Olayinka Tajudeen Ademoye V. The State (2013)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

UZO I. NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Cross River State sitting in Calabar delivered on the 14th July, 2011. The Appellant in this appeal was charged and arraigned on a two count charge of Forgery contrary to S.467 (2) (g) of the Criminal Code Law Cap C 16 Vol 3 Laws of Cross River State of Nigeria 2004 and uttering forged cheque contrary to S.468 of the Criminal Code Law Cap C 16 Vol. 3 Laws of Cross River State of Nigeria 2004.

At the close of the trial, the appellant was discharged and acquitted on count 1 of forgery but convicted on count 2 for uttering forged document and sentenced to 5 years imprisonment.

By the order of this court of 21 January, 2012 the Appellant was granted an extension of time to file his notice and grounds of appeal. The Appellant filed his notice and two grounds of appeal on 1st March, 2012. The Appellant filed his Appellant’s brief on 20th April, 2012 and formulated I issue for determination.

Whether the learned trial Judge at the court below upon convicting the Appellant for the offence of uttering a forged cheque should not have sentenced the appellant to a lesser term of years in view of the appellant having spent over two years in custody prior to the judgment (ground 2).

On the 21st January, 2012 when this appeal was heard, the respondent filed no brief and had nothing to urge the court.

The appellant adopted his brief and urged the court to take into consideration, the number of days the convict spent in prison custody awaiting trial. Learned counsel narrated the travails of the appellant. The appellant was arrested on 10th June, 2009 of the Banking Hall of Union Bank in Calabar. The appellant was taken into custody and remained there until he was arraigned on 13th April, 2010. The appellant was still in custody till the 14th July, 2011 when he was eventually convicted and sentenced to 5 years imprisonment. The appellant and his counsel during allocutus pleaded thus:

“We plead for leniency on behalf of the convict. The convict has been in custody since his arrest on 11th June, 2009. He is a first offender. He is a family man with 2 children. The family is in Lagos. See page 45 of the Record.

Counsel submitted that the

“The purpose of punishment of a criminal offender is to reform and not destroy or ruin the offender because if an individual is ruined, the larger society will be at the receiving end.”

The learned counsel submitted that the appellant was a first offender and is urging the court to put into consideration the number of months appellant spent in custody from his arrest to sentencing.

I agree that a custodial sentence is to punish an offender, help to reform him, and also to serve as a deterrent to others.

The appellant is appealing to this court to exercise its discretionary powers. It is a notorious fact that the wheel of our criminal justice grinds very slowly. The charge against the appellant are bailable offences which could have afforded the appellant his liberty after arrest and before his arraignment.

Under the Nigeria Law, bail is a right of an accused person. An accused person is not usually denied bail, except where the offence is a capital offence. Bolakale vs. State (2002) 1 NWLR (Pt.962) page 507.