DEMILADE v. COP
(2020)LCN/14212(CA)
In The Court Of Appeal
(IBADAN JUDICIAL DIVISION)
On Thursday, May 14, 2020
CA/IB/223/2016
Before Our Lordships:
Jimi Olukayode Bada Justice of the Court of Appeal
Nonyerem Okoronkwo Justice of the Court of Appeal
Folasade Ayodeji Ojo Justice of the Court of Appeal
Between
OLAFUSI DEMILADE APPELANT(S)
And
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE RESPONDENT(S)
RATIO
WHAT IS A PRIMA FACIE CASE?
Then what is the meaning of aprima facie case?
A prima facie case means that there is ground or reason for the Court to proceed with the trial and that the evidence has disclosed an allegation which is uncontradicted and if believed would be sufficient to prove the case.
See:- ATOYEBI VS. FRN (2018) 5 NWLR PART 1612 PAGE 350.
– EHINDERO VS. FRN & ANOTHER (2018) 5 NWLR PART 1612 PAGE 301.
– DARIYE VS. FRN (2015) 10 NWLR PART 1467 PAGE 325.
– AGBO & OTHERS VS. THE STATE (2013) 11 NWLR PART 1365 PAGE 377.
– TONGO & ANOTHER VS. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (2007) 12 NWLR PART 1049 PAGE 525. PER BADA, J.C.A.
THE CRIMINAL OFFENCE OF CONSPIRACY
Conspiracy has been held in plethora of cases to be an agreement by two or more persons to do an unlawful act by unlawful means.
The two or more persons must be found to have combined in order to secure a conviction.
See the following cases:- GARBA VS. C.O.P (2007) 16 NWLR PART 1060 PAGE 378 AT 400.
– SMART VS. STATE (2016) 9 NWLR PART 1517 PAGE 447.
– NJOVENS & 3 OTHERS VS. THE STATE (1973) ALL NLR PAGE 371. The ingredients of the offence of conspiracy are:-
– There must be an agreement between two or more persons.
– The two or more persons must agree to do an unlawful act by illegal means.
The main substance of the offence of conspiracy is the meeting of minds of the conspirators which is hardly capable of direct proof.
The offence of conspiracy is established as a matter of inference deduced from certain criminal acts of the parties concerned.
See:- KAYODE VS. THE STATE (2016) 7 NWLR PART 1511 PAGE 199. The Appellant is also charged with stealing.
THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENCE OF STEALING
The essential elements of stealing are that:-
(a) There must be ownership of the thing stolen.
(b) The stolen thing is capable of being stolen, and
(c) The thing was fraudulently converted.
In order to prove stealing there must be ownership of the thing stolen and that the stolen thing is capable of being stolen, the PW1 testified, the testimony is contained at pages 12-14 of the record of appeal. PER BADA, J.C.A.
DUTY OF THE COURT WHEN A NO CASE SUBMISSION HAS BEEN ENTERED
The trite position of the law is that at the stage of no case submission, what the Court is enjoined to consider is not whether the evidence adduced by the Prosecution against the accused is sufficient to justify conviction but whether the Prosecution has indeed made out a prima facie case requiring some explanation from the accused person.
See – AJULUCHUKWU VS THE STATE (2014) 13 NWLR PART 1425 AT PAGE 641. TONGO VS C.O.P (2007) 12 NWLR PART 1049 PAGE 525. PER BADA, J.C.A.
WHEN CAN A NO CASE SUBMISSION BE MADE
A no case submission is usually made at the close of the case of the Prosecution. It is made where the accused person or his Counsel believes that there is no evidence on record to prove an essential ingredient of the offence for which the accused is charged. It is also made where the evidence adduced by the prosecution has been so discredited under Cross examination or is so manifestly unreliable that no reasonable Court or tribunal would safely convict on it. Where there exists evidence no matter how slight linking the accused person with the commission of the offence charged, a no case submission will be rejected. It follows therefore that a Court of Law will refuse to uphold a no case submission where there is evidence on record which requires some explanation from the accused. See ADAMA VS STATE (2018) 3 NWLR 1605) 94; EMEDO & ORS VS STATE (2002) 15 NWLR (Pt. 789) 196; UBANATU VS COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (2000) 2 NWLR (Pt. 643) FAGORIOLA VS FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA (2013) 17 NWLR (Pt.1383) 322; AJIDAGBA VS, IGP (1958) SCNLR 60 and OKORO VS THE STATE (1988) 5 NWLR (Pt. 94) 255. PER BADA, J.C.A.
JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This appeal emanated from the Judgment of the High Court of Justice Oyo State sitting in Ibadan division in Suit NO: I/4CA/2014 BETWEEN: OLAFUSI DEMILADE VS COMMISSIONER OF POLICE delivered on the 15th day of March, 2016 wherein the appeal of the Appellant was dismissed.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that the Appellant was charged along with three others at Magistrate Court in charge Number: MI/1818c/2012 with the offences of conspiracy to commit stealing and stealing. In proving the charge against the Appellant and his co-defendants at the Magistrate’s Court, the Prosecution called five witnesses and tendered nine Exhibits. At the close of the Prosecution’s case, the Appellant entered a no-case submission which was dismissed by the learned trial Magistrate.
The Appellant was dissatisfied with the ruling of the learned trial Magistrate and therefore appealed to the High Court i.e. the lower Court.
The lower Court after hearing the appeal delivered its Judgment on 15/3/2016, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ruling of the learned trial Magistrate and called
1
upon the Appellant and the others to enter their defence at the trial Court. The Appellant who is dissatisfied with the Judgment of the lower Court now appealed to this Court.
The learned Counsel for the Appellant formulated a sole issue for the determination of the appeal. The issue is set out as follows:-
“Whether the lower Court was right in finding that a prima facie case has been disclosed against the Appellant requiring the Appellant to enter his defence.”
On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Respondent also formulated a sole issue for the determination of the appeal. The sole issue is set out as follows:-
“Whether the lower Court was right in upholding the decision of the learned trial Magistrate that a prima facie case has been disclosed against the Appellant requiring him to enter his defence.”
At the hearing of this appeal on 9/3/2020 the learned Counsel for the Appellant stated that the appeal is against the Judgment of the Oyo State High Court delivered on 15/3/2016. The notice of appeal was filed on 27/3/2016. The record of appeal was transmitted to this Court on 20/6/2016. The
2
Appellant’s brief of argument was filed on 20/9/2016 and deemed as properly filed and served on 29/6/17.
The learned Counsel for the Appellant adopted and relied on the said Appellant’s brief of argument as his argument in urging that the appeal be allowed.
The learned Counsel for the Respondent referred to the Respondent’s brief of argument filed on 16/5/2019 and deemed as properly filed and served on 20/5/2019. She adopted and relied on the said Respondent’s brief as her argument in urging that the appeal be dismissed.
I have carefully gone through the issues formulated for determination of the appeal by Counsel for the parties in this appeal. The issues are more or less the same. But the issue formulated for the determination of the appeal by Counsel for the Appellant is apt in the determination of this appeal. I will therefore rely on the said issue.
ISSUE FOR THE DETERMINATION OF THIS APPEAL
“Whether the lower Court was right in finding that a prima facie case has been disclosed against the Appellant requiring the Appellant to enter his defence.”
The learned Counsel for the Appellant
3
referred to Section 286 of Criminal Procedure Law, Cap 39 Volume II Laws of Oyo State of Nigeria, 2000.
He submitted that the import of the Section 286 of the Criminal Procedure Law of Oyo State is that the Appellant could only be called upon to defend himself, if only it appears to the Court below that a case has been made out against him, sufficiently warranting him to offer his defence.
He relied on the following cases:
– DAVID EFFIOM VS STATE (2014) LPELR – 22646 (CA).
– EMEDO VS THE STATE (2002) 15 NWLR PART 789 PAGE 196.
