|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| April 2007 |
|
|
Irregular transfer and null preliminary hearing did not vitiate trial; conviction and death sentence for murder upheld.
* Criminal procedure — High Court transfer of cases — s.173(2) vs s.256A(1) — invalid transfer to Resident Magistrate with extended jurisdiction.
* Criminal procedure — Preliminary hearing under s.192 — admissibility/effect when case not validly transferred — nullity.
* Appeal — omission of preliminary hearing and reference to material from a nullity — whether miscarriage of justice requiring retrial.
* Substantive law — murder vs self-defence — sufficiency of evidence and mandatory death sentence.
|
24 April 2007 |
|
Recent possession, voluntary cautioned statements and reliable circumstantial evidence upheld most convictions; dock identification without parade unsafe.
Criminal law – armed robbery – visual identification and dock identification – need for identification parade; Evidence Act s.122 – doctrine of recent possession; Criminal Procedure Act ss.230, 231 – accused’s right to be put to defence; voluntariness and admissibility of cautioned/confessional statements – trial-within-a-trial; in-camera evidence under s.186(1)(b) C.P.A.
|
19 April 2007 |
| March 2007 |
|
|
Appellants' convictions quashed for unsafe identification and trial court misdirection on burden of proof.
* Criminal law – Identification evidence – Reliability of single eyewitness identification at scene and at parade – Caution required where conditions are vague or unfavourable.
* Criminal procedure – Burden of proof – Trial court misdirection where it suggests accused must prove defence – accused need not discharge burden; prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
* Appellate review – Concurrent findings of fact – Court of Appeal may interfere where misdirection or material omission exists.
|
30 March 2007 |
|
Night identification was unreliable and reliance on prior conviction unlawfully prejudiced the appellants, so convictions were quashed.
* Criminal law – robbery with violence – visual identification – application of Waziri Amani standard – elimination of mistaken identity. * Evidence – prior convictions/bad character – inadmissibility and prejudice – s.56(1) Law of Evidence Act. * Evidence – effect of unexplained delay in arrest on reliability of identification. * Appellate review – improper reliance on extraneous convictions undermines safety of conviction.
|
30 March 2007 |
|
Unreliable night‑time identification and a tenuous inference from washing blood‑stained clothes led to quashing the appellants' convictions.
* Criminal law – Armed robbery – Identification evidence – Whether torchlight reflection from carpet and corrugated iron ceiling provided reliable identification – Identification must be unmistaken.
* Criminal procedure – Preliminary hearing under s.192 Criminal Procedure Act – Absence must cause prejudice to amount to miscarriage of justice.
* Evidence – Post‑offence conduct (washing alleged blood‑stained clothes) – Whether conduct at accused’s home justifies inferring participation by host.
|
30 March 2007 |
|
Convictions quashed where abduction elements and medical proof of rape were lacking and bias/grudge issues raised reasonable doubt.
Criminal law – abduction (s.134 Penal Code) – element of removal from custody; rape – requirement of medical corroboration (PF3) – reliance on complainant’s uncorroborated testimony; reasonable doubt – benefit to accused; alleged bias/apprehension of bias and evidence of grudge between parties; failure to call material witness; misdirection on appeal.
|
16 March 2007 |
|
Conviction quashed where eyewitness identification after a mob attack was generalized and unreliable.
Criminal law — Identification evidence — Requirement for detailed contemporaneous description where witnesses first see accused during confused or mob attacks — Risk of mistaken identity renders conviction unsafe.
|
16 March 2007 |
|
Ex parte judgment set aside where respondent failed to prove service of hearing summons on the appellant.
* Civil procedure – Ex parte judgment – Setting aside under Order IX Rule 13(1) – Requirement to prove service of summons on defendant – Burden of proof lies on party alleging service; process servers should be produced.
* Civil procedure – Validity of drawn orders – District Registrar may sign extracted orders; Order XX Rule 7 does not require judge’s signature on orders as for decrees.
* Service – Substituted service by publication – effect and sufficiency to permit hearing in absence of respondent.
|
16 March 2007 |
|
Reported
Ex-parte judgment set aside where plaintiff failed to prove service of hearing notice; burden to prove service rested on plaintiff.
Civil Procedure - setting aside ex-parte judgment (Order IX r.13) - proof of service of process - burden on plaintiff to prove service - process servers' testimony; Civil Procedure - validity of extracted orders signed by District Registrar (Order XX r.7); Service - substituted service by publication.
|
16 March 2007 |
|
Conviction for rape quashed where prosecution failed to prove carnal intercourse on the specific charged date.
