DPP v. AKPAN (2018) LPELR-44047(CA)
PRACTICE AREA: CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE
INTRODUCTION
A no case submission is usually made by the accused person after
the prosecution has closed its case. It is the accused’s way of
saying that the prosecution has not adduced enough evidence to tie
him to the offence charged. That is, even if the Court believes the
evidence already adduced by the prosecution, it could not convict
based on it. However, the question whether or not the Court
does believe the evidence does not arise at that stage neither is
the credibility of the witnesses in issue at this stage, rather,
‘all the law requires a Court to determine at the stage of a no
case submission is whether the prosecution had made out a prima
facie case, it is not to evaluate evidence or consider the
credibility of witnesses’ Per OYEWOLE, J.C.A. in this instant
appeal.
OYEWOLE, J.C.A. while delivering the leading judgment
herein clarified that ‘In its ruling on no case submissions, no
matter the elaborate submissions of counsel, the Judge must resist
the temptation to go into extensive comments or premature
evaluation of adduced evidence mainly because at the stage of a no
case submission only one side of the case has been heard and it
would be prejudicial to comment on the evidence or facts of the
case at that stage.’
Lending credence to the position above, ADAH, J.C.A in her own
contribution said; ‘I feel strongly in this case that there is the
dire need to rekindle the age long advice of our Superior Court
that a no case submission should not warrant detailed consideration
of the evidence.’
SUCCINCT FACTS OF THE CASE
The Respondent, a bishop of Mount Zion Light House Gospel Church
Inc., was arraigned before the Chief Magistrate Court, Grade 1,
Calabar on a 2-count charge of stealing and conversion of land
(being property belonging to Mount Zion Light House Gospel Church
Inc.) for personal use. At the close of prosecution’s case the
defence made a no case submission which was upheld by the learned
trial Chief Magistrate.
Disgruntled, the Appellant appealed to the High Court sitting in
Calabar. The appeal was heard and dismissed in a judgment delivered
on the 19th December, 2016. Thereby upholding the decision of the
Magistrate Court on the no case submission.
Still dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a notice of appeal to
the Appeal Court on the 3rd January, 2017.
ISSUES FOR DETEREMINATION
- Whether the lower Court was right in holding that the
extra judicial statement of the accused “Exhibit
C‟ is not a confessional
statement mainly because it was not attested to before a superior
police officer. - Whether the lower Court did not fall in error in
holding that the prosecution/Appellant failed to prove a prima
facie case against the Accused/respondent particularly in view of
the admissions made by the Accused/Respondent in “Exhibit
C‟. - Whether the findings and judgment of the lower Court
was not based on facts outside the printed records and largely
speculative.
The Court identified issue 2 as the kernel of the complaint of
the Appellant against the judgment of the Court below and posited
that its resolution will necessarily determine the fate of issues 1
and 3. Hence, the Court proceeded to evaluate issue 2 first.
HELD
Issue 2 was resolved in favour of the Appellant and against the
Respondent.
In respect of issues 1 and 3 the Court held that subject-matters
of these two issues are to be dealt with during evaluation of
evidence at the end of the trial and proceeding to them now
especially with the conclusion earlier reached on issue 2 will have
prejudicial implications for the substantive trial. Issues 1 and 3
was accordingly discountenanced.
Appeal was allowed and the concurrent judgments of the two Court
below were accordingly set aside.
The Court further ordered that in view of the premature
extensive appraisal of the adduced evidence by the trial Chief
Magistrate, the said Charge No. MC/664C/2011 be remitted to the
Chief Judge of Cross River State for reassignment to another Chief
Magistrate other than the trial Chief Magistrate A.E. Adomi Esq.
for trial to be commenced de novo.
RATIO DECIDENDI
- CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – NO CASE SUBMISSION: Duty
of the trial court where a no case submission has been made on
behalf of an accused person
“The point cannot be over-emphasized that all the law requires a
Court to determine at the stage of a no case submission is whether
the prosecution had made out a prima facie case, it is not to
evaluate evidence or consider the credibility of witnesses even if
the evidence adduced were that of an accomplice. See DABOH VS STATE
(1977) 11 NSCC 309 at 315 and STATE VS EMEDO (supra).”Per OYEWOLE,
J.C.A. (P. 5, Paras. A-C)
- CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – NO CASE SUBMISSION: Need
for Courts to be brief while ruling on a no case
submission
“In its ruling on no case submissions, no matter the elaborate
submissions of counsel, the Judge must resist the temptation to go
into extensive comments or premature evaluation of adduced evidence
mainly because at the stage of a no case submission only one side
of the case has been heard and it would be prejudicial to comment
on the evidence or facts of the case at that stage. See ‘CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE IN NIGERIA, LAW AND PRACTICE’ by OLUWATOYIN DOHERTY at
272-273 and R VS COKER (supra). The above clarification becomes most
important especially in view of the elaborate and extensive
evaluation of the adduced evidence especially exhibit C by the
trial Chief Magistrate and the Court below. The wise counsel of
KUTIGI JSC (as he then was) on situations such as this readily
comes to mind as follows: “At the stage of no case submission,
trial is not yet concluded and the Court should not concern itself
with the credibility of witnesses or the weight to be attached to
their evidence even if they are accomplices. The Court should also
at this stage be brief in its ruling as too much might be said
which at the end of the case might fetter the Court’s discretion.
The Court should at this stage make no observation on the facts.”
See AJIBOYE VS STATE (1995) 8 NWLR (PT 414) 408 at 413. In the same
vein, ADEMOLA CJN had earlier stated as follows: “Whilst it is not
the aim of this Court to discourage a Judge from discussing matters
of interest in his judgment, we would like to warn against any
ruling of inordinate length in a submission of no case to answer,
as too much might be said, as was done in this case, which at the
end of the case might fetter the Judge’s discretion…………It is wiser
to be brief and make no observation on the facts.” See CHIEF ODOFIN
BELLO VS THE STATE (1967) NMLR 1 at 3. All comments on exhibit C
made by the Courts below were totally premature, prejudicial and
totally out of place at the stage of a no case submission.
Evaluation of evidence comes after the entire case is concluded and
not at the interlocutory stage of a no case submission.” Per
OYEWOLE, J.C.A. (Pp. 5-7, Paras. E-D) – read in context (2018)
LPELR-44047(CA)
- CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – NO CASE SUBMISSION: Need
for Courts to be brief while ruling on a no case
submission
“I feel strongly in this case that there is the dire need to
rekindle the age long advice of our Superior Court that a no case
submission should not warrant detailed consideration of the
evidence. In OKAFOR VS. THE STATE (2016) LPELR-260604 (SC), Sanusi,
JSC held as follows: “I think it is apt to stress here, that when
during a criminal trial, a submission of no case to answer is made
on behalf of an accused person, that does not mean the trial Court
was called upon at that point in time, to express any opinion on
the evidence adduced before it. Rather, the trial Court is only
called upon to bear in mind and note that there is no legally
admissible evidence linking the accused person with commission of
the offence he was charged with. If the submission is predicated on
discredited evidence, such discredit must be apparent or clear on
the face of the record. But if such is not the case, then the
submission would be of no moment and shall fall and be overruled
and dismissed. It also must be pointed out that at the stage a No
Case submission is made, all that the trial Court is supposed to
consider is not whether the evidence so far adduced by the
prosecution against the accused is sufficient to justify conviction
but simply whether the prosecution had made out prima facie case
requiring some explanation from the accused person’s regard his
conduct or otherwise. See DURU VS. NWOSU (1989) 4 WRL (PT. 113) 24;
IKONU VS. THE STATE (1986) 3 NWLR (PT. 28) 340.@ 365; ONAGORUWA VS.
THE STATE (1993) 7 NWLR (PT. 303) 49 @ 80.” See also the case of
UBANATU VS C.O.P. (2000) LPELR- 3280 (SC) WHERE Kalgo, JSC held
that on a “submission of no case to answer” it is wiser for a Judge
or Magistrate to be brief of his ruling and make no remarks or
observations on the facts: See R. VS. EKANEM 13 WACA 108. This is
because in a ruling of an inordinate length, too much might be said
which at the end of the case might fetter the discretion of the
Judge or magistrate. See ODOFIN BELLO VS. THE STATE (1967) NMLR 1,
R. VS. COKER & ORS. 20 NLR 623; AKINPELU AJANI VS. QUEEN 3 WACA
3. In the instant case, the two Lower Courts went in excess of what
the law requires of a consideration of a no case submission.” Per
ADAH, J.C.A. (Pp. 13-15, Paras. B-B)
OTHER JUDGMENTS FORM THE COURT
NNAJI & ORS v. IWUEKE CITATION: (2018)
LPELR-44043(CA)
- APPEAL – GROUND(S) OF APPEAL: Whether the absence of
particulars will render a ground of appeal
incompetent
“In resolving this objection, it is important to note that
Particulars generally play the role of giving insight into the
nature of the Ground of Appeal. They actually assist in bringing to
the fore the real complaint of the Appellant against the Judgment
Appealed against. That does not however suggest that the Grounds of
Appeal cannot stand on their own once they sufficiently explain the
Appellant’s grouse against the Judgment Appealed against. See the
observation of the Apex Court in the case of PROF. E. A. ABE vs.
