CORAM

---

Ibrahim mohammed Musa Saulawa Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Moore Aseimo Abraham Adumein Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Obande Festus Ogbuinya Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Jamilu Yammama Tukur Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Abubakar Sadiq Umar Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

---

PARTIES

---

YOHANNA DALYOP

APPELLANTS 

---

THE STATE

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, CRIMINAL LAW, FORGERY, EVIDENCE, APPEAL, JURISDICTION, TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION, FAIR HEARING, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, PENAL CODE

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

This case revolves around the alleged forgery of two letters by the Appellant, Yohanna Dalyop, purportedly emanating from Cotton Agricultural Processors Ltd. The Appellant was charged with forging these documents with the intent to defraud Plateau Investment and Property Development Company Ltd (PIPC). The letters in question were alleged to have been forged to show that Cotton Agricultural Processors Ltd had offered its Kuru Ginnery for sale at the cost of N50 million for the plant/machinery and N46 million for the land and houses, respectively.

The Appellant was arraigned before the High Court of Plateau State on two counts of forgery contrary to Section 364 of the Penal Code. Upon conclusion of the trial, the trial Judge convicted the Appellant of the charges and sentenced him to two years imprisonment for each charge, to run concurrently, with an alternative of N10,000 fine. Dissatisfied with the decision, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, which dismissed his appeal and upheld the judgment of the trial Court. The Appellant further appealed to the Supreme Court.

 

---

HELD

---

1. The appeal was dismissed as lacking in merit.

2. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered on 16th May 2013, which had upheld the conviction and sentence of the Appellant by the High Court of Plateau State.

3. The Supreme Court held that the High Court of Plateau State had territorial jurisdiction to try the offence of forgery, as elements of the offence were committed within Plateau State.

4. The Court further held that the prosecution had proved the guilt of the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt through credible evidence, including the Appellant’s confessional statements.

5. The Court found that there was no breach of the Appellant’s right to fair hearing by the lower Courts, as they properly evaluated all the evidence before reaching their decisions.

 

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether the affirmation of the judgment of the trial Court by the Court of Appeal was right in law as against the Appellant’s contention that the trial Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain this case.

2. Whether the Respondent (The Prosecution) proved the guilt of the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt as required by law as was rightfully held by the lower Courts.

3. Whether fair hearing was accorded the Appellant by the lower Courts having regard to the evidence adduced in this case.

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION – FUNDAMENTAL NATURE OF JURISDICTION IN ADJUDICATION

---

“There is no gainsaying the fact that jurisdiction is fundamental to the valid adjudication of any dispute. It is the authority of a Court to hear a matter and where this is absent, anything done in the adjudication of the matter would amount to an exercise in futility.” – Per Jamilu Yammama Tukur, J.S.C.

 

---

TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION – DEFINITION AND SCOPE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS

---

“Territorial jurisdiction implies a geographic area within which the authority of the Court may be exercised and outside which the Court has no power to act. Jurisdiction, territorial or otherwise, is statutory and is conferred on the Court by the law creating it.” – Per Jamilu Yammama Tukur, J.S.C.

 

---

TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION – DETERMINATION IN CRIMINAL CASES INVOLVING MULTIPLE STATES

---

“It has long been held by this Court that where an element of an offence is started, continued or concluded in any of two states, both State High Courts have jurisdiction to try the offence thus committed.” – Per Jamilu Yammama Tukur, J.S.C.

 

---

TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION – APPLICATION TO INTERNATIONAL AND INTERSTATE CASES

---

“On ‘international’ territorial jurisdiction, the law is settled that only a part of an alleged offence has to be committed in Nigeria, for Nigerian Courts to have jurisdiction. See Queen v. Patrick Osoba (1961) All NLR 237 and Federal Civil Service Commission v. J. O. Laoye (1989) 2 NWLR (Pt. 106) 652. A fortiori, in Nigeria, only a part of an offence has to be perpetrated in a State for the Courts of that State to have jurisdiction.” – Per Moore Aseimo Abraham Adumein, J.S.C.

