Emeka Onwughalu V. The State (2007)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA, J.C.A

This is an appeal against the ruling of an Ogidi High Court in Anambra State of Nigeria which was delivered on the 13th day of November 2006 in charge NO.HID/4C/2005 – The State V. Emeka Onwughalu & 2 others, wherein the learned trial Judge after considering the appellant’s application for bail pending trial, refused and dismissed the said application.

The appellant was dissatisfied with the ruling and has appealed to this Court.

Briefly the facts of the case showed that the appellants and two others now at large, were on the 19th day of April 2005 arraigned before the High Court NO.1 at Ogidi on an information and charged dismissed his application?

(2) Whether the learned trial judge was right when he held that he could not find any special circumstance that would warrant his exercising his discretion in favour of the appellant to admit him to bail pending trial.

The Respondent on the other hand adopted the issues for determination contained in the appellant’s brief.

At the hearing of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant adopted and relied on his brief of argument while learned counsel for the Respondent Mrs. F.E. Nwangwu Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions who was absent but wrote a letter to brief the court that she filed a Respondent’s brief on the 6th day of February 2006 and that she would be adopting the said brief.

ISSUE 1

The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned trial Judge was wrong when he refused and dismissed the appellant’s bail application because if he had taken time to give consideration to the affidavit evidence in support of the appellant’s application and the submissions of counsel, he would have come to a different decision.

He referred to Section 36(5) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the following cases:-

– Ayo Olugbusi V. C.O.P. l19701 All NLR Page 338.

– Michael Dada Ariyo V. C.O.P. (1989) 1 CLRN Page 287.

The learned counsel for the Respondent even though absent filed her brief of argument in this appeal on 6/2/2007.

She submitted in her brief that the appellant ought to have been granted bail at the court below having reasonably shown that he was ready to come and stand his trial whenever called upon to do so.