UNIVERSITY OF ILORIN & ANOR. (2013) LPELR-20643 (SC) where the
Court per MUHAMMED, JSC had this to say; “Learned Counsel must be
reminded that Grounds of Appeal may stand on their own once they
represent an Appellant’s complaint against the decision he is not
satisfied with and in respect of which grouse he seeks the Appellate
Court’s intervention. Lack of or defective Particulars in a Ground
of Appeal would not necessarily render the Ground itself
incompetent. See PRINCE (DR) B. A. ONAFOWOKAN & 2 ORS vs. WEMA
BANK PLC & 2 ORS NSCQLR VOL. 45 (2011)181 SC and BEST (NIGERIA)
LTD vs. BLACK WOOD HODGE (NIGERIA) LTD & 2 ORS NSCQLR VOL. 45
(2011) 849.” (Underlined, mine for emphasis).”Per OHO, J.C.A. (Pp.
8-9, Paras. E-D)
- LIMITATION LAW – LIMITATION PERIOD:
Effect of an action brought
outside a statutorily limited period
“The action filed by the Respondent at the Court below is for the
reasons ably appraised in the lead judgment, statute barred. In
effect, therefore, the Respondent, who might otherwise have had a
cause of action looses the right to enforce the cause of action by
judicial process because the period of limitation laid down by the
limitation for instituting such an action has elapsed. See Odubeko
v Fowler (1993) 7 NWLR (Pt. 308) 637. An action commenced after the
expiration of period, with which an action must be brought,
stipulated in statute of limitation is not maintainable. See Ekeogu
v. Aliri (1991) 3 NWLR (Pt. 308) 637. In short when the statute of
limitation prescribes a period, within which an action must be
brought, legal proceedings cannot be validly instituted after the
expiration of the prescribed period. See also Sanda v Kukawa Local
Govt. (1991) 2 NWLR (Pt. 174) 379. I wholly agree that the action
is statutebarred cannot be maintained. It therefore must be struck
out as not being properly before the Court. This is the fate of the
Respondent’s action from the trial Court. In the result, the
appellant’s action in the trial Court should be and is hereby
struck out.”Per MUKHTAR, J.C.A. (Pp. 80-81, Paras. E-D
- TORT – DEFAMATION: Definition of a defamatory
publication
“…in determining whether the publications in EXHBITS “J”, “B”,
“C” and “F” in the circumstances under which they were made were
libelous and defamatory of the Respondent, the need to rely on the
principles laid down in AKOMOLAFE vs. NEIC LTD (2000) FWLR (PT. 27)
2016 cannot be overemphasized. In this case, it was held that a
publication is defamatory if it is calculated to lower the Plaintiff
in the estimation of right thinking people or to cause him to be
shunned or avoided, or exposes him to hatred, contempt or ridicule
or to disparage him in his office, profession or calling or reflect on
his character. See also SKETCH vs. AJAGBEMOKEFERI (1989) 1 NWLR
(PT. 100) 678; GIWA vs. AJAYI (1993) 5 NWLR (PT. 294) 428.”Per OHO,
J.C.A. (Pp. 63-64, Paras. D-B)
ONIGA v. BISONG CITATION: (2018)
LPELR-44044(CA)
- COURT – DUTY OF COURT: Duty of court to pronounce on
every issue properly placed before it for
consideration
“It is the duty of a trial Court to consider all issues properly
placed before it and where it is shown that a vital issue was left
unconsidered, injustice would have occurred justifying the
intervention of the Appellate Court. See NNORODIM VS EZEANI (2001)
5 NSCQLR 510.”Per OYEWOLE, J.C.A. (P. 11, Paras. E-F)
- EVIDENCE – DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE:
Effect of an unsigned
document
“As stated earlier, the said Exhibit 2 is on pages 12-13 of the
record of appeal. It is a leasehold agreement made on the 30th
March, 1976 between the people of Ishibori Town in Ogoja Division
of Ogoja province and the Appellant. The representatives of the
Lessors were 6 in number and granted the Appellant a lease of 4
plots of land for 99 years upon which they affixed their thumb
impressions. The space left for the interpreter was unsigned
thereby indicating that the thumb impressions were affixed without
the content being interpreted. The transaction was not witnessed by
anyone and the Appellant as Lessee with obligations under the said
leasehold agreement did not sign the document as well. It goes
beyond contention that an unsigned document with glaring lapses
such as Exhibit 2 suggests a dubious origin and is totally
incapable of being conferred with a cloak of credibility as to
assist the case of the Appellant. See GARUBA VS K.I.C. LTD (2005) 5
NWLR (PT 917) 160 and OJO VS ADEJOBI (1978) NSCQR 261.”Per OYEWOLE,
J.C.A. (Pp. 6-7, Paras. F-E
- JUDGMENT AND ORDER – WRITING OF JUDGMENT: Whether there
is a standard format of judgment writing
“There are no hard and fast rules regulating judgment writing as
Judges have various styles peculiar to them. For as long as a
judgment considers the evidence adduced, issues in controversy
between the parties and renders a decision in respect thereof in
accordance with the applicable legal principles, it would be valid.
