellant on trial a second time.
3. That the offence or offences of which the appellant was convicted or the consequences to the appellant or any other person of the conviction or acquittal of the appellant are not merely trivial.
4. That to refuse an order of re-trial would occasion a greater miscarriage of justice than to grant it.
5. Also the reason for declaring the trial a nullity and overall interest of justice are also relevant”.

JUSTICE IN CRIMINAL TRIAL-WHAT AMOUNTS THERETO

“l accept that to remain in prison custody for ten years awaiting trial is outrageous and is such a long period that should undoubtedly evoke sympathy and concern. However, the nature of the offence with which the appellant is accused is murder, is so grave that there is no offence under our laws which carries heavier sentence. As it has been stated elsewhere justice is not just for the accused person but for victim as well. Therefore, if the circumstances of both the accused and victim are considered together the order of fresh trial should not in my opinion be regarded as oppressive. Besides in our laws a sentence of 10 years is not regarded as sufficient punishment for murder”.

CASES CITED

Ebido V. The state (2007) All FWLR (pt. 384) 192|Yesufu Abodunde V. The Queen 4 FSC 70 at 71 – 72|Kajubo v. The state (1988) 1 NWLR (PT. 75) 721

STATUTES REFERRED TO

Section 36 (6) (a) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999|Section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Law|

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT