Yelli V. State (2022)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

AMINA ADAMU AUGIE, J.S.C. 

After a trial in which the Prosecution called four Witnesses, and the Appellant testified in his own defence, the Sokoto State High Court found the Appellant guilty as charged for causing the death of “Abubakar Magaji by hitting him with a stick on his head with knowledge that death will be a probable consequence!

He was, accordingly, convicted and sentenced to death for the offence of culpable homicide punishable with death. He appealed to the Court below, wherein he complained inter alia that the trial Court erred in law when it relied on his extra-judicial statement, which did not meet the requirement of the law, as laid down in Utuyorome V. State (2010) 43 WRN 162. But, in its judgment, delivered on 21/2/2017, the Court below held that “his appeal is moribund and lacks merit, and it is accordingly dismissed. The judgment of the High Court of Justice sitting at Sokoto and delivered on 28/4/2015 – – is hereby affirmed”.

​Dissatisfied, the Appellant appealed to this Court with a Notice of Appeal containing three Grounds of Appeal. He distilled three Issues for Determination from the three Grounds of Appeal in his Brief of Argument, and the Issues are:

a. Whether the learned Justices erred in law when they disregarded the already laid down principles of law as laid down in Utuyorome V. State (2010) 43 WRN 162, in convicting and sentencing the Appellant.

b. Whether the learned Justices erred in law when they relied on the extra-judicial Statement of the Appellant, which does not meet the requirement of law as laid down in the case of Utuyorome V. State (2010) 43 WRN 162, in convicting and sentencing the Appellant.

c. Whether the judgment is not against the weight of evidence.

The Respondent distilled a “lone Issue” from the three Grounds of Appeal and that is “whether the Court below was right to have upheld the conviction of the Appellant”, with the focus being on the “proprietary of the value placed on the extra-judicial statement of the Appellant by the trial Court, which was confirmed by the Court below”. Nonetheless, it also made the argument in its Brief that –

“The Grounds of Appeal in this appeal is virtually not an appeal against the judicial exercise of the Court below because they are nothing but repetition of Grounds of Appeal against the judgment of the trial Court.”

Citing FRN V. Nwosu (2017) All FWLR (Pt 883) 1484, it submitted that it is settled that Grounds of Appeal should constitute a challenge to the ratio of the decision appealed against, and it is well-nigh impossible that the same Grounds of Appeal raised against the trial Court’s decision, will be apposite to sustain an appeal against the decision of the Court below; and that the three Grounds of Appeal are incompetent, and issues formulated thereon must also fail and fall like a pack of cards, citing Akpan V. Bob (2010) All FWLR (Pt. 501) 896. The Appellant, however, argued in his Reply Brief that the Respondent’s contention is not only misconceived in law but an attempt to persecute and shut him out in an offence involving capital punishment, which is out of the question.

He referred the Court to its decision in Nwankwo V. E.D.C.S.U.A (2007) 5 NWLR Pt. 1027 377, wherein Onnoghen, JSC (as he then was), observed:

It is settled law that a ground of appeal is basically a highlight of the error of law or fact, or mixed law and fact made by the Court in the decision sought to be set aside in the appeal. It is the sum total of the reason(s) why the decision on appeal is considered by Learned Counsel for the Appellant to be wrong and liable to be set aside. It follows, therefore, that for a ground of appeal to be capable of achieving the purpose of setting aside the decision appealed against, it has to be very substantial and must relate to the ratio of the decision not directed at the obiter dictum of the Court or in the Judgment.”

He argued that this appeal is not against the obiter dictum of the Court below; and citing Ndike V. State (1994) 8 NWLR (Pt. 360) 33, he further argued that it is safe to say that the Court below had examined the trial Court’s Record and concluded that the issues were properly decided, and by so doing, the Court below affirmed the entire decision of the trial Court; that the Respondent failed to show how the ratio of the Court below is different from that of the trial Court; that it admitted in its Brief that the Court below gave a nod to the decision of the trial Court, and it cannot turn around to argue that their ratios were different; and that the law is that a Party cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate, citing Hymn Hydraulic Mach. co. V. Jaffar (2004) 15 NWLR (Pt. 896) 343.

Furthermore, that the Respondent’s interpretation of FRN V. Nwosu is misconceived and uncharitable; that while he says that this appeal is against the decision of the Court below, what this Court held in FRN V. Nwosu is that Parties cannot agitate in this Court Issues determined at the trial Court by way of an appeal, “asserting same to be a challenge to the jurisdiction of this Court or in response to such purported objection”; that the Grounds of Appeal and Issues for Determination are a direct and unalloyed attack on the judgment of the Court below appealed against. Thus, he urged this Court to dispassionately examine the Grounds of the instant appeal and the Issues distilled therefrom.