Criminal law – Rape – Necessity to prove penetration however slight and the specific date charged – Medical evidence not conclusive where alternative causes possible – Conviction unsafe where no positive evidence of commission on charged date.
|
16 March 2007 |
|
Identification under Waziri Amani and prosecutrix’s testimony sufficed; concurrent findings upheld and appeal dismissed.
* Criminal law – visual identification – Waziri Amani guidelines – adequacy of lighting, observation time and prior acquaintance.
* Criminal law – appellate review – concurrence of trial and first appellate courts – disturbance only for misapprehension, perversity or miscarriage of justice.
* Evidence – spousal testimony – no automatic need for corroboration.
* Sexual offences – proof of penetration – prosecutrix’s evidence can suffice despite absence of semen or bruising.
* Recent possession and recovery of stolen property – corroborative of robbery.
|
16 March 2007 |
|
Identification of a known appellant under good lighting and co-accused admission upheld the conviction; appeal dismissed.
Criminal law — Armed robbery; identification evidence — recognition of a known suspect; prior description not required; identification parade unnecessary when suspect known; corroboration by co-accused's admission; alibi properly rejected.
|
16 March 2007 |
|
Reported
Court dismissed preliminary objections and held the applicant’s Rule 40 correction application timely and not defectively filed.
* Civil procedure – Rule 40 (correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes) – "at any time" construed in light of finality; corrective applications must be made within a reasonable time and ordinarily before execution is completed.
* Execution – discovery of error during execution preserves right to apply for correction.
* Advocates Act s.44(1) – endorsement requirement aimed at unqualified preparers; notice of motion signed by an advocate not incurably defective.
* Court Rules – Rule 45 governs filing of applications; procedural formalities satisfied where an advocate signs the notice.
|
16 March 2007 |
|
Application to correct Court’s clerical error allowed as timely; notice of motion valid despite lack of preparer endorsement.
Court Rules (Rule 40) – correction of clerical or arithmetical errors – timing and finality; Advocates Act s.44 – endorsement of instruments – scope (unqualified preparers) and applicability to notices of motion.
|
16 March 2007 |
|
An application to correct a clerical error under Rule 40 must be made before execution completes; omission of preparer’s name did not invalidate the notice.
Civil procedure – Rule 40(1) Court Rules – Correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes; time limits and finality of execution; Advocates Act s.44(1) – endorsement of preparer's name – applicability only to unqualified preparers; procedural competence of notice of motion.
|
16 March 2007 |
|
An application for extension of time to appeal is incompetent unless the applicant first obtains High Court leave to give notice of appeal.
* Appellate procedure – extension of time – requirement to file notice of appeal – effect of striking out appeal on notice of appeal; Rule 44 and concurrent jurisdiction; jurisdictional competence of Court of Appeal to hear extension to give notice of appeal.
|
16 March 2007 |
|
Convictions quashed where identification was unsafe due to poor lighting, witness inconsistencies and delays in arrest.
Criminal law — Identification evidence — Conditions for identification (lighting, sudden awakening, prior knowledge) — Delay in arrest affecting credibility — Preliminary hearing omission not automatically fatal.
|
16 March 2007 |
|
A transfer under section 256A(1) made after the preliminary hearing renders the subsequent trial proceedings null and void.
* Criminal procedure – Transfer under section 256A(1) Criminal Procedure Act – timing of transfer – transfer must be made before plea-taking and preliminary hearing.
* Preliminary hearing – part and parcel of the trial – factual findings at preliminary hearing bind subsequent proceedings.
* Procedural irregularity – transfer after preliminary hearing renders subsequent trial and judgment null and void.
* Remedy – matter to proceed in High Court from stage reached after preliminary hearing; direction to complete within specified timeframe.
|
16 March 2007 |
|
Delay in bringing the suspect to court and unexplained forensic inconsistencies rendered the alleged confession and conviction unsafe.
Criminal law – identification evidence – requirement for reliable conditions and corroboration; Confessions and admissions – voluntariness – unlawful or prolonged police custody and failure to administer caution; Criminal Procedure Act s.32(2) – bringing detained suspect to court as soon as practicable; Forensic evidence – unexplained alternative weapon and blood-group inconsistencies – effect on proof beyond reasonable doubt.
|
16 March 2007 |
|
Insufficient identification, contradictory possession evidence and likely coerced confession rendered the prosecution's case unsafe.
Criminal law – Identification evidence – recognition in low-detail lighting; Doctrine of recent possession – contradictions in recovery accounts; Admissibility of cautioned statements – voluntariness and corroboration where torture alleged; Proof beyond reasonable doubt.
|
16 March 2007 |
|
Circumstantial evidence and the accused's conduct can sustain a murder conviction even without established cause of death.
* Criminal law – Circumstantial evidence – conviction may be based on circumstances that are incompatible with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence.
* Criminal law – Defence of alibi – assessment against credible prosecution evidence; accused not relieved of adducing credible supporting facts.
* Criminal law – Proof of cause of death – not always necessary where surrounding circumstances and concealment infer unlawful killing.
* Evidence – Credibility of witnesses and conduct of accused (false statements; leading police to burial site) as strong circumstantial links to guilt.
|
16 March 2007 |
|
Reported
Circumstantial evidence can sustain a murder conviction even without established cause of death or eyewitnesses.
Criminal law – Murder – Circumstantial evidence may suffice to convict where cause of death is unestablished; test is whether inculpatory facts exclude any reasonable hypothesis of innocence; burden of proof remains on prosecution; minor inconsistencies after long delay are immaterial if core testimony is credible.
|
16 March 2007 |
|
The application for review was time-barred and substantively inappropriate; reduction of sentence lies with the prerogative of mercy.
* Criminal procedure – Review of Court of Appeal decisions – Time limit for review applications fixed at 60 days – Application filed out of time.
* Judicial review – Inherent powers – Review sparingly exercised and limited to exceptional circumstances; grounds that amount to a disguised appeal are not proper.
* Sentencing/mercy – Remorse and plea for reduction of sentence are matters for the prerogative of mercy, not judicial review.
|
16 March 2007 |
|
Reported
Failure to inform the applicant of s231(1) CPA rights rendered the conviction and subsequent appeals null, requiring remittal.
Criminal procedure – section 231(1) Criminal Procedure Act – right to be heard (audi alteram partem) – failure to inform accused of right to give evidence and call witnesses – fundamental irregularity – judgment a nullity – consequent setting aside of High Court proceedings – remittal for compliance and rehearing.
|
16 March 2007 |
|
Reported
An equivocal guilty plea cannot sustain a rape conviction if the admitted facts do not disclose the offence; conviction quashed.
* Criminal law – Plea of guilty – Equivocal plea – Admitted facts must disclose the charged offence; conviction on plea open to appeal if facts do not constitute offence. * Criminal law – Rape – Elements – Sexual intercourse must be established in the facts. * Procedure – Recording plea – Where plea is equivocal a plea of not guilty should be entered and trial conducted. * Appeal – High Court erred in treating plea as unequivocal.
|
16 March 2007 |
|
Where admitted facts do not establish rape, a guilty plea is equivocal and conviction must be quashed.
* Criminal law – Plea of guilty – Equivocal plea where admitted facts do not disclose charged offence – Conviction on such plea liable to be quashed. * Evidence – Facts admitted in support of a guilty plea must legally constitute the offence charged; absence of sexual intercourse means rape not established. * Procedure – Trial court should enter not guilty and proceed to trial where admitted facts fall short of offence. * Appeal – Accused may appeal conviction entered on own plea when admitted facts cannot sustain conviction.
|
16 March 2007 |
|
Reported
Caution under section 57 admissible despite third‑party presence; confession corroborated and appeal dismissed.
* Criminal procedure – caution/confession – form of recording under section 57 versus section 58 – admissibility of confessions recorded in question‑and‑answer form.
* Criminal procedure – presence of third party during recording – improper but not necessarily vitiating voluntariness absent evidence of prejudice.
* Criminal procedure – assessors – usual practice to retire during trial‑within‑a‑trial; failure curable if no miscarriage of justice.
* Criminal law – defence of compulsion – requires threat of instant death or grievous bodily harm.
* Sentencing – age at offence – section 26(2) Penal Code; medical evidence on PF3 relevant to eligibility for death sentence.
|
16 March 2007 |
|
Whether a Q&A-recorded caution statement with a stranger present was admissible and whether the death sentence was lawful.
* Criminal procedure – admissibility of confessional statements – distinction between interviews under s.57 and volunteered statements under s.58 – confession during interview admissible if voluntary.
* Criminal procedure – presence of third parties during recording of statements – irregularity vs prejudice to voluntariness.
* Criminal procedure – trial-within-a-trial – assessors ought to retire when admissibility contested; failure to do so curable where no prejudice.
* Criminal law – defence of compulsion under Penal Code s.17 – requires instant threat of death or grievous bodily harm.
* Sentencing – age threshold for death penalty – court may rely on medical reports and accused’s own evidence.
|
16 March 2007 |
|
Reported
Unsatisfactory identification and improperly disregarded alibi made the robbery conviction unsafe; appeal allowed and appellant released.
* Criminal law – Robbery with violence – sufficiency of identification evidence – quality of light, vantage and possibility of mistaken identity. * Criminal procedure – Alibi raised after prosecution case – court’s discretion under s.194(6) Criminal Procedure Act to accord weight and consequences of failing to consider alibi. * Appeal – unsafe conviction where identification unsatisfactory and alibi improperly disregarded.
|
16 March 2007 |
|
|
16 March 2007 |
|
Reported
Nighttime identification and uncertain recovery of stolen property rendered the robbery conviction unsafe; conviction quashed.
* Criminal law — Identification evidence — visual identification at night — need for particulars (source/intensity of light, proximity, duration, familiarity) and caution in relying on such evidence.
* Criminal law — Recovery of stolen property — proof of possession and chain of custody; contradictions among prosecution witnesses and failure to call material witness undermine prosecution.
* Appellate review — conviction unsafe where identification and possession evidence are weak or contradictory.
|
16 March 2007 |
|
Conviction affirmed on unequivocal guilty plea; prison sentence quashed because appellant was a young person and sentencing provisions were inapplicable.
* Criminal law – plea of guilty – when plea is unequivocal and bars appeal under s.360(1) Criminal Procedure Act.
* Sentencing – proof of age – burden and resolution of reasonable doubt in favour of accused.
* Minimum Sentences Act – does not apply to persons under 18; Children and Young Persons Act limits imprisonment for young persons.
|
16 March 2007 |
|
Recognition in good light plus possession of stolen property upheld conviction for armed robbery.
* Criminal law – Identification evidence – Recognition by known witnesses in good lighting and prolonged observation – Caution required but quality of recognition can be conclusive. * Criminal law – Identification parade – Not always necessary where witnesses had prior acquaintance and good opportunity to observe. * Evidence – Possession of recently stolen property as corroboration of identification.
|
16 March 2007 |
|
Recognition by known victims and possession of stolen property sufficiently proved armed robbery; appeal dismissed.
Criminal law – Armed robbery – Identification evidence by known witnesses under good lighting – no requirement for identification parade where prior acquaintance exists; possession of stolen property as corroboration; appellate review of identification quality.
|
16 March 2007 |
|
A resident magistrate with extended jurisdiction cannot sit as the High Court; such proceedings are null and must be re-heard.
* Criminal procedure – transfer of High Court appeal under s.45(2), Magistrates' Courts Act – resident magistrate with extended jurisdiction must hear transferred appeals in the court of the resident magistrate and is 'deemed' to be a High Court judge only for appeal purposes.
* Jurisdiction – proceedings and judgment where a resident magistrate purports to sit in the High Court are nullities for want of jurisdiction.
* Procedure – requirements for transfer, venue of hearing and separate registration for extended-jurisdiction cases.
|
16 March 2007 |
|
The applicant's rape conviction quashed where the prosecution failed to prove the charged date and produced inconsistent medical evidence.
Criminal law – Rape – Necessity to prove offence as charged (date and particulars) – Specificity of charge; Evidence – Complainant’s unspecific dates; Medical evidence (PF.3) – timing of examination vs charged date; Missing eyewitness – failure to call and effect on prosecution case; Delay in reporting – effect on credibility; Conviction unsafe – quashed.
|
16 March 2007 |
|
A voluntary cautioned statement properly recorded can sustain conviction despite defective preliminary hearing.
Criminal law – cautioned statement – admissibility where investigating officer also acted as interpreter/recorder; Criminal procedure – non‑compliance with s.192(3) CPA and Rules 4 & 6 (preliminary hearing) vitiates proceedings; Evidence – retracted confession may suffice to convict if court satisfied of its truth; conviction upheld.
|
16 March 2007 |
|
An affidavit omitting the place in the jurat is incurably defective and renders the application incompetent.
* Civil procedure — Affidavit jurat — Requirement to state place and date under section 8 Notaries Public and Commissioners for Oaths Act — Omission renders affidavit incurably defective. * Constitutional law — Article 107A(2)(e) — Guidance against undue technicality does not override mandatory statutory procedural requirements. * Competence — Application supported by incurably defective affidavit is incompetent and liable to be struck out.
|
16 March 2007 |
|
Reported
Omission of the place in the jurat renders the supporting affidavit incurably defective; application struck out with costs.
Notaries Public and Commissioners for Oaths Act s.8 – jurat of attestation – omission of place in jurat renders affidavit incurably defective; Constitutional provision (Art.107A(2)(e)) cannot be used to dispense with mandatory statutory procedural requirements; review application incompetent and struck out.
|
16 March 2007 |
|
A jurat omitting the place is incurably defective under s.8; application struck out with costs.
Notaries Public and Commissioners for Oaths Act (s.8) – jurat must state place and date – omission renders affidavit incurably defective; Constitutional provision (Art.107A(2)(e)) – administrative flexibility does not override clear statutory requirements; procedural irregularity – harmless error doctrine not applicable where statute mandates jurat content.
|
16 March 2007 |
| February 2007 |
|
|
Reported
Negligence by counsel or unproven lack of prison assistance do not automatically justify extension of appeal time.
Criminal procedure — extension of time to lodge notice and memorandum of appeal; Rule 8 Court of Appeal Rules; negligence of counsel/oversight generally not sufficient cause; absence of evidence of prison authorities' refusal to assist; unsupported assertion of prospects of success insufficient.
|
23 February 2007 |
|
Extension refused where applicant failed to prove sufficient cause, evidential support, or assessable prospects of success.
Criminal procedure — extension of time under Rule 8 — applicant represented at judgment — negligence of counsel generally insufficient — need for evidential proof (affidavit from former counsel/prison officers) — prospects of success must be supported by material enabling assessment.
|
23 February 2007 |
|
|
23 February 2007 |
|
A notice of motion lacking signature, grounds, and legal basis is incurably defective and renders the application incompetent.
Court of Appeal procedure — Rule 45(1) & (2) — Notice of motion must substantially conform to Form A, be signed, state grounds and cite legal basis; absence of signature, grounds or legal citation renders application incompetent; remedy: strike out with liberty to refile.
|
23 February 2007 |
|
Reported
An appeal lacking an extracted order dated on the ruling’s pronouncement is incompetent and is struck out.
Civil procedure – appeals – compliance with Court of Appeal Rules (Rule 79 and Rule 90) – service of memorandum and record; Civil procedure – extracted orders and decrees – requirement that extracted order bear date of pronouncement (Order 20 Rule 7; Order 40(2)); Appeal competency – omission of correctly dated extracted order fatal to appeal (Rule 89(1)(h)).
|
23 February 2007 |
|
An appeal lacking the extracted order required by rule 89(1)(h) is incompetent and must be struck out.
Civil procedure – Record of appeal – Requirement to include extracted decree/order per rule 89(1)(h); preliminary objections – notice requirement under rule 100; registry errors do not absolve appellant’s duty to supply a complete record; incompetence of appeal where extracted order absent.
|
23 February 2007 |
|
The applicant challenged proceedings where a resident magistrate improperly sat in the High Court; Court held such proceedings void.
Appellate procedure — revision under s.4(3) AJA; Magistrates’ Courts Act s.45(2) — appeals in High Court must be transferred to resident magistrate’s court vested with extended jurisdiction; Jurisdiction — Principal Resident Magistrate not being a High Court judge cannot lawfully sit in the High Court; Proceedings so conducted are a nullity; Procedural discretion — Court may proceed in absence of respondent’s administrator under rule 3(2)(b) where issue is purely legal and further adjournment would be futile.
|
23 February 2007 |
|
Proceedings by a magistrate exercising extended jurisdiction while sitting in the High Court were void; Court proceeded in respondent’s absence.
* Civil procedure — Revision — Referral under s.4(3) Appellate Jurisdiction Act — Correctness, legality and propriety of proceedings. * Magistrates' Court — Extended jurisdiction — s.45(2) Magistrates' Court's Act — A resident magistrate not appointed a High Court judge cannot sit in the High Court. * Procedure — Proceeding in absence under rule 3(2)(b) where respondent deceased and no administrator appointed. * Effect — Proceedings conducted by incompetent tribunal are null and void and must be set aside.
|
23 February 2007 |
|
Reported
The court granted the applicant a 14-day extension to apply for leave to appeal, finding sufficient reason for the delay.
* Civil procedure – Extension of time – Rule 8 of the Court Rules – Requirement to show sufficient reason – effect of an application struck out for defective affidavit and calculation of time thereafter. * Counsel’s inadvertence or lack of service not necessarily fatal to an extension application when applicant acts promptly after becoming aware.
|
23 February 2007 |
|
Applicant granted 14-day extension to apply for leave to appeal after Court found sufficient cause for delay.
* Civil procedure – extension of time – Rule 8 Court Rules – requirement of sufficient reason – effect of previous striking-out for defective affidavit – computation of time from High Court refusal and from knowledge of striking-out.* Diligence of counsel – delay after becoming aware of ruling – whether clerk's potential action or counsel's attendance at court negates sufficiency of reason.* Procedural limitation – merits of intended appeal not considered at extension stage.
|
23 February 2007 |