Oko Ogar Adama V. The State (2017)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

SIDI DAUDA BAGE, J.S.C.

This is an appeal against the ruling of the Court of Appeal, Calabar Judicial Division delivered on the 19th day of November, 2013, in Appeal No. CA/C/76C/2012. The Court of Appeal affirmed the ruling of the High Court of Cross River State sitting at Ogoja.

The appellant, Oko Ogar Adama along with 13 other accused persons were arraigned before Justice E. E. Ita of Cross River High Court, charged with conspiracy, unlawful assembly, malicious damage and stealing contrary to Sections 20 (6), 70, 541 and 390 (9) of the Laws of Cross River State of Nigeria 2004 respectively.

The appellant and the other 13 accused persons denied both counts.

At the trial, the prosecution called a total of five (5) witnesses while a no case submission was made on behalf of the appellants. After hearing and evaluation of the testimonies of the five witnesses, the learned trial judge over-ruled the no case submission and requested the appellants to enter their defence.

Dissatisfied with the ruling, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court affirmed the ruling of the

1

High Court and dismissed the appeal.

This appeal is against that ruling. From the information in the charge, the facts of the case against the appellant are that they, on the 10th May 2010, at Oloko-Agwape village in Yala Local Government Area, conspired to and unlawfully assembled, caused malicious damage and stole a motor-cycle, twelve (12) Goats, two (2) bicycles and bush meat, property of Oganode Awoko Ipuole.

The appellant on the 30th April, 2015, filed his brief of argument and formulated five issues for determination in his appeal.

1. Whether the trial Court has jurisdiction to try the appellant when the consent or direction of High Court Judge of Cross River State was not obtained as required by Section 309 (2) (b) of the Criminal Procedure Law, Cap. C17, Laws of Cross River State of Nigeria, 2004 (the CPL) before the information was filed
2. Whether the purported arraignment and taking of the plea of the appellant was valid in law (Ground 5).
3. Whether the written address and the reply on the no case submission did not breach the appellant’s right to fair hearing and thereby consequently rendering the entire trial a

2

nullity (Ground 6).

4. Whether the decision of the Court below to be very brief and to restrict itself in reviewing the argument does not amount to a denial of the right to fair hearing of the appellant, and thus rendering the judgment of the Court below arrived at in such circumstances liable to be set aside (Ground 3).
5. Whether, having regard to the entire circumstances of this case, the Court below was correct in affirming the ruling of the trial Court and thereby calling upon the appellant to enter his defence (Ground 12 and 4).”

However, the respondent in his brief of argument filed on the 8th January, 2016 formulated the following issues for determination.

“1. Whether the failure to obtain the direction or consent of a Judge to prefer the information in this case can be raised for the first time in this Court regard being had to the provision of Section 309 (3) (b) of the Criminal Procedure Law, Cap. C17, vol. 3, Laws of Cross River State, 2004 (Jurisdiction issue).