– TONGO VS C.O.P (2007) LPELR – 3257 (SC).
He went further in his argument that a painstaking look at the evidence before the lower Court reveals that no Prima Facie case has been made against the Appellant. Learned Counsel for the Appellant referred particularly to:
(i) The statement of the 2nd accused person i.e. Exhibit “A7” at page 148 of the record of Appeal.
(ii) The statement of the 1st accused person, Lawal Akeem i.e. Exhibit “A6” at page 147 of the record of appeal.
(iii) The statement of the 3rd accused person (2nd Appellant herein) Exhibit “A8”
4
at pages 39-40.
(iv) The statement of the 4th accused person on page 41 of the record of appeal.
It was submitted on behalf of the Appellant that the Prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case against the Appellant when it failed to show that the Appellant stole or fraudulently took or converted the item stolen. It was also stated that the Prosecution failed to establish the fact that the Appellant conspired with any of the co-accused to carry out the unlawful act.
He relied on the following cases:-KAZA VS. THE STATE (2008) 7 NWLR PART 1085 PAGE 125 AT 176.
– KAYODE VS. STATE (2016) LPELR – 40028 (SC).
– IKWUNNE VS. THE STATE (2000) 3 NWLR PART 658 PAGE 550.
– OMOTOLA VS. THE STATE (2009) LPELR – 2663 SC.
– OBIAKOR VS. STATE (2002) 10 NWLR (PART 774 – 776) PAGE 612 AT 625.
It was finally submitted on behalf of the Appellant that for a Court to presume that an accused person is in fact a thief, the accused must be unable to account for his possession of the stolen property. Learned Counsel for the Appellant relied on the following cases of :- THE STATE VS. NNOLIM (1994) LPELR – 3222 (SC). -EZE VS. STATE (1985) 3 NWLR PART 13 PAGE 429.
5
Learned Counsel for the Appellant finally urged this Court to set aside the Judgment of the lower Court and discharge the Appellant.
The learned Counsel for the Respondent in his response to the submission of learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the import of Section 286 of the Criminal Procedure Law is that the Appellant shall be called upon to enter his defence if a prima facie case is disclosed against him by the prosecution’s evidence before the Court.
He relied on the following cases:- SUNDAY ADOBA VS. THE STATE (2018) 9 SCM PAGE 30 AT PAGE 46 PARAGRAPHS E – H.
– OKAFOR VS. THE STATE (2016) 6 SCM PAGE 170 AT 182 PARAGRAPHS G – I.
– ABIODUN ADEKOYA VS. THE STATE (2017) 1 SCM PAGE 38 AT 51 PARAGRAPHS G – I, A – D.
He argued that a community reading of the extra-judicial statements of the Appellant and the 3 other co-accused which were admitted in evidence as Exhibits “A6”, “A7”, “A8” and “A9” at the trial and other evidence placed before the learned trial Court clearly shows an agreement between the
6
Appellant and his other co-accused to commit an unlawful act.
The learned Counsel for the Respondent stated that the essential elements of the offence of stealing are that;
(a) There must be ownership of the thing stolen
(b) The thing stolen is capable of being stolen.
(c) The thing was fraudulently taken or fraudulently converted. He relied on – ONAGORUWA VS THE STATE (1993) 7 NWLR PART 303 PAGE 409.
He referred to the evidence of PW1 the owner of the Blackberry phone, –
Exhibit “A6” made by the 1st accused,
Exhibit “A7” statement made by the Appellant,
Exhibit “A8” i.e. statement of the 3rd accused at the trial Court.
And submitted that the Appellant misled himself in law when concluded that the Prosecution had not made out a prima facie case against the Appellant.
He submitted that all that the Court is called upon to do at the stage of No case submission is whether there exists legally admissible evidence linking the accused with the commission of the alleged offence.
He stated that the stolen good was found in possession of Appellant’s co-accused
7
who said she bought it from the Appellant which the Appellant admitted.
The learned Counsel for the Respondent therefore urged this Court to dismiss this Appeal and affirm the Judgment of the lower Court.
RESOLUTION
In this appeal under consideration, there is no doubt that the interpretation and application of the Provision of Section 286 of the Criminal procedure law, Cap 39, Volume II Laws of Oyo State 2000 formed the basis for the decision of the learned trial Magistrate delivered on 26/2/2014 which was upheld by the lower Court on 15/3/2016.
Section 286 of the Criminal Procedure Law (Supra) states as follows:-
“If at the close of the evidence in support of a charge it appears to the Court a case is not made out against the defendant sufficiently to require him to make a defence, the Court shall, as to that particular charge, discharge him.”
I am of the view that the significance of the Provision set out above is that the Appellant shall be called upon to enter his defence if a prima facie case is disclosed against him by the Prosecution’s evidence before the Court.
Then what is the meaning of a
8
prima facie case?
A prima facie case means that there is ground or reason for the Court to proceed with the trial and that the evidence has disclosed an allegation which is uncontradicted and if believed would be sufficient to prove the case.
See:- ATOYEBI VS. FRN (2018) 5 NWLR PART 1612 PAGE 350.
– EHINDERO VS. FRN & ANOTHER (2018) 5 NWLR PART 1612 PAGE 301.
– DARIYE VS. FRN (2015) 10 NWLR PART 1467 PAGE 325.
– AGBO & OTHERS VS. THE STATE (2013) 11 NWLR PART 1365 PAGE 377.
– TONGO & ANOTHER VS. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (2007) 12 NWLR PART 1049 PAGE 525.
The Appellant alongside three others were charged with stealing to wit: Conspiracy to steal. The Prosecution witnesses at the Magistrate Court testified that the following items were stolen in their rooms at Queen Idia Hall, University of Ibadan on 25/1/2012 at about 1:00am to 3:00a.m. The items alleged to have been stolen are listed as follows:-
(1) Blackberry bold II with pin 2287ABCC
(ii) Blackberry bold II with pin 21CJAF70
(iii) Blackberry Tour
(iv) Techno Handset
(v) Nokia C2 – C3
(vi) Nokia C3
(vii) H.P. Laptop
Conspiracy has been held in
9
plethora of cases to be an agreement by two or more persons to do an unlawful act by unlawful means.
The two or more persons must be found to have combined in order to secure a conviction.
See the following cases:- GARBA VS. C.O.P (2007) 16 NWLR PART 1060 PAGE 378 AT 400.
– SMART VS. STATE (2016) 9 NWLR PART 1517 PAGE 447.
– NJOVENS & 3 OTHERS VS. THE STATE (1973) ALL NLR PAGE 371.
The ingredients of the offence of conspiracy are:-
– There must be an agreement between two or more persons.
– The two or more persons must agree to do an unlawful act by illegal means.
The main substance of the offence of conspiracy is the meeting of minds of the conspirators which is hardly capable of direct proof.
The offence of conspiracy is established as a matter of inference deduced from certain criminal acts of the parties concerned.
See:- KAYODE VS. THE STATE (2016) 7 NWLR PART 1511 PAGE 199.
In this Appeal under consideration, the general reading of the extra-judicial statements of the Appellant and the three (3) other co-accused which were admitted in evidence as –
Exhibit – “A6”
Exhibit
10
– “A7”
Exhibit – “A8” and
Exhibit – “A9”
at the trial and all other evidence placed before the Court would reveal that there was an agreement between the Appellant and the other co-accused to commit the unlawful act.
For clarity Exhibit “A6” which is the statement of the 1st accused at pages 59 – 60 of the record of Appeal stated as follows:-
“I know Demilade “m,” he is my customer, he usually buy phones from me although I am into Bureau De Change but sometimes when I see anybody who wants to sell used phones I do sell for them and Demilade do buy used phone. ………..The phone I sold to Demilade has no receipt nor pack and charger. Ayo told me that the phone was sold to him by a U.I student and I told Demilade that I cannot guarantee the phone whether it is a stolen phone or not……..”
