Michael Mutiu Yusuf Ogundare v. The State Of Lagos State (2024)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

PAUL AHMED BASSI, JCA (Delivering the leading judgment)

This appeal is against the decision of the High Court of Lagos State delivered on 15th June, 2022 in charge No: ID/5890C/2017.

The appellant was arraigned and tried on an Information containing three (3) counts before the lower court. The counts are;

i. Conspiracy to commit a felony contrary to section 411 of the Criminal Law of Lagos State.

ii. Making false statement to Public Officer with intent contrary to section 96(a) of the Criminal Law of Lagos State, and

iii. False representation to release a kidnapped person contrary to section 6(1)(i) of the Kidnapping Prohibition Law of Lagos State.

The appellant entered not a guilty plea to the three (3) Counts and the matter proceeded to trial. At the close of trial, the lower court found the appellant herein guilty as charged and consequently sentenced the appellant on the 27th day of September, 2022 to ten (10) years imprisonment with no option of fine for count 1, one year imprisonment, with an option of fine in the sum of N250,000.00 for count 2 and Fifteen years imprisonment with no option for fine for count 3.

Apparently aggrieved by this decision, the appellant activated the appellate jurisdiction of this court vide a notice of appeal dated 23rd June, 2022. The extant notice of appeal however is the amended notice of appeal filed on 22nd of January, 2024,

Brief facts

The appellant here is the Baale of Shangisha in Lagos state and held aspirations of becoming the traditional ruler of the community. The Lagos state government however, elected to appoint another person as the traditional Ruler of Shangisha.

It was the appellant’s story that he faced incessant harassment from the Police over his rivalry with the new traditional ruler and he decided to travel out of Lagos for a few days.

The appellant’s co-defendant at trial before the lower court however proceeded to make a report to the DSS office that the appellant had been kidnapped.

This co-defendant alleged that himself and the appellant met with some people in a hotel over a land transaction and they left the appellant’s vehicle in the hotel. That they thereafter drove out in the strangers’ vehicle and the co-defendant was pushed out of the vehicle and the appellant kidnapped.

The co-defendant then proceeded to make a report to the DSS that the appellant had been kidnapped but the DSS noticed a lack bruises on the co-defendant and his clean clothes. The DSS then proceeded to the hotel where the appellant allegedly met the kidnappers but the CCTV at the hotel showed the appellant was never there.