Senator Adolphus Ndaneweh Wabara V. Federal Republic Of Nigeria & Ors (2010)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the Ruling of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja delivered on the 17th day of February 2006 in Suit No- FCT/HC/CR/31/2006.

The said suit arose from Charge No: CR/3/2005 in which the 1st Accused who is now the Appellant and 2nd to 7th Accused Persons who were the Respondents were charged before the High Court of Justice of the federal Capital Territory, Abuja by the Complainant now the 1st Respondent in this appeal with conspiracy to commit the offence contrary to Section 26 of the Corrupt Practices And Other Related Offences Act, 2000, offering and obtaining gratification in the sum of N50,000.000.00 and N5,000.000.00 respectively contrary to Section 8, 9,10, 17 and 19 of the said Act and failure to report the offer of gratification contrary to Section 23 of the Act in the course of the same transaction.

The Appellant and the 2nd to 7th Respondent filed Preliminary Objections challenging the charge against them.

The trial Court delivered its Ruling on the 10th day of November 2005 wherein it dismissed the applications of the Accused Persons and stated the matter for definite hearing. The Appellant and the other Respondents excluding the 3rd and 6th Respondents appealed against the Ruling delivered on the 10th day of November 2005 by the trial Court.

The 3rd and 6th Respondents brought an application for a separate trial for themselves and ruling on a separate trial was delivered in their favour on the 17th day of February 2006.

The Appellant who is dissatisfied with the Ruling of the 17th February 2006 now appealed to this Court.

The learned Counsel for the Appellant formulated two issues for determination as follows:-

“1. Whether it was proper for the Learned trial Judge to have assumed jurisdiction to entertain the application for separate trial on the 14th day of February 2006 and delivered Ruling thereon on the 17th day of February, 2006, when the appeal against his earlier Ruling of 10th November 2005 had been entered and pending at the Court of Appeal as Appeal No: CA/A/7/C/2006.

2. Whether the Learned trial Judge was right when he granted the application for separate trial of the 3rd and 6th Accused/Respondents when the purported offences with which the Appellant the other Accused/Respondents as well as the 3rd and 6th Respondents herein were charged, were alleged to have been committed in the course of the same transaction.”

On the other hand the learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent aligned himself with the Appellant’s brief of argument in addition to the 1st Respondent’s brief of argument.

He also formulated a lone issue for determination as follows:-

“Whether the Learned trial Judge was right when he granted a separate trial for the 3rd and 6th Respondents and whether it was in the interest of Justice to have granted a separate trial in the circumstances of this case.”

At the hearing, the applications to discontinue the appeal against the 3rd 4th, 5th and 6th Respondents were granted and the appeal against them dismissed.

Those remaining as parties in this appeal are the Appellant, the 1st, 2nd and 7th Respondents. The 7th Respondent is now renumbered as 3rd Respondent.