The said Demilade referred to in Exhibit “A6” above is the Appellant herein and he stated in his Extra-Judicial statement Exhibit “A7” at page 61 of the record of Appeal as follows:-
“I bought a white blackberry bold 2 from Mr.
11
Lawal Akeem on 28th July, 2012. I got to know Mr. Lawal Akeem from Sabo … I went along with Miss. Bimpe from the Department of Archeology and Anthropology. She bought it at the rate of N27, 000 from me …. I bought the phone from Mr. Lawal and gave it to Miss. Bimpe, I and Mr. Lawal Akeem has been in business since April 2012.”
Miss Adebimpe referred to in Exhibit “A7” above is the 3rd accused at the Magistrate Court and the 2nd Appellant at the lower Court. She stated in Exhibit A8 at page 62 of the record of appeal among others as follows:
“…….I bought a blackberry bold 2 from Demilade on the 28th of July, 2012, it was around one o’clock pm that I went to meet Demilade at Uncle Joe, Mokola Area, Ibadan……Demilade gave me …. And I paid the money to him immediately. When I asked for the receipt and the charger from Demilade he said UK used Blackberry doesn’t come with receipt and charger and I believed him.”
In this appeal, a careful perusal of Exhibits “A6”, “A7” and “A8” part of which are reproduced above would reveal that the Appellant
12
and the co-accused agreed to do an illegal Act. The gist of the offence of conspiracy is the meeting of the mind of the conspirators. This is hardly capable of direct proof for the offence of conspiracy is complete by the agreement to do the act or make the omission complained about. See – NJOVENS & 3 OTHERS VS STATE (SUPRA).
In the case of SULE MUSA VS THE STATE (2018) 13 NWLR PART 1636 AT PAGE 307. It was held by the Supreme Court among others as follows:-
“In OYEDIRAN VS REPUBLIC (1967) MNLR PAGE 122, Coker JSC explained the offence of conspiracy when His Lordship gave three examples of how a conspiracy may be formed.
(a) The conspirators may all directly communicate with each other at a particular place and time and enter into agreement with a common design.
(b) There may be one person who is the hub around whom the others revolve, like the centre of a circle, and the circumference.
(c) A person may communicate with A and A with B who in turn communicates with another and so on. This is called the “chain Conspiracy”. To establish conspiracy it is not necessary that the conspirators should know each
13
other. So long as they know of the existence and the intention or purpose of the conspiracy, the offence is complete.”
The Appellant is also charged with stealing. The essential elements of stealing are that:-
(a) There must be ownership of the thing stolen.
(b) The stolen thing is capable of being stolen, and
(c) The thing was fraudulently converted.
In order to prove stealing there must be ownership of the thing stolen and that the stolen thing is capable of being stolen, the PW1 testified, the testimony is contained at pages 12-14 of the record of appeal. She stated among others as follows:-
“My name is Yetunde Ashiru Ayanfunmilayo. I live in Queen Idia Hall, University of Ibadan, Oyo State……. So we all came back to the room to check for what was missing…… My blackberry phone was N27,000, Laptop was bought for N78,000. I was only able to recover the Blackberry phone after I had reported the matter. The Blackberry was recovered through tracking by my brother who used his phone to chat with the custodian…… My Blackberry phone was recovered from 3rd accused. The phone was later released to me on bond by a
14
Police Officer at Sango……”
The first and second ingredient of stealing has been satisfied by the above evidence of PW1.
A careful perusal of the statements of 1st Accused in Exhibit “A6”, the Appellant in Exhibit “A7”, the 3rd Accused’s statement who was 2nd Appellant at the lower Court i.e Exhibit “A8” earlier set out in this judgment would reveal that the Appellant and the co-accused have explanation to make as to the fraudulent conversion of the Blackberry Bold 2 belonging to PW1 i.e Yetunde Ashiru Ayanfunmilayo.
In this appeal, the learned Counsel for the Appellant made a No case submission before the trial Court which was dismissed by the lower Court. When Counsel makes a No case submission, the meaning in law is that there is no evidence on which even if believed, the Court can convict.
See the following cases:-
– IBEZIAKO VS C.O.P (1963) 1 ALL NLR PAGE 61.
– AJIDAGBA VS IGP (1958) 3 FSC PAGE 5, (1958) SCNLR PAGE 60.
The question whether or not the evidence is believed is immaterial, and does not arise. The credibility of the witnesses is not in issue. The governing
15
considerations are that:-
(a) An essential ingredient of the offence having not been proved or
(b) Where the evidence has been so discredited and rendered unreliable by cross examination that it would be unsafe to convict on such evidence.
The consequence of a successful submission of No case has been held in IBEZIAKO VS C.O.P (SUPRA) that such a discharge is equivalent to an acquittal and a dismissal of the complaint on merit. See: POLICE VS MARKE (1957) 2 FSC PAGE 5, (1957) SCNLR PAGE 53.
– ADEYEMI VS STATE (1991) 6 NWLR PART 195 PAGE 1.
The contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant is that there is no sufficient evidence to warrant the Appellant to be called upon to enter his defence in accordance with Section 287 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Law. (Supra).
The trite position of the law is that at the stage of no case submission, what the Court is enjoined to consider is not whether the evidence adduced by the Prosecution against the accused is sufficient to justify conviction but whether the Prosecution has indeed made out a prima facie case requiring some explanation from the accused person.
See – AJULUCHUKWU VS THE STATE (2014) 13 NWLR PART 1425 AT PAGE 641.
16
TONGO VS C.O.P (2007) 12 NWLR PART 1049 PAGE 525.
In this appeal, I am of the view that there are legally admissible evidence linking the Appellant to the commission of the offence for which he was charged. For example it is on record that one of the stolen goods i.e. the Blackberry Bold 2 phone which belongs to PW1 was found in the possession of the 3rd Accused person (Adejobi Olufunlola Adebimpe) who stated that it was the Appellant who sold the phone to her.
Therefore pursuant to Section 167 (a) of the Evidence Act 2011, the Court may presume that a man who is in possession of stolen good soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to have been stolen, unless he can account for his possession of such goods.
I am therefore of the view that the lower Court was right when it held among others that:-
“……..Even though there is no direct evidence of conspiracy to commit the offence of stealing and of a physical nexus between the Appellants and the scene of crime, there is a clear physical nexus between the accused persons and the stolen Blackberry
17
phone which is one of the items stolen at Idia hall on the day of incident which culminated in the case pending before the trial Court.”
In IKUFORIJI VS FRN (2018) 6 NWLR PART 1614 PAGE 142, it was held among others that at the stage of no case submission, the Court is not called upon to express any opinion on the evidence before it, as to their probative value. All that the Court is called upon to do is simply whether there exists admissible evidence linking the accused person with the commission of the alleged offence.
In this appeal, there is evidence on record that the stolen Blackberry Bold 2 phone was found possession of the Appellant’s co-accused Miss Adejobi Olufunlola Adebimpe who said that she bought the phone from Demilade i.e. the Appellant on 28/7/2012. The Appellant also admitted that he sold the phone to Miss Adebimpe from the department of Archaeology and Anthropology.
Consequent upon the foregoing, the lone issue in this appeal is resolved in favour of the Respondent and against the Appellant. In the result, it is my view that this appeal lacks merit and it is hereby dismissed.
The judgment of the lower Court
18
in Suit NO: I/4CA/2014 BETWEEN: OLAFUSI DEMILADE VS COMMISSIONER OF POLICE delivered on the 15th day of March, 2016 is hereby affirmed. Appeal Dismissed.
NONYEREM OKORONKWO, J.C.A.: The appeal in this proceeding is dependent on whether a prima facie case was made out by the prosecution at the end of its case at the trial Court.
A prima facie case means; of first appearance, on the face of it. Based on first impression, a case in which the evidence in favour of a party is sufficient to call for an answer from his opponent. See Dictionary of Law L.B. Curzon.
In State vs Emezie & 5 Ors. (1970 -1971) ECS 27 at 35 prima facie was rendered as Ground for Proceeding; that something has been produced to make it worthwhile to continue with the proceedings, on the face of it, it means evidence produced so far indicates there is something worthy looking at. There is evidence which raises a strong presumption.
Under Section 286 of the Criminal Procedure Act it means that there is some evidence when if uncontradicted and believed can lead to a conviction. It then behoves the party affected either to contradict such evidence or come under the
19
presumption it raises.
In this appeal, there is abundant evidence documentary and testamentary linking appellant with the charges which, if uncontradicted and are believed could justify a conviction. There is therefore no justification for the appellant making or calling for a no case submission as evidence clearly exist to the contrary.
I therefore agree with the judgment of my lord Jimi Olukayode Bada, JCA dismissing the appeal on that ground.
FOLASADE AYODEJI OJO, J.C.A.: I had a preview of the judgment just delivered by my learned Brother, OLUKAYAODE BADA. His Lordship has dealt extensively with the sole issue for determination in this appeal and I agree with his reasoning and conclusion reached therein.
The sole issue for determination in the appeal is whether the lower Court was right when it upheld the decision of the trial magistrate rejecting the no case submission made on behalf of the Appellant.
A no case submission is usually made at the close of the case of the Prosecution. It is made where the accused person or his Counsel believes that there is no evidence on record to prove an essential ingredient of the
20
offence for which the accused is charged. It is also made where the evidence adduced by the prosecution has been so discredited under Cross examination or is so manifestly unreliable that no reasonable Court or tribunal would safely convict on it. Where there exists evidence no matter how slight linking the accused person with the commission of the offence charged, a no case submission will be rejected. It follows therefore that a Court of Law will refuse to uphold a no case submission where there is evidence on record which requires some explanation from the accused. See ADAMA VS STATE (2018) 3 NWLR 1605) 94; EMEDO & ORS VS STATE (2002) 15 NWLR (Pt. 789) 196; UBANATU VS COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (2000) 2 NWLR (Pt. 643) FAGORIOLA VS FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA (2013) 17 NWLR (Pt.1383) 322; AJIDAGBA VS, IGP (1958) SCNLR 60 and OKORO VS THE STATE (1988) 5 NWLR (Pt. 94) 255.
I completely agree with my learned brother that at the stage of consideration of a no case submission a trial Court has no duty to consider whether there is sufficient evidence from the Prosecution to ground the conviction of the accused person. All the Court is concerned with is whether there is
21
prima facie evidence of the commission of the alleged offence by the accused person which requires an explanation from him.
In this appeal, the evidence presented by the prosecution before the trial magistrate is that some mobile phone devices which include Blackberry phones, Techno HANDSET AND Nokia phones as well as a HP (Hewlett Packard) Laptop were stolen from one of the rooms at Queen Idia Hall, University of Ibadan on 25th of January 2012. There is also evidence that the Appellant sold one of the stolen phones to the 2nd Accused person. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses was not discredited under cross examination and it cannot be said that the evidence was manifestly unreliable.
In the circumstance I am also of the view that there is the need for the Appellant to enter his defence to explain how he came into possession of the stolen Black berry phone. A prima facie case was made against him by the prosecution as such a no case submission made on his behalf cannot be sustained. The lower Court was right when it dismissed the Appellant’s appeal against the ruling of the trial magistrate rejecting the no case submission made on his
22
behalf.
I find this appeal time wasting and completely devoid of merit. I am in total agreement with my learned brother that it should be dismissed and it is also dismissed by me.
I affirm the judgment of the lower Court and order accelerated hearing of this case by the trial Magistrate Court.
23
Appearances:
D. A. AWOSIKA
For Appellant(s)
MRS H. M. AWOSEMUSI (Assistant Director, Oyo State Ministry of Justice)
For Respondent(s)