See JEKPE VS ALOKWE (2001) 6 NSCQLR 41. Although the judgment of
the trial Court in issue here did not formally lay out the issues
for determination formulated by either side the issues in
contention between them were considered and decided upon. In the
entire arguments of the Appellant, no specific issue was identified
as having been unattended to in the said judgment which possibly
resulted in some injustice to the Appellant.” Per OYEWOLE, J.C.A.
(Pp. 11-12, Paras. F-C)
- LAND LAW – DOCUMENT OF TITLE: Whether mere production
of document of title is sufficient
in a claim for declaration of title to land; what the Court must
satisfy itself with before the production of documents of title is
admitted as sufficient proof of
ownership
“Mere production of a registered title document such as Exhibit
2 is not in itself conclusive. The Court has a duty to examine the
document and inquire whether the document is genuine and valid,
whether it has been duly executed, stamped and registered, whether
the grantor had the authority and capacity to make the grant,
whether the grantor had in fact what he purported to grant, and
whether it had the effect claimed by the holder of the instrument.
See JOLASUN VS BAMGBOYE (2010) 44 NSCQR 94 at 128-129, ENILOBE VS
ADEGBESAN (2000)11 NWLR (PT 698) 611, ROMAINE VS ROMAINE (1992) 4
NWLR (PT 698) 611, NGENE VS IGBO (2000) 4 NWLR (PT 651) 131,
AYORINDE VS KUFORIJI (2007) 4 NWLR (PT 1024) 341, DOSUNMU VS DADA
(2002) 13 NWLR (PT 783) 1, KYARI VS ALKALI (2001) FWLR (PT 60) 1481
and DABO VS ABDULLAH (2005) 29 WRN 11, (2005) 7 NWLR (PT 923)
181.”Per OYEWOLE, J.C.A. (Pp. 7-8, Paras. E-C)
ASUQUO v. WILLIAM CITATION: (2018)
LPELR-44045(CA)
- APPEAL – FILING/ENTRY OF APPEAL:
Effect of failure to file an appeal
within the statutory period prescribed by law
“This appeal was filed by the Appellant outside the time specified
by Section 24(4) of the Court of Appeal Act, Cap 36 LFN, 2004. The
law prescribed for lateness, the grace of seeking for extension of
time to appeal. Once a party is late and he refuses or fails to
cure the lateness with extension of time to appeal, the party has
in all sincerity thrown away his chance of appealing in the case.
Since this appeal was filed outside the time frame specified under
the law, I also do hold that there is merit in the preliminary
objection as raised by the learned counsel for the Respondent. It
is for this and more reasons as ably placed by my learned brother
in the lead judgment that I also uphold this preliminary objection
and strike out this appeal.” Per ADAH, J.C.A. (Pp. 7-8, Paras.
DA)
- COURT – COMPETENCE OF COURT:
Effect of a defect in the
competence of court
“The law is certain that any defect in competence is fatal for
the proceedings of any Court in excess of jurisdiction no matter
how well conducted and decided are a nullity. In order not to
engage in any fruitless exercise every Court whether at trial or
appellate level must be sure of its competence before embarking in
the hearing of any cause or matter.” Per ADAH, J.C.A. (P. 7, Paras.
