LawCare Nigeria

Nigeria Legal Information & Law Reports

ABUBAKAR v. COP, YOBE STATE (2022)

ABUBAKAR v. COP, YOBE STATE

(2022)LCN/15961(CA)

In The Court Of Appeal

(GOMBE JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Thursday, June 16, 2022

CA/G/142C/2021

Before Our Lordships:

Jummai Hannatu Sankey Justice of the Court of Appeal

Ibrahim Shata Bdliya Justice of the Court of Appeal

Ebiowei Tobi Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

HASSAN ABUBAKAR APPELANT(S)

And

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE YOBE STATE RESPONDENT(S)

 

RATIO

THE POSITION OF LAW ON RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

The law is trite that the record of proceedings is the only indication of what took place in Court; it is like the minutes of a meeting, it is always the final reference of events, step by step, that took place in Court. See Fawehinmi Construction Co. Ltd V OAU (1998) LPELR-1256(SC) 10, B, per Belgore, JSC. In the case of Offor V State (2012) LPELR-19658(SC) 26-27, E-C, the Supreme Court per Ogunbiyi, JSC reiterated the paramountcy and inviolability of the record of Court proceedings as follows:
“It has been laid down and is an accepted principle of legal practice the Court and obviously all the parties are bound by the records of proceedings which are conducted in Court. None of the parties raised an objection against the record of the trial Court or any record at all. There was also no objection as to that which transpired in the trial Court which was the foundational basis of the lower Court’s judgment and hence the appeal now before us. The authority in the case of Ndayako V Mohammed (2006) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1009) 655 is relevant and supportive wherein the Court of Appeal at page 673 held and said:-
“The record of appeal is the final reference of events, step by step; that took place in the Court.”
Again, in the case of Access Bank Plc V Onwuliri (2021) LPELR-53078(SC), 16-17, A-C, Kekere-Ekun, JSC held –
“It is settled law that an appeal is in the nature of a rehearing in respect of all the issues raised in respect of the original case. It is a continuation of the original suit rather than a new action… In the circumstances, the importance of the transmission of a complete record consists of all the proceedings in the lower Court, including the processes filed that are relevant to the just determination of the appeal as well as the exhibits tendered. The record of proceedings serves as the reference material for the appellate Court upon which to base any of its findings. The importance of the record of proceedings is further illustrated by the numerous decisions of this Court to the effect that the Court, the parties and their Counsel are bound by the record of appeal. It is presumed correct until the contrary is proved and neither the Court nor the parties may go outside it for any reason.” (Emphasis supplied).
PER SANKEY, J.C.A.

THE MEANING OF “SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE”

In the case of Omoju V FRN (2008) LPELR-2647(SC) 14, F-G, Tobi, JSC explained what substantial justice entails:
“Substantial justice, which is actual and concrete justice, is justice personified. It is secreted in the elbows of cordial and fair jurisprudence with a human face and understanding. It is excellent to follow in our law. It pays to follow it as it brings invaluable dividends in any legal system anchored and predicated on the rule of law, the life blood of democracy.”
On the duty of Courts of law to do substantial justice, see also the following cases: Saleh V Abah (2017) LPELR-41914(SC) 53-54, E-B; Gombe State V Coop Savings & Loans Ltd (2021) LPELR-54597(CA) 24, A-B; John V State (2019) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1676) 160, 174; Brittania-U (Nig) Ltd V SPDC Ltd (2016) LPELR-40007(SC) 49, D-E; Olatunbosun V State (2013) LPELR-20939(SC) 21, D-F; Ekwere V State (1981) LPELR-1103(SC) 304, F-B.
Thus, the law is since settled that wherever there is a contest between technical and substantial justice, substantial justice will prevail. Justice by ambush on technicalities no longer rules the day or holds sway, as Courts have gravitated away from the regime of doing technical justice to the arena of doing substantial justice. The Court cannot abandon substance to chase shadows.
PER SANKEY, J.C.A.

THE DUTY OF THE TRIAL COURT IN CONSIDERING A NO-CASE SUBMISSION

This procedure, which is amply provided for in the Criminal Procedure Rules, was made crystal clear in the case of Atoyebi V FRN (2017) LPELR-43831(SC) 13-14, D-B, per Sanusi, JSC when he held as follows:
“I must say that at the stage of considering a no-case submission, the Court is simply to ascertain if the prosecution has made a prima facie case requiring the accused to offer some explanation and NOT whether the evidence led against him is sufficient to justify conviction. See Ekwunugo V FRN (2008) 7 SCNJ 241 at 242. Again, in writing a ruling on a no-case submission, it is advisable that a trial Court should try as much as possible to be brief and should refrain from making any remarks or observations on the facts.

