Omoefe Eric Uduesegbe V. The Federal Republic Of Nigeria (2014)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

JOSEPH E. EKANEM, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This appeal is against the ruling of the Federal High Court, Abuja Division (Coram; Ademola, J) in suit No. FHC/ABJ/CR/82/2013 delivered on 29th November, 2013, wherein the Federal High Court (hereafter called “the lower court”) refused the application of the appellant for the variation/review of the terms of bail granted to the appellant by the lower court.

The appellant was arraigned along with ten others at the lower court in charge No. FHC/ABJ/CR/82/2013 on a charge containing twenty counts of offences out of which the appellant was charged with four offences, which can be grouped as follows;

(i) Conspiracy to obtain by false pretence and with intent to defraud various sums of money contrary to section 8(a) of the Advanced Fee Fraud and other Fraud Related Offences Act, 2006 and punishable under Section 1(3) of the said Act (hereafter called “the Act”); and

(ii) Obtaining by false pretence and with intent to defraud various sums of money from the pension’s Account office of the Head of Service of the Federation of Nigeria contrary to Section 1(1)(a) of the Act and punishable under Section 1(3) of the Act.

It must be mentioned that the appellant (along with others) was first arraigned before Bello, J. of the Abuja Division of the Federal High Court in charge No. FHC/ABJ/CR/28/11. He was granted bail in the sum of Ten Million Naira with one surety in the like sum. The charge was withdrawn and struck out. He (along with others) was arraigned afresh before Ademola, J; who granted him bail in the following terms;

1. “…In the sum of N500,000,000.00 (Five Hundred Million) with two (2) sureties each in the like sum.
2. That the sureties must be resident within the jurisdiction of this court who must own landed properties anywhere within the Abuja Division of the court and the properties must worth the Bail sum and possess valid Tax Clearance Certificates.
3. That the Title Deeds of the properties must be verified by the Deputy Chief Registrar of this Court before retaining copies.
4. That the sureties must also swear to Affidavit of means also to be verified by the Deputy Chief Registrar of this court.
5. That the Accused/Applicants are to deposit their current international passport with the Deputy Chief Registrar of this court and should not travel abroad without obtaining approval…”

Unable to satisfy the conditions of bail, the appellant applied to the lower court by way of motion on notice dated and filed on 18th day of September, 2013, for a variation or a review of the bail conditions. The lower court, as earlier stated, refused the application.

Aggrieved by the decision, the appellant appealed to this court by way of a notice of appeal dated 2nd November, 2013, with the leave of this court.

In the appellant’s brief of argument, one issue is formulated for the court’s determination viz;

“Whether the learned trial judge was not in error when he refused the appellant’s application for variation of the terms of bail earlier granted and held that the terms of bail earlier granted the Appellant was not onerous or excessive, thus frustrating compliance with the order granting bail to the Appellant”.

In response, the respondent filed a brief of argument dated 19th March, 2014 but filed on 21st March, 2014. In the brief settled by Chief Godwin O. Obla (SAN), of counsel, the appellant’s sole issue is adopted by the respondent.

In the appellant’s brief of argument settled by Adewale Adegoke, Esq, the following arguments are proffered.

He conceded that the application for variation of the terms of bail was only seeking the exercise of the lower court’s discretion which must be exercised Judicially and Judiciously. He noted that the depositions in the affidavit in support of the application were not countered.

He submitted that bail generally is a temporary succour given to an accused person standing criminal trial or in incarceration to enjoy his liberty while his trial lasts or while investigations into allegations against him subsist. This, he said, is based on the presumption of innocence in his favour until the contrary is established at the end of the trial.