B-C)
- PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – PRELIMINARY OBJECTION: Whether
a preliminary objection raised on appeal must be resolved before
hearing the substantive appeal
“The point raised in the said preliminary objection is a
threshold issue which goes to the competence of the entire appeal,
it is therefore logical that the said preliminary objection be
taken first. See NIDDOCO VS GBAJABIAMILA (2013) 56 NSCQR 230.”Per
OYEWOLE, J.C.A. (P. 2, Paras. E-F)
Culled from LawPavilion
DPP v. AKPAN (2018) LPELR-44047(CA)
PRACTICE AREA: CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE
INTRODUCTION
A no case submission is usually made by the accused person after
the prosecution has closed its case. It is the accused’s way of
saying that the prosecution has not adduced enough evidence to tie
him to the offence charged. That is, even if the Court believes the
evidence already adduced by the prosecution, it could not convict
based on it. However, the question whether or not the Court
does believe the evidence does not arise at that stage neither is
the credibility of the witnesses in issue at this stage, rather,
‘all the law requires a Court to determine at the stage of a no
case submission is whether the prosecution had made out a prima
facie case, it is not to evaluate evidence or consider the
credibility of witnesses’ Per OYEWOLE, J.C.A. in this instant
appeal.
OYEWOLE, J.C.A. while delivering the leading judgment
herein clarified that ‘In its ruling on no case submissions, no
matter the elaborate submissions of counsel, the Judge must resist
the temptation to go into extensive comments or premature
evaluation of adduced evidence mainly because at the stage of a no
case submission only one side of the case has been heard and it
would be prejudicial to comment on the evidence or facts of the
case at that stage.’
Lending credence to the position above, ADAH, J.C.A in her own
contribution said; ‘I feel strongly in this case that there is the
dire need to rekindle the age long advice of our Superior Court
that a no case submission should not warrant detailed consideration
of the evidence.’
SUCCINCT FACTS OF THE CASE
The Respondent, a bishop of Mount Zion Light House Gospel Church
Inc., was arraigned before the Chief Magistrate Court, Grade 1,
Calabar on a 2-count charge of stealing and conversion of land
(being property belonging to Mount Zion Light House Gospel Church
Inc.) for personal use. At the close of prosecution’s case the
defence made a no case submission which was upheld by the learned
trial Chief Magistrate.
Disgruntled, the Appellant appealed to the High Court sitting in
Calabar. The appeal was heard and dismissed in a judgment delivered
on the 19th December, 2016. Thereby upholding the decision of the
Magistrate Court on the no case submission.
Still dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a notice of appeal to
the Appeal Court on the 3rd January, 2017.
ISSUES FOR DETEREMINATION
- Whether the lower Court was right in holding that the
extra judicial statement of the accused “Exhibit
C‟ is not a confessional
statement mainly because it was not attested to before a superior
police officer. - Whether the lower Court did not fall in error in
holding that the prosecution/Appellant failed to prove a prima
facie case against the Accused/respondent particularly in view of
the admissions made by the Accused/Respondent in “Exhibit
C‟. - Whether the findings and judgment of the lower Court
was not based on facts outside the printed records and largely
speculative.
The Court identified issue 2 as the kernel of the complaint of
the Appellant against the judgment of the Court below and posited
that its resolution will necessarily determine the fate of issues 1
and 3. Hence, the Court proceeded to evaluate issue 2 first.
HELD
Issue 2 was resolved in favour of the Appellant and against the
Respondent.
In respect of issues 1 and 3 the Court held that subject-matters
of these two issues are to be dealt with during evaluation of
evidence at the end of the trial and proceeding to them now
especially with the conclusion earlier reached on issue 2 will have
prejudicial implications for the substantive trial. Issues 1 and 3
was accordingly discountenanced.
Appeal was allowed and the concurrent judgments of the two Court
below were accordingly set aside.
The Court further ordered that in view of the premature
extensive appraisal of the adduced evidence by the trial Chief
Magistrate, the said Charge No. MC/664C/2011 be remitted to the
Chief Judge of Cross River State for reassignment to another Chief
Magistrate other than the trial Chief Magistrate A.E. Adomi Esq.
for trial to be commenced de novo.
RATIO DECIDENDI
- CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – NO CASE SUBMISSION: Duty
of the trial court where a no case submission has been made on
behalf of an accused person
“The point cannot be over-emphasized that all the law requires a
Court to determine at the stage of a no case submission is whether
the prosecution had made out a prima facie case, it is not to
evaluate evidence or consider the credibility of witnesses even if
the evidence adduced were that of an accomplice. See DABOH VS STATE
(1977) 11 NSCC 309 at 315 and STATE VS EMEDO (supra).”Per OYEWOLE,
J.C.A. (P. 5, Paras. A-C)
- CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – NO CASE SUBMISSION: Need
for Courts to be brief while ruling on a no case
submission
“In its ruling on no case submissions, no matter the elaborate
submissions of counsel, the Judge must resist the temptation to go
into extensive comments or premature evaluation of adduced evidence
mainly because at the stage of a no case submission only one side
of the case has been heard and it would be prejudicial to comment
on the evidence or facts of the case at that stage. See ‘CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE IN NIGERIA, LAW AND PRACTICE’ by OLUWATOYIN DOHERTY at
272-273 and R VS COKER (supra). The above clarification becomes most
important especially in view of the elaborate and extensive
evaluation of the adduced evidence especially exhibit C by the
trial Chief Magistrate and the Court below. The wise counsel of
KUTIGI JSC (as he then was) on situations such as this readily
comes to mind as follows: “At the stage of no case submission,
trial is not yet concluded and the Court should not concern itself
with the credibility of witnesses or the weight to be attached to
their evidence even if they are accomplices. The Court should also
at this stage be brief in its ruling as too much might be said
which at the end of the case might fetter the Court’s discretion.
The Court should at this stage make no observation on the facts.”
See AJIBOYE VS STATE (1995) 8 NWLR (PT 414) 408 at 413. In the same
vein, ADEMOLA CJN had earlier stated as follows: “Whilst it is not
the aim of this Court to discourage a Judge from discussing matters
of interest in his judgment, we would like to warn against any
ruling of inordinate length in a submission of no case to answer,
as too much might be said, as was done in this case, which at the
end of the case might fetter the Judge’s discretion…………It is wiser
to be brief and make no observation on the facts.” See CHIEF ODOFIN
BELLO VS THE STATE (1967) NMLR 1 at 3. All comments on exhibit C
made by the Courts below were totally premature, prejudicial and
totally out of place at the stage of a no case submission.
Evaluation of evidence comes after the entire case is concluded and
not at the interlocutory stage of a no case submission.” Per
OYEWOLE, J.C.A. (Pp. 5-7, Paras. E-D) – read in context (2018)
LPELR-44047(CA)
- CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – NO CASE SUBMISSION: Need
for Courts to be brief while ruling on a no case
submission
“I feel strongly in this case that there is the dire need to
rekindle the age long advice of our Superior Court that a no case
submission should not warrant detailed consideration of the
evidence. In OKAFOR VS. THE STATE (2016) LPELR-260604 (SC), Sanusi,
JSC held as follows: “I think it is apt to stress here, that when
during a criminal trial, a submission of no case to answer is made
on behalf of an accused person, that does not mean the trial Court
was called upon at that point in time, to express any opinion on
the evidence adduced before it. Rather, the trial Court is only
called upon to bear in mind and note that there is no legally
admissible evidence linking the accused person with commission of
the offence he was charged with. If the submission is predicated on
discredited evidence, such discredit must be apparent or clear on
the face of the record. But if such is not the case, then the
submission would be of no moment and shall fall and be overruled
and dismissed. It also must be pointed out that at the stage a No
Case submission is made, all that the trial Court is supposed to
consider is not whether the evidence so far adduced by the
prosecution against the accused is sufficient to justify conviction
but simply whether the prosecution had made out prima facie case
requiring some explanation from the accused person’s regard his
conduct or otherwise. See DURU VS. NWOSU (1989) 4 WRL (PT. 113) 24;
IKONU VS. THE STATE (1986) 3 NWLR (PT. 28) 340.@ 365; ONAGORUWA VS.
THE STATE (1993) 7 NWLR (PT. 303) 49 @ 80.” See also the case of
UBANATU VS C.O.P. (2000) LPELR- 3280 (SC) WHERE Kalgo, JSC held
that on a “submission of no case to answer” it is wiser for a Judge
or Magistrate to be brief of his ruling and make no remarks or
observations on the facts: See R. VS. EKANEM 13 WACA 108. This is
because in a ruling of an inordinate length, too much might be said
which at the end of the case might fetter the discretion of the
Judge or magistrate. See ODOFIN BELLO VS. THE STATE (1967) NMLR 1,
R. VS. COKER & ORS. 20 NLR 623; AKINPELU AJANI VS. QUEEN 3 WACA
3. In the instant case, the two Lower Courts went in excess of what
the law requires of a consideration of a no case submission.” Per
ADAH, J.C.A. (Pp. 13-15, Paras. B-B)
OTHER JUDGMENTS FORM THE COURT
NNAJI & ORS v. IWUEKE CITATION: (2018)
LPELR-44043(CA)
- APPEAL – GROUND(S) OF APPEAL: Whether the absence of
particulars will render a ground of appeal
incompetent
“In resolving this objection, it is important to note that
Particulars generally play the role of giving insight into the
nature of the Ground of Appeal. They actually assist in bringing to
the fore the real complaint of the Appellant against the Judgment
Appealed against. That does not however suggest that the Grounds of
Appeal cannot stand on their own once they sufficiently explain the
Appellant’s grouse against the Judgment Appealed against. See the
observation of the Apex Court in the case of PROF. E. A. ABE vs.
UNIVERSITY OF ILORIN & ANOR. (2013) LPELR-20643 (SC) where the
Court per MUHAMMED, JSC had this to say; “Learned Counsel must be
reminded that Grounds of Appeal may stand on their own once they
represent an Appellant’s complaint against the decision he is not
satisfied with and in respect of which grouse he seeks the Appellate
Court’s intervention. Lack of or defective Particulars in a Ground
of Appeal would not necessarily render the Ground itself
incompetent. See PRINCE (DR) B. A. ONAFOWOKAN & 2 ORS vs. WEMA
BANK PLC & 2 ORS NSCQLR VOL. 45 (2011)181 SC and BEST (NIGERIA)
LTD vs. BLACK WOOD HODGE (NIGERIA) LTD & 2 ORS NSCQLR VOL. 45
(2011) 849.” (Underlined, mine for emphasis).”Per OHO, J.C.A. (Pp.
8-9, Paras. E-D)
- LIMITATION LAW – LIMITATION PERIOD:
Effect of an action brought
outside a statutorily limited period
“The action filed by the Respondent at the Court below is for the
reasons ably appraised in the lead judgment, statute barred. In
effect, therefore, the Respondent, who might otherwise have had a
cause of action looses the right to enforce the cause of action by
judicial process because the period of limitation laid down by the
limitation for instituting such an action has elapsed. See Odubeko
v Fowler (1993) 7 NWLR (Pt. 308) 637. An action commenced after the
expiration of period, with which an action must be brought,
stipulated in statute of limitation is not maintainable. See Ekeogu
v. Aliri (1991) 3 NWLR (Pt. 308) 637. In short when the statute of
limitation prescribes a period, within which an action must be
brought, legal proceedings cannot be validly instituted after the
expiration of the prescribed period. See also Sanda v Kukawa Local
Govt. (1991) 2 NWLR (Pt. 174) 379. I wholly agree that the action
is statutebarred cannot be maintained. It therefore must be struck
out as not being properly before the Court. This is the fate of the
Respondent’s action from the trial Court. In the result, the
appellant’s action in the trial Court should be and is hereby
struck out.”Per MUKHTAR, J.C.A. (Pp. 80-81, Paras. E-D
- TORT – DEFAMATION: Definition of a defamatory
publication
“…in determining whether the publications in EXHBITS “J”, “B”,
“C” and “F” in the circumstances under which they were made were
libelous and defamatory of the Respondent, the need to rely on the
principles laid down in AKOMOLAFE vs. NEIC LTD (2000) FWLR (PT. 27)
2016 cannot be overemphasized. In this case, it was held that a
publication is defamatory if it is calculated to lower the Plaintiff
in the estimation of right thinking people or to cause him to be
shunned or avoided, or exposes him to hatred, contempt or ridicule
or to disparage him in his office, profession or calling or reflect on
his character. See also SKETCH vs. AJAGBEMOKEFERI (1989) 1 NWLR
(PT. 100) 678; GIWA vs. AJAYI (1993) 5 NWLR (PT. 294) 428.”Per OHO,
J.C.A. (Pp. 63-64, Paras. D-B)
ONIGA v. BISONG CITATION: (2018)
LPELR-44044(CA)
- COURT – DUTY OF COURT: Duty of court to pronounce on
every issue properly placed before it for
consideration
“It is the duty of a trial Court to consider all issues properly
placed before it and where it is shown that a vital issue was left
unconsidered, injustice would have occurred justifying the
intervention of the Appellate Court. See NNORODIM VS EZEANI (2001)
5 NSCQLR 510.”Per OYEWOLE, J.C.A. (P. 11, Paras. E-F)
- EVIDENCE – DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE:
Effect of an unsigned
document
“As stated earlier, the said Exhibit 2 is on pages 12-13 of the
record of appeal. It is a leasehold agreement made on the 30th
March, 1976 between the people of Ishibori Town in Ogoja Division
of Ogoja province and the Appellant. The representatives of the
Lessors were 6 in number and granted the Appellant a lease of 4
plots of land for 99 years upon which they affixed their thumb
impressions. The space left for the interpreter was unsigned
thereby indicating that the thumb impressions were affixed without
the content being interpreted. The transaction was not witnessed by
anyone and the Appellant as Lessee with obligations under the said
leasehold agreement did not sign the document as well. It goes
beyond contention that an unsigned document with glaring lapses
such as Exhibit 2 suggests a dubious origin and is totally
incapable of being conferred with a cloak of credibility as to
assist the case of the Appellant. See GARUBA VS K.I.C. LTD (2005) 5
NWLR (PT 917) 160 and OJO VS ADEJOBI (1978) NSCQR 261.”Per OYEWOLE,
J.C.A. (Pp. 6-7, Paras. F-E
- JUDGMENT AND ORDER – WRITING OF JUDGMENT: Whether there
is a standard format of judgment writing
“There are no hard and fast rules regulating judgment writing as
Judges have various styles peculiar to them. For as long as a
judgment considers the evidence adduced, issues in controversy
between the parties and renders a decision in respect thereof in
accordance with the applicable legal principles, it would be valid.
See JEKPE VS ALOKWE (2001) 6 NSCQLR 41. Although the judgment of
the trial Court in issue here did not formally lay out the issues
for determination formulated by either side the issues in
contention between them were considered and decided upon. In the
entire arguments of the Appellant, no specific issue was identified
as having been unattended to in the said judgment which possibly
resulted in some injustice to the Appellant.” Per OYEWOLE, J.C.A.
(Pp. 11-12, Paras. F-C)
- LAND LAW – DOCUMENT OF TITLE: Whether mere production
of document of title is sufficient
in a claim for declaration of title to land; what the Court must
satisfy itself with before the production of documents of title is
admitted as sufficient proof of
ownership
“Mere production of a registered title document such as Exhibit
2 is not in itself conclusive. The Court has a duty to examine the
document and inquire whether the document is genuine and valid,
whether it has been duly executed, stamped and registered, whether
the grantor had the authority and capacity to make the grant,
whether the grantor had in fact what he purported to grant, and
whether it had the effect claimed by the holder of the instrument.
See JOLASUN VS BAMGBOYE (2010) 44 NSCQR 94 at 128-129, ENILOBE VS
ADEGBESAN (2000)11 NWLR (PT 698) 611, ROMAINE VS ROMAINE (1992) 4
NWLR (PT 698) 611, NGENE VS IGBO (2000) 4 NWLR (PT 651) 131,
AYORINDE VS KUFORIJI (2007) 4 NWLR (PT 1024) 341, DOSUNMU VS DADA
(2002) 13 NWLR (PT 783) 1, KYARI VS ALKALI (2001) FWLR (PT 60) 1481
and DABO VS ABDULLAH (2005) 29 WRN 11, (2005) 7 NWLR (PT 923)
181.”Per OYEWOLE, J.C.A. (Pp. 7-8, Paras. E-C)
ASUQUO v. WILLIAM CITATION: (2018)
LPELR-44045(CA)
- APPEAL – FILING/ENTRY OF APPEAL:
Effect of failure to file an appeal
within the statutory period prescribed by law
“This appeal was filed by the Appellant outside the time specified
by Section 24(4) of the Court of Appeal Act, Cap 36 LFN, 2004. The
law prescribed for lateness, the grace of seeking for extension of
time to appeal. Once a party is late and he refuses or fails to
cure the lateness with extension of time to appeal, the party has
in all sincerity thrown away his chance of appealing in the case.
Since this appeal was filed outside the time frame specified under
the law, I also do hold that there is merit in the preliminary
objection as raised by the learned counsel for the Respondent. It
is for this and more reasons as ably placed by my learned brother
in the lead judgment that I also uphold this preliminary objection
and strike out this appeal.” Per ADAH, J.C.A. (Pp. 7-8, Paras.
DA)
- COURT – COMPETENCE OF COURT:
Effect of a defect in the
competence of court
“The law is certain that any defect in competence is fatal for
the proceedings of any Court in excess of jurisdiction no matter
how well conducted and decided are a nullity. In order not to
engage in any fruitless exercise every Court whether at trial or
appellate level must be sure of its competence before embarking in
the hearing of any cause or matter.” Per ADAH, J.C.A. (P. 7, Paras.
B-C)
- PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – PRELIMINARY OBJECTION: Whether
a preliminary objection raised on appeal must be resolved before
hearing the substantive appeal
“The point raised in the said preliminary objection is a
threshold issue which goes to the competence of the entire appeal,
it is therefore logical that the said preliminary objection be
taken first. See NIDDOCO VS GBAJABIAMILA (2013) 56 NSCQR 230.”Per
OYEWOLE, J.C.A. (P. 2, Paras. E-F)
Culled from LawPavilion