CORAM

---

OLABODE RHODES-VIVOUR, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

KUDIRAT MOTONMORI KEKERE-EKUN, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

AMINA ADAMU AUGIE, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

---

PARTIES

---

APPELLANTS

---

ANDREW YANGA

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

APPEAL, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, COURT, CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, FAIR HEARING, LEGAL PRACTITIONER, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, STARE DECISIS, WORDS AND PHRASES

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Respondent was charged on 14 count charges for obtaining by false pretence contrary to Section 419 and stealing contrary to Section 390(9) of the Criminal Code Law of Ogun State, when he obtained and stole varying sums of money ranging from N6, 489,000.00 (Six Million, Four Hundred and Eighty-Nine Thousand Naira), to N121,000.00 (One Hundred and Twenty One Thousand Naira) from persons within the jurisdiction of the trial Court. At the trial, out of the 8 witnesses listed, 5 testified while the Respondent gave his lone evidence. On the date slated for final oral address, Counsel reported to the Court that the Respondent was sick. However, despite the information, the trial Court directed that final oral address be taken in the absence of the Respondent against the provision of Section 210 of the Ogun State Criminal Procedure Law, 2006. Judgment was delivered and the Respondent was convicted and sentenced to 7 years imprisonment. Dissatisfied with the judgment, the Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal, Ibadan Division, which set aside the trial court’s judgment, quashed the conviction and sentence of the Respondent.  Peeved by judgment of the lower court, the Appellant has appealed against same contending that although the Respondent was not in Court, his Counsel addressed the Court on his behalf, hence the whole proceedings of the trial Court cannot be vitiated.

 

---

HELD

---

Appeal Dismissed

 

---

ISSUES

---

Taking into consideration the settled fact that the Respondent herein was not in Court on 20th November, 2015 when counsel’s address was conducted by the trial Court, can it be legally contended that the Honourable Court below is not bound by the pronouncement of this Honourable Court in STATE V. LAWAL (2013) 7 NWLR (PT.1354) AT 568 such that the Honourable Court below ought to have acted otherwise.

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

“STARE DECISIS” – DEFINITION OF “STARE DECISIS”

---

“Stare decisis” is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary, 8th Edition, at Page 1443 thus:

“to stand by things decided. The doctrine of precedent under which it is necessary for a Court to follow earlier judicial decisions when the same points arise again in litigation.

“The rule of adherence to judicial precedent finds its expression in the doctrine of stare decisis. The doctrine is simply that, when a point or principle of law has been once officially decided or settled by the ruling of a competent Court in a case in which it is directly and necessarily involved, it will no longer be considered as open to examination or to a new ruling by the same tribunal, or by those which are bound to follow its adjudication, unless it be for urgent reasons and in exceptional cases. ….” PER K. M. O. KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C

 

---

DOCTRINE OF STARE DECISIS – CONDITION FOR THE APPLICABILITY OF THE DOCTRINE OF STARE DECISIS

---

“It is settled law that for the doctrine to apply, the facts of the two cases must be the same or similar. The adherence to precedent provides for certainty of the law. See: Adegoke Motors Ltd. Vs Adesanya (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 109) 250; Mailantarki Vs Tongo (2017) 5 – 6 SC (Pt. II) 132; University of Lagos Vs Olaniyan (1985) LPELR – 3419 (SC) @ 26 C – F. PER K. M. O. KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C

 

---

CRIMINAL TRIAL – IMPORTANCE OF THE REQUIREMENT OF THE PRESENCE OF AN ACCUSED PERSON THROUGHOUT HIS TRIAL

---

“Section 210 of the Criminal Procedure Law of Oyo State provides:

“210. Every accused person shall, subject to the provisions of Section 100 and Subsection (2) of Section 223, be present in Court during the whole of his trial unless he misconducts himself by so interrupting the proceedings or otherwise as to render their continuance in his presence impracticable.”

