THE HON. JUSTICE E. O. ARAKA V. THE HON. JUSTICE DON EGBUE
June 13, 2025ALHAJI BUBA USMAN VS. MOHAMMED TAMINU GARKE
June 13, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2003) Legalpedia (SC) 10475
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Jul 11, 2003
Suit Number: SC. 16/2002
CORAM
MUHAMMADU LAWAL UWAIS, CHIEF JUSTICE, NIGERIA
UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI
PARTIES
THE STATE APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The respondent with some members of his family ambushed the deceased, with whom they have been having land dispute, and beat him up with cudgels and sticks. The deceased was rushed to the hospital where he died two days after this attack as a result of the multiple injuries he sustained. The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction of manslaughter of the respondent.
HELD
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and restored the trial court’s conviction of the respondent of manslaughter; holding that failure to give the parties an opportunity to be heard on the issue raised suo motu by the court of Appeal was a fundamental error.
ISSUES
1. Whether it is right for the Court of Appeal to raise the issue of plea and arraignment under section 215 of the Criminal Code Cap. 30 Vol. II Laws of Oyo State of Nigeria, 1978 suo moto without hearing argument from the two parties upon which it relied heavily to quash the respondent’s conviction.2. Whether, having regard to the circumstances of this case the prosecution must prove that the act of the respondent alone must cause the death of the deceased before the respondent’s conviction could be affirmed
RATIONES DECIDENDI
CONSPIRACY-DEFINITION OF
This court has held that when two or more persons forms a common intention to prosecute an unlawful purpose in conjunction with one another, and in the prosecution of such purpose an offence is committed of such a nature that its commission was a probable consequence of the prosecution of such purpose, each of them is deemed to have committed the offence; Per Katsina-Alu JSC
DUTY OF COURT RAISING AN ISSUE SUO MOTU
The law in this regard is now settled. It is now trite law that in the determination of disputes between the parties, the court should confine itself on the issues raised by the parties. The court is not competent to suo motu, make a case for either or both of the parties and then proceed to give judgment in the case so formulated contrary to the case of the parties before it. Where, however, the court raises an issue suo motu and the issue goes to the root of the case, the parties must be given an opportunity to address the court on the point. Per Katsina-Alu JSC
CASES CITED
1. Adeniyi V. Adeniyi (1972) 1 ALL NLR (Pt. 1) 2782. Adegoke V. Adibi (1992) 5 NWLR (Pt. 242) 4103. Atanda V. Lakanmi (1974) 3 SC 1094. Odiase V. Agho (1972) 1 ALL NLR (Pt. 1) 170.5. Rex V. Grant and Gilbert 38, Cr. App R. 107 6. Muonwen V. The Queen (1963) 1 ALL NLR 957. Ofor V. The Queen (1955) 15 WACA 4
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Criminal Code Cap. 30 Vol. II Laws of Oyo State of Nigeria, 1978
