Judgment
ABBA BELLO MOHAMMED, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): The Appellant was arraigned before the Federal High Court, Ibadan (the trial Court) on a five-count charge of conspiracy, obtaining by false pretence, forgery and uttering. After a full-blown trial, he was found guilty of the offences of conspiracy and obtaining by false pretence in counts 1, 2 and 3 while he was discharged of the offences of forgery and uttering in counts 4 and 5. The Appellant was sentenced to 13 years imprisonment. The judgment and the sentence are at pages 329 – 364 of the Record of Appeal.
Dissatisfied with his conviction and sentence, the Appellant has appealed to this Court vide Notice of Appeal filed on 16th July, 2021, which is at pages 365–374 of the Record of Appeal. The Record of Appeal was transmitted to this Court on the 10th of September, 2021. In furtherance of the appeal, the parties filed and exchanged their briefs of argument. The Appellant’s Brief of Argument filed on 29th September, 2021 was settled by Otunba M.
Olayinka Bolanle, while the Respondent’s Brief of Argument settled by Festus Ojo Esq, which was filed on 18th May, 2022 was deemed properly filed on the 30th of May, 2022 along with the Appellant’s Reply Brief filed on 26th May, 2022. From his 12 grounds of appeal, the Appellant distilled the following four issues for determination: 1.
Whether the learned trial Judge of the Court below properly exercised jurisdiction in delivering the judgment of the Court below on 23rd June, 2021 and convicting and sentencing the Appellant on the said date when by the Records, the final Address in the matter were adopted on 26th February, 2021 and when the re-adoption ordered and effected on 23rd June, 2021 was a sham? (Ground 3 of the Notice of Appeal). 2.
Whether the learned trial Judge was right in convicting the Appellant as charged in counts 1, 2 and 3 when evidence offered by the prosecution in proof of same are inherently either hearsay evidence or documentary evidence dumped on the Court by the prosecution? (Grounds 4, 6, 7 and 9 of the Notice of Appeal). 3.
Whether on the state of evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned trial judge correctly agreed with the prosecution in finding that statutory onus of proof of commission of the offences listed as Counts 1, 2 and 3 was discharged by the prosecution? (Ground 1, 5, 8, 10 and 11 of the Notice of Appeal). 4.
