Chief Sikiru Kolawole Adejumo V. The State & Ors. (2006)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

GALINJE, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the ruling of Silva J. of the Lagos State High Court, which was delivered on the 21st of November 1996 in which he overruled an application to release four cars which are exhibits in a matter that is still pending before that court.

The facts that gave rise to this appeal are simple and straight forward and are aptly well set out in the briefs of argument of counsel on both sides. I will do no more than to recount them briefly in this judgment.

Sometimes in 1992, the 2nd respondent, Olawale Ajiboye was arraigned before the court below for the offences of murder and stealing money from the 3rd respondent, whose Managing Director is the 2nd respondent. During the course of trial various exhibits including four cars which were recovered from the 2nd respondent were tendered and admitted in evidence as exhibits 52, 53, 54 and 55. At the close of the prosecution’s case, a no case submission was made on behalf of the 2nd and 3rd respondents. The court below upheld the no case submission in respect of the murder charge, but overruled the plea of no case submission in respect of the charge for stealing. The 2nd and 3rd respondents appeal to this court and to the Supreme Court were unsuccessful, and the case was returned to the court below for conclusion of trial.

At the reopening of the proceedings at the lower court, the 2nd respondent, who at all times represented the 3rd respondent, a limited liability company appeared only once after which he ceased to appear at subsequent adjournments.

A medical report was presented to the court which showed that the 2nd respondent was sick and was receiving medical treatment in the United States of America. Proceedings in the case became stalled.

The applicant herein then brought an application pursuant to Section 263 and 269 of the Criminal Procedure Law of Lagos State dated 27th June, 1996 for the release of the four cars, exhibits 52, 53, 54 and 55 in case No. LCD/47/91 which was then pending before the court below. In support of the application aforesaid, a 10-paragraphs affidavit dated 28th of June 1996 was filed. Exhibited on the affidavit are photocopies of the receipts in respect of the four cars which were said to have been issued by the 2nd respondent to the appellant evidencing the sale of the four cars to the latter. A further and better affidavit in support of the application was also filed. Annexed to this further and better affidavit is a photocopy of terms of settlement between the appellant and the 2nd and 3rd respondents which is marked ex. A.

The 1st respondent who initially raised objection to the grant of the application in its countrer-affidavit of 5th July 1996, recanted in another affidavit of 30th September 1996.

In their joint counter affidavit of 8th July 1996 the 2nd and 3rd respondents challenged the appellant’s application and urged the court not to release the cars as urged by the appellant.

In a considered ruling by the court below, the appellant’s application was dismissed. The reasons for the dismissal of the said application which are set out at pages 46 and 47 of the printed record of proceedings of the lower court are two fold:-

“1, That parties to a criminal case which constitute a felony cannot terminate such case through any forms of settlement between them.

2. Violent contradictions between the documents of sale of the cars annexed to the appellant’s affidavit and his evidence during trial wherein he denied vehemently that he acquired the 2nd respondent’s vehicles.”

It is against this ruling that the appellant has appealed to this court on four grounds of appeal, which he later amended. The four amended grounds of appeal without their particulars read as follows:-

“1. The trial Judge misdirected himself when he held in (sic) page 3 of his ruling as follows:-

“A criminal case, particularly one that had been part heard to the extent to which proceedings had gone cannot be subject of such terms of settlement as contained in his (sic) document. In any case, terms of settlement in a criminal case: on the conditions contained m this document look and sound strange and are unheard of having regard to the history of the case”