James Adie V. Federal Republic Of Nigeria (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

MOHAMMED MUSTAPHA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, Coram A. A. I. Banjoko, J. delivered on the 19th day of June, 2013.

The appellant was arraigned on a nine count charge at the trial Court for the offences of conspiracy, theft, forgery and using forged documents as genuine; while counts 1, 2 and 5 are charges of conspiracy punishable under Section 97(1) of the Penal Code Act; counts 3 and 4 are charges of theft punishable under Section 287 of the Penal Code Act; counts 6 and 8 are charges of forgery punishable under Section 364 of the Penal Code Act, while counts 7 and 9 are charges of fraudulently using as genuine punishable under Section 364 of the Penal Code Act.

The appellant was convicted with one other on the charges on counts 1 2, 3, 4, 7 and 9; dissatisfied with the decision of the trial Court, he appealed to this Court by a notice of appeal dated 28th of June 2013, and filed on the 9th day of July, 2013 on the following grounds shorn of their particulars:

GROUND ONE:

The Learned Trial Judge erred in law for convicting

1

the Appellant when, obviously, the Prosecution did not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

GROUND TWO:

The Learned Trial Judge erred in law for relying on suspicion, conjectures and speculations in convicting the appellant.

From these grounds the following issues were formulated for determination by this Court in the brief settled by Max Ogar, Esq., of counsel to the appellant

1. Whether the Respondent herein discharged its obligation of proving its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt?
2. Whether suspicion can ground a conviction?

Joshua Saidi, Esq., of counsel to the respondent also formulated two issues of his own for determination as:

1. Whether from the evidence laid by the Prosecution, it can be said that the Prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt as required by law to warrant the conviction of the appellant by the lower Court.
2. Whether the judgment of the lower Court was based on conjectures and speculations.

The issues formulated by both sides are identical except for the fact that they were couched differently; for the purpose of brevity and clarity, the

2