Jamiu Adeniyi & Ors. V. Federal Republic Of Nigeria (2011)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

ITA GEORGE MBABA J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Federal High Court, Ilorin, in charge No. FHC/IL/20C/2009, delivered on 15th June, 2010 by BILKISU BELLO ALIYU J., whereof the Appellants were convicted for forgery, contrary to and punishable under section 1(2) (c) of the Miscellaneous Offences Act, CAP M17 of the Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004, and sentenced to 3 years imprisonment, each.

The charge against the Appellants at the lower Court was as follows:

“That you Jamiu Adeniji, Akeem Adesanya, Aminu Aliyu, Endurance Otuya, Mustapha Alonge, Ismaila Adeniran and one Alhaji Yalateef now at large on or about the 31st day of March 2009 at Ibafo along Ilorin-Ibadan road within the jurisdiction of this honourable Court committed an offence to wit, vandalized NNPC pipeline and through it illegally procured about 17,000 litres of Petroleum Motor Spirit (PMS), which you were about to illegally discharge for sale at Ogidi, Ilorin, where you were arrested. You have by your act wishfully obstruct (sic) the procurement of petroleum products for distribution between Ilorin-Ibadan Depot and you thereby committed an offence contrary to section 2 of the Petroleum Production and Distribution (Anti Sabotage) Act Cap P12 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004.”

Appellants filed their separate notices and grounds of appeal against that decision on 14/4/2010 and each raised four identical grounds of appeal as follows:

‘Ground 1:

The learned trial Judge erred in Law when it (sic) held that:

“It is clear that the accused persons procured the petrol they were found with illegally without lawful authority, and used the forged meter ticket and waybills as genuine documents for petrol found with them.”

PARTICULARS OF ERROR:

(1) There is no evidence from M.R.S. depot Lagos denying the fact that the Accused/convicts procured the petroleum product from its deport (sic).

(2) Most of the evidence relied on by the Court were hear-say evidence.

Ground 2:

The learned trial judge erred in law when it (sic) held that:

“The circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution in this case only proved that the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th accused persons were found in possession of petrol with forged documents, that is, meter ticket and way bills”.