Oni Ademola Dolapo V. Federal Republic Of Nigeria (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

ALI ABUBAKAR BABANDI GUMEL, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the ruling of the Federal High Court, Ibadan Division, delivered on 19th June, 2015, in charge number FHC/IB/32C/2015.

The Appellant as the 4th Accused was arraigned on 03/06/2015, along with other 5 persons on a diverse 20 count charge. They each pleaded not guilty. The matter was adjoined to 08/06/2015 for trial and the Accused persons, were ordered to be remanded in prison custody. The Appellant continued being in prison custody. In a summons for bail dated 01/06/2015, but filed on 02/06/2015, the Appellant/Applicant sought for an order admitting him to bail pending the hearing and determination of the charge against him.

The summons was brought pursuant to Sections 35 and 36 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), Sections 118(2) and 123 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Sections 7(4), 26(1) and 33(1) and (2) of the Federal High Court Act, Section 16 of the Advanced Fee Fraud and other Related offences Act as well as under the inherent jurisdiction of the Federal High Court. It was supported by a 12

1

Paragraph affidavit deposed to by the father of the Appellant with a single document attached as Exhibit as well as a written address. The Respondent replied the summons with a 17 Paragraph copious counter affidavit deposed to by a Senior Detective superintendent attached to the EFCC. In an effort to clarify some of the issues, the father of the Appellant replied the counter affidavit of the Respondent with a 20 Paragraph further and better affidavit. Issues having been duly joined, the summons was fixed for hearing on 11th June, 2015. Both the counter affidavit of the Respondent and the further and better affidavit were accompanied by written addresses

At the hearing on 11th June, 2015, learned counsel Mr. Ruba, argued the summons on behalf of the Appellant. After introducing the summons and the affidavit in support of it, Mr. Ruba referred to what he believed to be the key and material averments that support the application and prayer in the summons, he went further to adopt the written address he filed and then urged on the Court to grant the main relief on it and admit the Appellant to bail. For the Respondent, Mr. Rotimi Jacobs, SAN introduced the

2

counter affidavit he filed to oppose the summons. He referred to its key and material averments. After some short arguments, he proceeded to criticize and challenge Exhibit A attached to the affidavit in support of the summons and then adopted and relied on the written address attached to the counter affidavit.

In a very well-considered ruling, the learned trial Judge remarked that:-

in the instant charge the offences have a lot to do with the nation?s economy since over N7 Billion is involved herein. The offences herein in my view are grave. The Court in an application for bail it must be reiterated, must consider the offence, the punishment therefore (sic) and the proof of evidence before it.

? on this premises therefore, I also refuse bail to the 4th Defendant in 32C/2015.?

(See pages 104 to 105 of ruling now at pages 1864 to 1865 of record of appeal).

The Appellant was dissatisfied with this part of the ruling of the learned trial Judge and appealed to this Court in a notice of appeal filed on 26/6/2015. The notice of appeal has very copious particulars. These grounds are hereby reproduced in full thus:- <br< p=””