The State V John Babatunde Lopez (1968)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

LEWIS,J.S.C. 

In this appeal from the decision of Hague Ag. J. in MD/36C1967 in the Makurdi High Court on 28th August, 1967 in which he found the accused guilty of an offence contrary to section 115 (1) of the Penal Code, the point taken by Mr. Thanni on behalf of the appellant is that the learned trial judge failed to comply with sections 268, and 269 of the Criminal Procedure Code which read as follows-

“268 (1) The judgment in every trial in a court shall be in writing and shall be pronounced, and the substance of it explained in a language under-stood by the accused in open court either on the day on which the hearing terminates or at some subsequent time of which due notice shall be given.

(2) If the accused is in custody he shall be brought up to hear judgment delivered; if he is in custody he shall be required to attend to hear judgment delivered; If he is not in custody he shall be required to attend to hear judgment delivered unless his presence is dispensed with by the court.

(3) No judgment delivered by any court shall be deemed to be invalid by reason only of the absence of any party or his counsel on the day or from the place notified for the delivery thereof, or of any omission to serve or defect in service on the parties or their counsel or any of them of the notice of such day and place.

269.(1) Every judgment shall contain the point or points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision and shall be dated and signed or sealed by the court at the time of pronouncing it.

(2) If the judgment is a judgment of conviction ft shall specify the offence of which and the section of the Penal Code or other law under which the accused is convicted and the punishment to which he is sentenced.

(3) If the judgment is a judgment of an acquittal it shall state the offence of which the accused is acquitted and direct that he be set at liberty.”

in that he gave no judgment in writing as the record reads:-

“Oral judgment delivered. Conviction as charged.”

It is clear that not only must the judgment be written but ft must also contain the matters laid down in section 269 and this was in no way done here. Indeed the Federal Supreme Court had cause to deal with section 245 of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, which reads:-

“The judge or magistrate shall record his judgment in writing and every such judgment shall contain the point or points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision and shall be dated and signed by the judge or magistrate at the time of pronouncing it:

Provided that in the case of a magistrate in lieu of writing such judgment it shall be sufficient compliance under this section If the magistrate:-

(a) records briefly in the book his decision thereon and where necessary his reasons for such decision and delivers an oral judgment, or