​Section 100 applies to proceedings before a Magistrate while Section 223 is in relation to persons of unsound mind. The requirement of the presence of an accused person throughout his trial is in consonance with his fundamental right to fair hearing guaranteed by Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended. It has been held by this Court that the addresses of counsel are an essential part of the trial. The Court is fortified in this view by the provision of Section 258 of the 1979 Constitution (Now Section 294 (1) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended), which utilised the conclusion of addresses as an important determinant of the time limit for delivery of judgment. See: Ndu Vs The State (1990) LPELR – 1975 (SC) @ 45 A – C: Obodo Vs Olomu & Anor (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt. 59) 111 @ 123 0 124. PER K. M. O. KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C

 

---

CRIMINAL TRIAL – CONSEQUENCES OF TAKING FINAL ADDRESS IN THE ABSENCE OF AN ACCUSED PERSON

---

“In State Vs Lawal (2013) 7 NWLR (Pt 1354) 568, this Court held that the conduct of proceedings, in that case, the taking of final addresses in the absence of two of the accused in a joint trial, constituted a breach of their fundamental right to fair hearing and rendered the trial a nullity. To press the point home, His Lordship, Alagoa, JSC, in his contribution, stated thus (at page 595 – 596 supra):

“It is a fundamental principle of fair hearing that accused persons standing trial for a criminal offence have to be present in Court throughout the period of their trial, a violation of which renders the trial a nullity.

See Daniel Adeoye Vs The State (1999) 6 NWLR (Pt. 605) 74, where this Court held that a trial, whether objected to or not, in the absence of an accused person is a sham and renders the purported trial a nullity, the only known exceptions being where the accused misconducts himself at the trial or is of unsound mind and so incapable of making his defence…”PER K. M. O. KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C

 

---

‘FINAL ADDRESSES’ – MEANING AND IMPORTANCE OF ‘FINAL ADDRESSES’

---

“The said expression ‘final addresses’ means the last or ultimate speech or submission made to the Court in respect of the matter before it, before the delivery of the judgment. Put simply, it is the last address before the delivery of the judgment, Sodipo v Lemminkainen Oy (supra); Mustapha v Governor of Lagos State (supra); Ijebu Ode v Balogun and Company Ltd (supra); Okeke v State (supra). It [final address] is the penultimate part of the three most important portions of the trial period; the first, being the hearing of the evidence; while the last is the judgement, Okeke v State (2003) LPELR -2436 (SC) 19 -20; F-A.

Such is its pedestal in the administration of justice that when counsel or a party is denied this right [that is, of address], the trial Court is, equally, deprived of its enormous benefits. Its inevitable consequence is that a miscarriage of justice has been occasioned, Okafor and Ors v A.G., Anambra and Ors (1991) LPELR -2414 (SC) 28; A-C; Obodo v. Olomu [1987] 3 NWLR (pt.59) 111; Adigun v. A-G of Oyo State (supra). This explains why a party must have the same right as given to his adversary to offer, by his counsel, the final address on the law in support of his case, Ndukauba v Kolomo and Anor (2005) LPELR -1976 (SC) 12; A-D. PER C. C. NWEZE, J.S.C.

 

---

BRIEF WRITING – ESSENCE OF BRIEF WRITING

---

“Now, prior to the evolution of brief writing in various Rules of our Courts, counsel, actually, ‘pounded and hammered [their arguments] at the Bar.’ In place of that practice which has now fallen into desuetude, one of the new features introduced by these rules is the concept of advocacy in writing, that is, brief writing, whose main purpose is to curtail the time that should have been wasted in lengthy oral arguments, Onifade v Olayiwola and Ors (1990) 7 NWLR (pt 161) 130, 160: oral arguments in which verbose counsel beat out the bush, Omojasola v Plison Fisko Nig.Ltd and Ors ​ (1990) 5 NWLR (Pt 151) 434, 441.

Thus, although oratorical prowess was previously a great asset in advocacy, due to the great changes which have been wrought in the Court rules, proficiency in the presentation of briefs has taken the place of brilliancy in oral advocacy, Gaamstac Eng. Ltd and Anor v FCDA (1988) 4 NWLR (pt 88) 296, 305-306. [per Nweze, JSC in Kalu v State (supra) 9 et seq] PER C. C. NWEZE, J.S.C.

 

---

CASES CITED

---

Not Available

 

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

1. Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended)

2. Criminal Procedure Law of Oyo State

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT