JOSEPH EWETE V PAUL GYANG
June 17, 2025ARJAY LIMITED VS AIRLINE MANAGEMENT SUPPORT LTD.
June 17, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2003) Legalpedia (SC) 25701
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Feb 28, 2003
Suit Number: S.C. 206/2001
CORAM
I. L. KUTIGI, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
U. MOHAMMED, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
U. A. KALGO, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
A. O. EJIWUNMI, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
U.A KALGO JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
THE STATE APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The respondent, paymaster HQ of the Pay and Accounting Group (PAG), was accused of being involved in illegally sharing of Nigeria Air Force money with other officers, unlawful possession of firearms and engaging in private business in disobedience to the Nigerian Air Force Standing Orders.
HELD
The Supreme Court held that the General Court Martial that convicted the respondent was properly convened and that the respondent was still subject to service law at the time of his trial.
ISSUES
1. Whether or not the Chief of Air Staff can legally delegate the power vested in him to convene a General Court Martial under Section 131(2) of the Armed Forces Decree 1993. 2. Whether or not the respondent’s evidence that he acted in the belief that the Chief of Air Staff gave order for the withdrawal and sharing of the N10 million Naira was sufficient to negative the mental element of the offence of stealing without considering if such belief was reasonable in all the circumstances of the case and if the other requirements of section 25 of the Criminal Code were satisfied.3. Whether or not the prosecution was obliged by law to call the retired Chief of Air Staff as a witness to disprove that the retired Chief of Air Staff gave order for the withdrawal and sharing of the N10 million Naira.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
DELEGATION OF POWER TO CONVENE GENERAL COURT MARTIAL
There is no doubt that the Chief of Air Staff is such an appropriate superior authority under the provisions of Section 131 of the AFD that can order a court martial. However by virtue of the provision of Section 131(3) above, he can properly authorize any senior officer of a detached unit or squadron under him to order a court martial. Per U. A. Kalgo, JSC
DUTY TO CALL WITNESSES
In any event, In Criminal Law, the prosecution is only bound to call witnesses sufficient in their view to prove the charges against an accused beyond reasonable doubt. No particular number of witnesses must be called to prove a charge unless the law says so, like in case of corroboration in certain cases Per U. A. Kalgo, JSC
DEFENCE TO CRIMINAL LIABILITY
This section emphasizes that in order to afford a defence to Criminal liability or responsibility the act must be done or omitted to be done honestly and reasonably in the belief of the existence of the state of things which made the act or omission possible. Per U. A. Kalgo, JSC
CASES CITED
1. Matari V. Dangaladima (supra) cited by appellant’s counsel; 2. Mobil V. F.B.I R (1977)3 SC 53; 3. University of Ibadan V. Adamolekun (1967) 1 ALL NLR 213. 4. Nigeria Air Force V. Ex-Wing Commander L. D. James (2002) 18 NWLR (pt.798) 295 at 331 – 332 (2003) 2 SCM 57 at 77 5. R. V. Tolson (1889) 23 QBD 168 at 181 6. Saidu V. State (1982) 4 SC 41
STATUTES REFERRED TO
1. Criminal Procedure Act2. Armed Forces Decree 19933. Fire Arms Act (Cap. 146 of laws of Federation 19904. Criminal Code Law of Lagos State