Similarly, it is not the duty of the trial Judge to, at that stage, weigh and evaluate evidence or to decide who is telling the truth or not. It should also not conclude that what the prosecution adduced was unreliable.”
See also: Amah V FRN (2019) LPELR-46347(SC) 43, A-B, per Kekere-Ekun, JSC; Oko V State (2017) LPELR-42267(SC) 58-59, C, per Augie, JSC; Agbo V State (2013) LPELR-20388(SC); Adeyemi V State (1991) 7 SC (Pt. II) 1.  PER SANKEY, J.C.A.

JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This appeal is against the judgment of the High Court of Justice, Yobe State sitting in its appellate jurisdiction delivered on 10th September, 2021, Coram: U.Z. Mohammed, J. and K.B. Yusuf, J., wherein it affirmed the decision of the trial Chief Magistrate Court, Damaturu dismissing the no-case submission of the Appellant.

The facts leading to the appeal are concisely as follows: The Appellant was arraigned before the Chief Magistrate Court Damaturu, along with three other accused persons, on a First Information Report for the offences of criminal conspiracy, cheating by impersonation, defamation of character and criminal intimidation under Sections 97, 392, 324 and 397 of the Penal Code. In proof of the allegations, the prosecution adduced evidence through eleven witnesses and nine exhibits. At the close of the prosecution’s case, Counsel for the accused persons including the Appellant, on their behalf addressed the trial Court on a no-case submission. The learned trial Magistrate, having considered the evidence vis-à-vis the submissions of Counsel, upheld the no-case submission in respect of the fourth accused person and discharged him. However, he held that the three other accused persons had a case to answer and invited them to enter their defences. Aggrieved by this decision, the Appellant, who was the first accused person, filed an appeal to the lower Court. After hearing the appeal, the lower Court affirmed the decision of the trial Chief Magistrate Court. Still dissatisfied, the Appellant filed an appeal to this Court on 19th November, 2021 wherein he complained on five grounds. He seeks the following reliefs from this Court:
“An order of this Court allowing the appeal, setting aside the decision of the lower Court, upholding the no-case submission and discharge the Appellant.”

At the hearing of the appeal on 28-03-22, learned Counsel for the Appellant, F.A. Akinola Esq., adopted the Appellant’s Brief of Argument filed on 25-02-22, deemed filed on 01-03-22 and settled by the same Counsel, in urging the Court to allow the appeal, uphold the no-case submission and discharge the Appellant. In further oral adumbration in respect of issue two for determination, Counsel relied on the case of AG Rivers State V Ude (2006) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1008) 436, 456 on the principle of fair hearing. Learned Counsel for the Respondent, A.B. Mohammed Esq., PSC Yobe State Ministry of Justice, also adopted the Respondent’s Brief of argument filed on 18-03-22 and settled by the same Counsel, in urging the Court to dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgment of the lower Court.

In his Brief of Argument, learned Counsel for the Appellant donated two issues for determination thus:
a) “Whether the Appellant has a case to answer. (Grounds 1, 3 and 5)
b) Whether the Appellant’s right to fair hearing was not breached by the lower Court when it went on a voyage of discovery on whether or not the Appellant and his co-accused were charged, and resolved same without hearing the parties. (Grounds 2 and 4)”

Learned counsel for the Respondent in the Respondent’s Brief of Argument, adopted the issues for determination in arguing the appeal.

The two issues shall be used to resolve the appeal, but they will be addressed together.

​ARGUMENTS
In respect of issue one, learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that from the evidence placed before the trial Chief Magistrate Court, the Appellant had no case to answer and should have been discharged. He contends that PW1, the alleged victim of the crime, told the trial Court that he did not know the Appellant.

​On issue two, Counsel submitted that the Appellant had canvassed before the lower Court that the Appellant and his co-accused persons were not charged after the no-case submission was overruled by the trial Court. Even though the lower Court agreed that this was what was contained in the record of proceedings transmitted to that Court, it proceeded to make an order on the trial Court to produce the original record/manuscript of its proceedings in its quest to do substantial justice. Counsel submits that parties were entitled to be heard after the original record of the trial Court was produced and before the lower Court made its findings on the issue of whether or not a charge or charges were framed against the Appellant and co-accused persons. He submits that the failure to hear from the parties before resolving the issue occasioned a miscarriage of justice. He also questions the sequence of the pages in the original manuscript of the record where the charges were found on the ground that they were not chronological.

