Olufemi Ademola Babalola V. Federal Republic Of Nigeria (2014)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This appeal is against the decision of the High Court of Oyo State presided over by O. A. Boade, J. on 12th December, 2012 wherein the court refused to quash the charge against the Appellant herein, in Charge No. I/5EFCC/2011 on the ground that the proof of evidence before the lower court did not disclose a prima facie case against the Appellant.

The background facts are that, the Appellant, who is the 3rd Accused person in the lower court along with other accused persons were alleged to have conspired to defraud the Government of Oyo State by the award of several contracts without budgetary provisions, flouting of Government rules on award of contracts without following due process.

It was alleged that the contracts were awarded without passing through the State Tenders Board and not deliberated upon by the Oyo State House of Assembly for inclusion in the budget of Oyo State Government. It was also alleged that none of the 33 Local Government Councils in Oyo State said to have paid for the contracts provided for the contracts in their budgets.

The charge against the Appellant in the lower court is for conspiracy in counts 1 and 5 with the 1st and 2nd accused persons, while counts 6 and 7 deal with obtaining by false pretence.

The Appellant filed an application in the lower court where he sought an order quashing the charge against him on the ground that the proof of evidence and the witness’ statements do not disclose any prima facie case or offence against him.

The lower court in determining the application dismissed same and held that the proof of evidence disclosed a prima facie case against the Appellant.

From his nine (9) grounds of appeal in his Amended Notice of Appeal, the Appellant distilled three (3) issues for the determination of the appeal. They are:

“(i) Whether the learned trial judge was right in relying on additional proof of evidence to determine and come to the conclusion that there is a prima facie case against the Appellant? Grounds 2, 3, 7;

(ii) Whether in law, count 5 dealing with conspiracy to obtain by false pretence is incompetent in the face of count 6 dealing with the commission of the substantive offence of obtaining by false pretence? Ground 9.

(iii) Whether in any event, the entire proof of evidence disclosed the essential ingredients of the offences, to warrant the criminal complaints against the Appellant proceeding to trial? Grounds 1, 4, 5, 6 and 8.”

The Respondent on its part recouched the Appellant’s issue one and adopted issues two and three as follows:

“1. On the totality of the proceedings as revealed on the record of appeal, did the lower court only rely on the additional proof of evidence to arrive at the conclusion that, there is a prima facie case against the Appellant’s Grounds 2, 3 and 7?

2. Whether in law, count 5 dealing with conspiracy to obtain by false pretence is competent in the face of count 6 dealing with the commission of the substantive offence of obtaining by false pretence? Ground 9.
3. Whether in any event, the entire proof of evidence disclosed the essential ingredients of the offences, to warrant the criminal complaints against the Appellant proceeding to trial? Grounds 1, 4, 5, 6 and 8.”

In arguing the appeal, the learned Senior Counsel Lateef O. Fagbemi (SAN) adopted and relied on his brief of argument dated 10/11/13 filed on 11/11/13 and his reply brief dated 11/2/14 filed the same day in urging us to allow the appeal and dismiss the charge.