Federal Republic Of Nigeria V. Chief Mike Umeh & Anor (2019)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMAD, J.S.C.

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Sokoto Division, hereinafter referred to as the Court below, in Appeal No. CA/S/28C/2016 delivered on the 24th day of March 2017 upholding the decision of the Sokoto State High Court, the trial Court, discharging and acquitting the respondents of the offences of criminal conspiracy and dishonestly receiving stolen property contrary to Sections 97 and 317 of the Penal Code respectively.

The brief facts of the case that brought about the appeal is as recounted at once.

Charge No SS/37C/2013 preferred against the respondents at the trial Court by the appellant is an off shoot of charge No. SS/33C/2009 against Alhaji Attahiru Dalhatu Bafarawa, the former Governor of Sokoto State and (18) others wherein the respondents were the 16th and 17th accused persons respectively. Following appellant’s application, the respondents on the 26th June 2013 were separately tried pursuant to an amended charge No. SS/37/2013 for the offences of criminal conspiracy and dishonestly receiving

1

stolen property contrary to Sections 97 and 317 of the Penal Code respectively. Their plea were taken on the 11th day of September 2013. The appellant called a single witness to prove its case against the respondents through whom exhibit ‘A’ was tendered and admitted in evidence.

On overruling respondents’ no case submission, the 1st respondent testified for the defence and closed their case. At the end of trial, including addresses of counsel, the Court delivered its judgment on 17th February 2016 which conclusion reads:-

“In the instant case, having regard to the evidence placed before this Court and on consideration of the various submissions of counsel, it is the Court’s findings that the case for the prosecution against the 1st and 2nd Accused persons have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt as required by law… both the 1st and 2nd Accused persons are hereby discharged and acquitted on the allegations in charges of conspiracy and receiving stolen property contrary to Sections 97 and 317 of the Penal Code on which they were charged.” (Underlining mine for emphasis).

Dissatisfied with the trial Court’s foregoing decision, the appellant appealed to the Court below by its

2

notice filed on the 2nd of March 2016 on three grounds.

Still aggrieved, the appellant has further appealed to this Court against the lower Court’s decision affirming the trial Court’s decision vide its notice filed on 13th April 2017 containing a sole ground from which is distilled a single issue for the determination of the appeal thus:-

“Whether the Court below was correct in law when it held that the appellant failed to prove the ingredients of the offences of criminal conspiracy and of dishonestly receiving stolen property preferred against the respondents before this Court.”

A similar but more down to earth issue distilled at page 2 of the respondents’ brief of argument as arising for the determination of the appeal reads:-