In his response on issue one, learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that when a no-case submission is made at the close of the prosecution’s case, all that the trial Court is required to do is to look at the totality of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and see if there is reasonable and sufficient legally admissible evidence which shows some connection, link, relation or nexus between the accused and the facts which constitute the offences alleged against him, such that some explanation would reasonably be expected from him. In other words, the trial Court only has to be satisfied that a prima facie case is disclosed against an accused. At this stage, the Court is not called upon to express any opinion on the evidence placed before it. For this, he relied on a number of decided cases. Counsel drew the Court’s attention to the evidence placed before the trial Court through eleven witnesses and numerous exhibits, and urged the Court to affirm the decision of the lower Court.

​On the second issue, Counsel submits that the lower Court only called for the record of proceedings, but did not hear one party and denied the other party of the same opportunity. Thus, the Appellant’s right of fair hearing was not breached. In addition, the charge was framed, read over and explained to the accused persons in English language and each of them pleaded not guilty thereto. He argues that the failure of the trial Magistrate to record the charge and plea of each of the accused persons separately in direct speech was not fatal to their plea, so long as the charge was read over and explained to them, whether jointly or separately, and they understood, and thereafter, each of them individually entered his plea thereto. This is more so that the lower Court called for the record of the trial Court and confirmed that the charge was contained in the original record book of the trial Court. In conclusion, Counsel submits that the evidence of the witnesses connected the Appellant to the offences, and so, the singular act of the lower Court calling for the original record of proceedings did not give rise to any breach of the Appellant’s right to fair hearing. Counsel therefore urged the Court to resolve the issues in favour of the Respondent, dismiss the appeal and affirm the decision of the lower Court.

RESOLUTION OF ISSUES
The law is trite that the record of proceedings is the only indication of what took place in Court; it is like the minutes of a meeting, it is always the final reference of events, step by step, that took place in Court. See Fawehinmi Construction Co. Ltd V OAU (1998) LPELR-1256(SC) 10, B, per Belgore, JSC. In the case of Offor V State (2012) LPELR-19658(SC) 26-27, E-C, the Supreme Court per Ogunbiyi, JSC reiterated the paramountcy and inviolability of the record of Court proceedings as follows:
“It has been laid down and is an accepted principle of legal practice the Court and obviously all the parties are bound by the records of proceedings which are conducted in Court. None of the parties raised an objection against the record of the trial Court or any record at all. There was also no objection as to that which transpired in the trial Court which was the foundational basis of the lower Court’s judgment and hence the appeal now before us. The authority in the case of Ndayako V Mohammed (2006) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1009) 655 is relevant and supportive wherein the Court of Appeal at page 673 held and said:-
“The record of appeal is the final reference of events, step by step; that took place in the Court.”
Again, in the case of Access Bank Plc V Onwuliri (2021) LPELR-53078(SC), 16-17, A-C, Kekere-Ekun, JSC held –
“It is settled law that an appeal is in the nature of a rehearing in respect of all the issues raised in respect of the original case. It is a continuation of the original suit rather than a new action… In the circumstances, the importance of the transmission of a complete record consists of all the proceedings in the lower Court, including the processes filed that are relevant to the just determination of the appeal as well as the exhibits tendered. The record of proceedings serves as the reference material for the appellate Court upon which to base any of its findings. The importance of the record of proceedings is further illustrated by the numerous decisions of this Court to the effect that the Court, the parties and their Counsel are bound by the record of appeal. It is presumed correct until the contrary is proved and neither the Court nor the parties may go outside it for any reason.” (Emphasis supplied)

The crux of the appeal before this Court is that the lower Court erred when, in the interest of substantial justice, it called for the original manuscript of the record of proceedings in order to determine whether, as asserted by the Appellant, no charge was framed against the Appellant and his co-accused persons. That by so doing, the Appellant, in particular, and by extension, the Respondent, who was not heard before such a step was taken, was denied a fair hearing. Can this really be so?

​It is self-evident that the record of proceedings placed before the lower Court stopped only at the stage where the no-case submission made on behalf of the four accused persons was upheld by the trial Court in respect of the fourth accused person and dismissed in respect of the other three accused persons, including the Appellant. After perusing the submissions of learned Counsel for the Appellant and that of learned Counsel for the Respondent, the lower Court stated as follows at pages 65-66 of its judgment in the printed record of appeal:
“I entirely agree with F.A. Akinola Esq. that procedurally after overruling a no-case submission a magistrate will go ahead to frame a charge against an accused… In the appeal before this Court, we have gone through the record and found at pages 50-51 that the trial Court upon considering a no-case submission discharged the 4th accused and ordered the three remaining accused persons to enter their defence. What appeared beneath the ruling is the signature of the trial magistrate and the date the ruling was delivered but could not see where the charge was framed. In our quest to do substantial justice we ordered the trial Court to produce the file and the original record of proceedings in respect of the case to enable us confirm what actually transpired in the Court below. Our scrutiny of the record has revealed that there was a three count charge against the appellant and co-accused. On count 1 the appellant and his co-accused were charged for an offence under Section 97 PC, count 2 for an offence under section 324 PC while under count 3 for an offence under Section 397 PC. What actually happened was that the ruling and the charge were on different pages. In fact, after the charge was read to the accused and they pleaded not guilty to all the three count charge the trial Court had adjourned the case to 28/1/2021 for defence. We refer to pages 551, 655 and 691 of the original record of proceedings.”

