The State V. Isyaku Abdullahi & Anor (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

IBRAHIM SHATA BDLIYA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

Isyaku Abdullahi and Abdullahi Sani, (hereinafter refer to as the respondents) were jointly arraigned on a two (2) counts charge before the Katsina State High Court (the Lower Court) for committing the offences of conspiracy and rape under Sections 97 and 283 of the Penal Code, respectively. They were alleged to have conspired and raped Hajara Isyaku. They pleaded not guilty to the two counts charge.

At the trial, the prosecution called five witnesses and tendered exhibits to prove the 2 counts against them. At the close of the prosecution case, the respondents gave evidence in their defence. They did not call other witness(es). They filed a written address. The prosecution informed the Court of its intention to file written address.

After hearing the parties, the learned trial judge of the Lower Court ruled on the 16th of March 2015 that the prosecution had no right to file written address by virtue of Section 35 of the Constitution 1999 (amended) and Section 180 (f) of the Evidence Act, 2011 (amended).

?Dissatisfied with the ruling of the Lower Court, the prosecution

1

filed a notice of appeal to this Court on the 19th of March 2015, challenging the ruling of the Lower Court on two grounds, which are thus:

“GROUND ONE

The learned trial judge erred in law when his Lordship denied the Appellant the right to file its final address.

Particulars of Error

1. That the Respondent were allowed to file their final address and adopt same.
2. That when the Appellant sought to file its own final address, the trial judge held that the Appellant has no right of address.
3. That despite the authorities cited and relied upon by the Appellant, the trial judge ruled against the Appellant and adjourned the case for judgment.

GROUND TWO

The learned trial judge erred in law and misdirected himself which occasioned miscarriage of justice when he relied on Section 35 of the Constitution and Section 180(f) of the Evidence Act and held that the decision of Court of Appeal in Kalu Vs The State is no longer relevant to the case.

2

Particulars of Error