 

---

FORGERY – DEFINITION AND ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENCE

---

“Now, an allegation of forgery denotes the act of fraudulently making a false document or altering a real one to be used as if genuine. It means a false or altered document made to look genuine with the intent to deceive. Black’s Law Dictionary 9th Edition, defined forgery as the act of fraudulently making a false document or altering a real one to be used as if genuine. Basically, forgery consists of the making of a false document or writing knowing it to be false and with intention that it may be used as genuine to the detriment of the user or some other person.” – Per Jamilu Yammama Tukur, J.S.C.

 

---

BURDEN OF PROOF – STANDARD IN CRIMINAL CASES

---

“The law is very clear on who the burden of proof in a criminal case reside. Section 36(5) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and Section 135(2) of the Evidence Act have placed the burden of proof in criminal cases squarely on the prosecution, who must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and a general duty to rebut the presumption of innocence constitutionally guaranteed to the accused person. This burden does not shift.” – Per Jamilu Yammama Tukur, J.S.C.

 

---

PROVING GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT – METHODS OF ESTABLISHING GUILT

---

“By virtue of the unequivocal provisions of Section 135(3) of the Evidence Act, the Prosecution has the responsibility of proving each charge against the appellant (accused person) beyond reasonable doubt in any of the following established manners: a. By direct evidence of an eyewitness of commission of the offence by the accused person; or b. By the confessional statement of the accused person; or c. By circumstantial evidence linking the accused person, and no other, with the commission of the offence.” – Per Jamilu Yammama Tukur, J.S.C.

 

---

CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – DEFINITION AND EVIDENTIAL VALUE

---

“A confession is an admission made at any time by a person charged with a crime, stating or suggesting the inference that he committed the crime, and this includes both extra-judicial and judicial confessions. An accused person can be convicted solely on his confessional statement if same is made voluntarily.” – Per Jamilu Yammama Tukur, J.S.C.

 

---

TRIAL WITHIN TRIAL – PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING VOLUNTARINESS OF CONFESSION

---

“The procedure to adopt when an Accused alleges that a confession is involuntary is trite, which is the conduct of a trial within trial. If after the trial within trial, the trial Judge based on the evidence adduced believes that the confession was voluntarily given, then the said confession can be relied on.” – Per Jamilu Yammama Tukur, J.S.C.

 

---

CONTRADICTIONS IN EVIDENCE – WHAT CONSTITUTES CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE

---

“There is no gainsaying the fact that the foundation of an evidence or testimony being contradictory is that the evidence/testimony emanates from the same party. It would be standing logic on its head to argue that the testimony of the opposing party contradicts that of the other party.” – Per Jamilu Yammama Tukur, J.S.C.

 

---

CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – EFFECT ON PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE

---

“Exhibit 8 and 9 were the Appellant’s confessional statements. The confession therein punctures the Appellant’s right to presumption of innocence which is bequeathed to him by the beneficent provision of Section 36(5) of the Constitution, as amended.” – Per Obande Festus Ogbuinya, J.S.C.

 

---

EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE – WHAT CONSTITUTES FAIR EVALUATION

---

“Evaluation of evidence entails examining and weighing the evidence presented by both parties and does not connote kowtowing or bowing to the wishes and caprices of one party. Justice is not a one-way street and a Judge who gave credence to a set of facts over another based on credible evidence, like the trial Judge in this appeal cannot be said to have improperly evaluated evidence or eroded the Appellant’s right to fair hearing.” – Per Jamilu Yammama Tukur, J.S.C.

 

---

CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT – WHEN APPELLATE COURT WILL NOT INTERFERE

---

“Both the trial Court and the Court of Appeal properly evaluated evidence before convicting the Appellant and upholding the Appellant’s conviction respectively and as such there exists no grounds for this Court to overturn their concurrent findings.” – Per Jamilu Yammama Tukur, J.S.C.

 

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

• Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)

• Penal Code, Sections 363 and 364

• Evidence Act 2011, Sections 135 and 139

• Administration of Criminal Justice Law

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT