md←→ previous / next
Before Their Lordships
MARY UKAEGO PETER-ODILI Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
OLUKAYODE ARIWOOLA Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
KUMAI BAYANG AKA’AHS Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
AMINA ADAMU AUGIE Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
SIDI DAUDA BAGE Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
OLUKAYODE ARIWOOLA Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
KUMAI BAYANG AKA’AHS Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
AMINA ADAMU AUGIE Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
SIDI DAUDA BAGE Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
Between
MUSA IBRAHIM- Appellant
AND
THE STATE –Respondent
…………………….A…………………….
KUMAI BAYANG AKA’AHS, J.S.C. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This appeal borders on the propriety of the charge preferred against the accused and the constitutionality of the Kano State Legal Notice No. 10 of 1979 titled “The Criminal Procedure Code (Preferment of Charges in the High Court) Rules 1979 Cap. 30 Laws of Kano State of Nigeria.
The records do not show when the application to prefer the charge was moved but in the judgment of the trial Court reproduced on page 16 of the records, Mrs. Sulaiman who appeared for the State moved the application to prefer the charge on 10/4/2001 (sic) 10/4/2012 and it was granted without objection.
On 5/6/2012 learned counsel representing the accused applied to quash the charge on the grounds that there were not sufficient and adequate materials or facilities to enable the accused prepare his defence and meet the case of the prosecution. The prosecution opposed the application and the arguments of counsel were taken on that same 5/6/2012 and ruling was reserved to 9/7/2012 on which date the learned trial Judge overruled learned counsel on his application to quash the charge. The accused was dissatisfied and appealed against the ruling of the Court of Appeal, Kaduna on 20/7/2012. The appeal was heard on 14/2/2013 and it was dismissed by the Court of Appeal in its judgment No. CA/K/217/C/2012 delivered on 14/5/2013. This is a further appeal from that judgment. It should be borne in mind that the accused is yet to be arraigned and asked to plead to the charge.
The Notice of Appeal contains 5 grounds of appeal from which the following issues were distilled for determination:-
1. Whether the lower Court was right in holding that the summary of the statements of the five prosecution witnesses, without more, are sufficient enough for the accused to answer the charge against him?
OR
Whether the lower Court was right in its finding that the trial Court rightly refused to quash the charge on ground of insufficient materials placed before the Court against the accused person in the charge?
2. Whether the lower Court was right in holding that the provisions of the Kano State Legal Notice No. 10 of 1979 titled “the Criminal Procedure Code Law (Cap. 30). The Criminal Procedure Preferment of Charges in the High Court Rules 1979” is unconstitutional?
Learned counsel did not indicate the ground or grounds of appeal to which any of the issues relate. The appellate Courts have always emphasized the need for learned counsel to indicate the ground or grounds of appeal from which an issue for determination is derived. See:Hein Nobelung Isensee K. G. v. U.B.A. Plc (2012) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1326) 357 and Nigerian Ports Plc v. B. P. Pte Ltd (2012) 18 NWLR (Pt.1333) 454. The principles guiding formulation of issues is that an issue may be formulated from one or several grounds of appeal but two issues cannot be formulated from a single ground of appeal. In this appeal five grounds of appeal accompanied the Notice from which two issues were formulated. Issue 1 was given in the alternative. Having scrutinised the grounds it is my view that Issue 1 is distilled from Grounds (ii), (iv) and (v) while Issue 2 was distilled from Ground 3. The grounds shorn of their particulars are reproduced as follows:-
(ii) The learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law when the Court held as follows:-
“I must, also observe that the said 1979 Rules, under which the application to the lower Court was made did not contravene Sections 35(6)(b) and (d) and 211(1)(a )and (2) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended). One of the rights of an accused person guaranteed under Section 36(6) of the 1999 Constitution as amended is that the accused has a right to be informed promptly in the language that he understands and in detail of the nature of the offence. The appellant had been sufficiently and in great detail informed of the nature of the offence alleged to have been committed by him.”
(iii) The learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law when the Court held as follows:-
“I must observe that Section 36(6)(b)and (d)have to do with conduct of the criminal proceedings in the Court. They have no correlation with filing an application for leave to the High Court to prefer a charge against the accused. The law enabling that Rules be made by the Chief Judge of Kano State stating that summary of evidence be attached to an application of Preferment of Criminal Charge is not unconstitutional.”
(iv) The learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law when the Court held as follows:-
“The summary of the evidence given at the bottom distinctly encapsulated the central facts of the case, that the appellant injured Adamu Sadauki and killed his daughter Hafsatu Adama and that he made confessional statement to the Police. There were photographs taken at the scene of the crime and the Medical report on the post-mortem performed on the deceased which will be tendered as Exhibits at the trial. I wonder what else the appellant wanted disclosed that (the) have not been adequately and sufficiently conveyed to him by the summary of evidence. I sincerely believe that the trial Court
On 5/6/2012 learned counsel representing the accused applied to quash the charge on the grounds that there were not sufficient and adequate materials or facilities to enable the accused prepare his defence and meet the case of the prosecution. The prosecution opposed the application and the arguments of counsel were taken on that same 5/6/2012 and ruling was reserved to 9/7/2012 on which date the learned trial Judge overruled learned counsel on his application to quash the charge. The accused was dissatisfied and appealed against the ruling of the Court of Appeal, Kaduna on 20/7/2012. The appeal was heard on 14/2/2013 and it was dismissed by the Court of Appeal in its judgment No. CA/K/217/C/2012 delivered on 14/5/2013. This is a further appeal from that judgment. It should be borne in mind that the accused is yet to be arraigned and asked to plead to the charge.
The Notice of Appeal contains 5 grounds of appeal from which the following issues were distilled for determination:-
1. Whether the lower Court was right in holding that the summary of the statements of the five prosecution witnesses, without more, are sufficient enough for the accused to answer the charge against him?
OR
Whether the lower Court was right in its finding that the trial Court rightly refused to quash the charge on ground of insufficient materials placed before the Court against the accused person in the charge?
2. Whether the lower Court was right in holding that the provisions of the Kano State Legal Notice No. 10 of 1979 titled “the Criminal Procedure Code Law (Cap. 30). The Criminal Procedure Preferment of Charges in the High Court Rules 1979” is unconstitutional?
Learned counsel did not indicate the ground or grounds of appeal to which any of the issues relate. The appellate Courts have always emphasized the need for learned counsel to indicate the ground or grounds of appeal from which an issue for determination is derived. See:Hein Nobelung Isensee K. G. v. U.B.A. Plc (2012) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1326) 357 and Nigerian Ports Plc v. B. P. Pte Ltd (2012) 18 NWLR (Pt.1333) 454. The principles guiding formulation of issues is that an issue may be formulated from one or several grounds of appeal but two issues cannot be formulated from a single ground of appeal. In this appeal five grounds of appeal accompanied the Notice from which two issues were formulated. Issue 1 was given in the alternative. Having scrutinised the grounds it is my view that Issue 1 is distilled from Grounds (ii), (iv) and (v) while Issue 2 was distilled from Ground 3. The grounds shorn of their particulars are reproduced as follows:-
(ii) The learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law when the Court held as follows:-
“I must, also observe that the said 1979 Rules, under which the application to the lower Court was made did not contravene Sections 35(6)(b) and (d) and 211(1)(a )and (2) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended). One of the rights of an accused person guaranteed under Section 36(6) of the 1999 Constitution as amended is that the accused has a right to be informed promptly in the language that he understands and in detail of the nature of the offence. The appellant had been sufficiently and in great detail informed of the nature of the offence alleged to have been committed by him.”
(iii) The learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law when the Court held as follows:-
“I must observe that Section 36(6)(b)and (d)have to do with conduct of the criminal proceedings in the Court. They have no correlation with filing an application for leave to the High Court to prefer a charge against the accused. The law enabling that Rules be made by the Chief Judge of Kano State stating that summary of evidence be attached to an application of Preferment of Criminal Charge is not unconstitutional.”
(iv) The learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law when the Court held as follows:-
“The summary of the evidence given at the bottom distinctly encapsulated the central facts of the case, that the appellant injured Adamu Sadauki and killed his daughter Hafsatu Adama and that he made confessional statement to the Police. There were photographs taken at the scene of the crime and the Medical report on the post-mortem performed on the deceased which will be tendered as Exhibits at the trial. I wonder what else the appellant wanted disclosed that (the) have not been adequately and sufficiently conveyed to him by the summary of evidence. I sincerely believe that the trial Court
…………………….B…………………….
Continue reading IBRAHIM v. THE STATE
You have read the opening. Unlock the full library once and it stays unlocked - one payment, no subscription, the same library as the app.
- All 725 Laws of the Federation, A to Z
- 916 full judgments and 269 case collections
- 8,046 legal principles and 124 rules of court
- 343 drafts, with the Draft Builder
- The Law Dictionary - 31,442 terms
- Law School notes and 2,082 MCQs
Every Act, case collection and principle beginning with A, B or C is free to read in full, without unlocking - the same boundary as the Android app.