HRH Igwe John Osita Umenyiora & Ors V. The State (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

TOM SHAIBU YAKUBU, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

The appellant along with nine other persons were jointly charged with various offences contained in 10 counts on a criminal information, prepared at the instance of the Attorney General of Anambra State, in re Charge No. OT/12c/2007: THE STATE v. CHARLES GWACHAM & 9 ORS. On the 15th August, 2008, the appellant was served with the Notice of trial which was pasted on the front gate of his palace at Ogbunike. The appellant did not appear in Court to take his trial but filed an application at the trial High Court of Justice holden at Awka, and prayed as follows:

“(1) That the charge No. OT/12c/2007; THE STATE v. CHARLES GWACHAM & 9 ORS., pending before this Court be struck out in so far as it concerns the Applicant, without requiring the Applicant to plead thereto being totally irregular, incompetent and void.

(2) That further proceedings based on Charge No. OT/12c/2007; THE STATE v. CHARLES GWACHAM & 9 ORS., in so far as the Applicant is concerned, be terminated on the grounds that this Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain it.

?(3) That this Honourable Court do make any other Order as it may

1

consider just having regard to the provisions of the Criminal procedure Law.”

The grounds upon which the application was anchored are that:

“(i) The Notice of Trial is on its face incompetent as a Notice of Trial under Section 220 and 254(2) of the Criminal Procedure Law.

(ii) The charge No. OT/12c/2007; THE STATE v. CHARLES GWACHAM & 9 ORS., is in so far as the Appellant is concerned inconsistent with the provisions of Section 211, 240(c), 242, 243, 246, 247, 276, 278 and 280 of the Criminal Procedure Law.

(iii) The said Charge has been brought through a procedure totally unknown to law and the Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain it.

(iv) The charge is frivolous, vexatious and oppressive of the Appellant and the Court ought to decline jurisdiction to entertain it.”

He filed an affidavit of 22 paragraphs in support of the application; and annexed some documentary exhibits to the said affidavit. The learned trial judge, in his ruling on the application, found no merit in it and consequently dismissed it. The appellant, not satisfied with the decision of the learned trial judge, filed an appeal predicated on four grounds of appeal, to this Court. And in

2