Trial de novo

An order for fresh trial, trial de novo or retrial is not automatic or a matter of course, once the trial is declared a nullity. Each case must be considered in its peculiar circumstances which form its background. When a trial is declared a nullity an order of retrial shall only be made if and only if the interest of justice so demands. SeeEDACHE v. THE QUEEN (supra); KAJUBO v. THE STATE (1988) 1 NWLR (Pt. 73) 721.
ABDULAHI MOHAMMED v. THE STATE (2013) 218 LRCN (Pt. 2) 48

Getting back to the order of the Court of Appeal which was for retrial or trial de novo, it has to be said that it is not an order that is to be made off hand or unadvisedly as the Supreme Court has laid down some guides on which such an order could be made and for this I shall refer to the case of Salisu Tahaya (2002) 2 SCNJ 1 this: (a) That there has been an error in law including the observance of the law of evidence, or an irregularity in procedure of such a character that on the one hand, the trial was that not rendered a nullity and on the other hand, the Court is unable to say that there has been no miscarriage of justice.
(b) That leaving aside the errors at irregularity, the evidence discloses a substantial case against the appellant.
(c) That there are no such special circumstances as would render it an oppressive case against the appellant
(d) That the offence or offences of which the appellant was convicted or the consequences to the appellant or any other to the conviction or acquittal of the appellant are not mere trivial
(e) That to refuse an order of retrial would occasion a greater miscarriage of justice than to grant it.
(f) That to enable the prosecution adduce evidence against the appellant which evidence convict him, when his success at the appeal is based on the absence of that same evidence.