Statute

The Appellant's position is that this error vitiates the entire trial; but Section 166 of the CPA makes it abundantly clear that –
No error in stating the offence or the particulars required to be stated in the charge and no omission to state the offence or those particulars shall be regarded at any stage of the case as material unless the accused was in fact misled by such error or omission.
In Ogbomor V. State (supra), also (1985) 1 NWLR (Pt. 2) 223, this Court, per Karibi-Whyte, JSC, explained the law as follows-
Thus, error in stating the statute or in the section of the statute under which the information or charge is laid per se will not be registered as material unless the accused is misled by such omission or error. However, where the omission or error is sufficient so as to mislead the accused in his defence, of the charge, such omission or error is material and would in my opinion, vitiate the trial. Thus, the law distinguishes omission or errors, which are trivial and not material and will not vitiate a trial, and those, which are material and will vitiate the trial. Where the omission or error is material to the charge, it necessarily misleads and will vitiate the trial. For instance, where the information refers to a repealed enactment, and there is no similar offence known to law, the error would be regarded as material and fundamental, and will undoubtedly mislead the accused – See R. Ogunremi (1961) 1 All NLR 467.

For further effect, Section 254D (1) confers the trial Court with "all the powers of a High Court" for the purpose of exercising any jurisdiction conferred upon it. That is not all. Section 5 thereof altered Section 243 by inserting, immediately, after the words 'Federal High Court' in the marginal note, the words 'National industrial Court.'
Although, side notes or marginal notes to an enactment do not form parts thereof and do not generally, afford legitimate aid to its construction; at least, it is permissible to consider the general purpose of a section and the mischief at which it is aimed with the marginal notes in mind; and as a signpost to what the section sets out to provide, Idehen v Idehen (1991) LPELR-1416 (SC) 55; F-G; [1991] 6 NWLR (Pt. 198) 382; Oloyo v. Alegbe [1983] 2 SCNLR 35, 57; Uwaifo v. A-G, Bendel State [1982] 7 SC 124, 187-188; O.S.I.E.C. and Anor v. A.C. and Ors (2010) LPELR-2818 (SC) 55; B-C; Yagube v. C.O.P. (1992) LPELR-3505(SC) 17-18.