Oluwatoyin Jinadu V. Federal Republic Of Nigeria (2015)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

ABUBAKAR DATTI YAHAYA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an Appeal against the Ruling of the High Court of Federal Capital Territory Abuja, delivered on the 21st of January, 2013.

The appellant herein, was the accused person at the trial court and she was arraigned on the 12th of July, 2012 on a twenty count charge of stealing, forgery and using as genuine, forged documents, contrary to the provisions of Sections 287, 362 and 364 of the Penal Code.

Thereafter, on the 16th of October, 2012, the appellant filed a Motion, seeking to quash the charge on the ground that it was incompetent and the court lacked the jurisdiction to adjudicate over same. The trial court heard the parties and in its Ruling, dismissed the application for lack of merit.

In the Notice of appeal, filed on the 8/3/13, four grounds of appeal were filed.

The appellant’s counsel Mr. Chukwudi, filed the appellant’s brief on the 24/1/14 but was deemed properly filed on the 23/6/14. In it, he abandoned ground 3 of the grounds of appeal. It is therefore struck out. He identified three issues from grounds 1, 2 and 4 of the grounds of appeal. They are –

(a) Whether the learned trial judge determined the issue on the interpretation of the provisions of Section 1(2)(a) and (b) of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission Act in the Ruling, the subject of this appeal and if answered in the negative whether such non-determination of is not a breach of the appellant’s Right to fair hearing.

(b) Whether by the provisions of Section 227(1) of the Penal Code the Respondent can validly initiate and prosecute Penal Code offences without the direction of the Attorney-General of the Federation.

(c) Whether the proof of evidence demonstrates any link between the Appellant and the offences charged and whether there are counts in the charge which are not rooted in law.

The respondent’s brief, which was settled by Mr. Ugwuegbulam, was filed on the 10/6/14 but was deemed filed on the 23/6/14. In it, the issues identified by the appellant, were adopted.

Issue (a) identified by the appellant is a composition of two different issues i.e. it combines an issue as to whether the trial judge determined the issue of the interpretation of the provision of Section 1(2)(a) and (b) of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission Act, and another issue of breach of the appellant’s right of fair hearing. This is not allowed. See UNITY BANK PLC VS. OLATUNJI (2013) 15 NWLR (Pt.1378) 503. I therefore re-phrase the issue to now read –

(1) Whether the trial judge determined the issue on the interpretation of Section 1(2)(a) and (b) of the Economic and Financial Crimes Act in his Ruling.

Issue (c) identified by the appellant also offends the requirement of distilling one issue and not a composition of two different issues, in that it combines whether the proof of evidence links the appellant to the offences charged and whether the charge is rooted in law. This should not be, but in the interest of justice and to avoid over dependence on technicality, I shall let it be.

ISSUE NO 1