State High Court

Indeed the evaluation and assessment of the evidence as done by the trial Court and accepted by the Court of Appeal cannot be faulted in view of the materials available on record which has afforded this Court, the opportunity of revisiting what the two Courts did and in context and it has not been difficult for me to reach the conclusion that no justification exists for the interference of this Court on those concurrent findings of fact. I shall refer to the case of: Oladipo v. Moba L.G.A (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt.1186) 117 at 150-151 PARAS H-C, the Court held thus:
"It must be borne in mind that the evaluation and assessment of evidence as well as the ascription of probative value to such evidence is entirely the primary function of the Court of trial which saw, heard and duly assessed the witnesses. Where such a Court of trial has justifiably evaluated the evidence, it is not the business of the Court of Appeal to substitute its own views for that of the trial Court. What the Court of Appeal is called upon to do when faced with such is to ascertain whether or not there is evidence upon which the trial Court acted. Once there is such evidence, the appellate Court will not intervene even if it feels that if the facts were before it, it would not have come to the same decision as the trial Court." See also Attah v. State (2010) NWLR (Pt.1201) 190 at 217, PARAS. E-G where this Honourable Court Mustapha, JSC (as he then was) held thus:-It is also the law that there is visual and positive identification of the accused at the scene of the crime which is believed by the trial judge, the appellate Court should not disturb such a finding."

It is no longer in doubt that the High Court of the FCT, like any State High Court, can be used as a venue for the prosecution of the offences under the ICPC Act. The informed opinion of Ejiwunmi JSC at page 190 of A.G, ONDO STATE v. A. G, FEDERATION & ORS (supra) is very clear on this. It is similarly beyond doubt that Sections 6(a), 26(2) and 61(1) of the ICPC Act are constitutionally valid. That was the loud and clear decision of this Court in A.G. ONDO STATE v. A. G. FEDERATION (supra). Curiously, the senior counsel for the appellant, very cognisant and seised of this fact, is not asking us, my Lords, to depart from it

Ehindero v. F. R. N. & Anor. LGC(15/12/2017) H