It is this action of the lower Court in calling for the original record of proceedings of the trial Court that has agitated and caused disquiet in the mind of the Appellant. His complaint is that the lower Court neither gave him a hearing nor did it give the Respondent a hearing before it called for the original record of proceedings and thereafter, proceeded to act on its contents. This, he contends, has breached the Appellant’s right to fair hearing and caused a miscarriage of justice. Now the question to be answered is: whether the Appellant’s right to fair hearing has been breached by this act of the lower Court in its quest to do substantial justice?
​It is significant that the Appellant’s Counsel has stated upfront that the act of the lower Court in ordering and inspecting the original record of proceedings of the trial Court was done without any input from both parties, id est, the Appellant and the Respondent. It is also without a doubt the duty of a Court of law to dispense justice to the parties before it. In the dispensation of justice, case law has now established the superiority of substantial justice over technical justice. Therefore, Courts of law are enjoined to, as much as possible, rise above technicalities to do substantial justice in matters placed before them for adjudication.
In the instant case, it was clearly strange, even though not unheard of, that a Chief Magistrate would dismiss a no-case submission and yet, not frame a charge against the accused persons. Thus, the lower Court, clearly in order to eliminate the possibility of human error in the course of the production of the record of proceedings and in the interest of substantial justice, ordered the trial Court to produce before it the original record of proceedings. The question is: Was it wrong to do so?
​In my quest to resolve this riddle, I resorted to precedents on similar facts in the body of our case law. I did not have too far to look. In the Supreme Court decision in the case of Danladi V Dangiri (2014) LPELR-24020(SC) 39, A-F, where the Court of Appeal went ahead to decide an appeal on the merits, notwithstanding that it had observed that the record was incomplete, Ngwuta, JSC (of blessed memory), admonished as follows:
“Though the Court of Appeal held that the entire record of proceedings was not before it, it stated at page 582 of the record:
“I shall now consider what transpired in the Court below.”
With profound respect to their Lordships of the Court below, this is a contradiction in terms. The only source from which to determine and consider what transpired before the Court below, that is the trial Court which had to determine the validity vel non of the proceedings of the Panel, is the record of proceedings of the said panel, the same record the Court below said was not complete. Magicians do not sit to decide issues in our Courts or Panels.
In the absence of the complete record of the Panel, neither the trial Court, the Court below nor this Court can determine that the appellant was not denied fair hearing. See Edjekpo & 2 Ors V Osia & 3 Ors (2007) 3 SC (Pt. 1) page 1. There is no way the Court below, composed of human beings, could have determined without the complete record, what transpired in the Court below or in the Panel.
In pursuit of its duty to do substantial justice in the case, the effect of which transcends the parties therein and affects the entire voting population of Taraba State, the lower Court ought to have called for the complete record.” (Emphasis supplied)
This is exactly what the lower Court did in total obeisance to the prescription of the apex Court and in fulfillment of its duty to do substantial justice when confronted with making a decision on a noticeably incomplete record. The decision cannot be impugned on this ground.

In the case of Omoju V FRN (2008) LPELR-2647(SC) 14, F-G, Tobi, JSC explained what substantial justice entails:
“Substantial justice, which is actual and concrete justice, is justice personified. It is secreted in the elbows of cordial and fair jurisprudence with a human face and understanding. It is excellent to follow in our law. It pays to follow it as it brings invaluable dividends in any legal system anchored and predicated on the rule of law, the life blood of democracy.”
On the duty of Courts of law to do substantial justice, see also the following cases: Saleh V Abah (2017) LPELR-41914(SC) 53-54, E-B; Gombe State V Coop Savings & Loans Ltd (2021) LPELR-54597(CA) 24, A-B; John V State (2019) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1676) 160, 174; Brittania-U (Nig) Ltd V SPDC Ltd  (2016) LPELR-40007(SC) 49, D-E; Olatunbosun V State (2013) LPELR-20939(SC) 21, D-F; Ekwere V State (1981) LPELR-1103(SC) 304, F-B.
Thus, the law is since settled that wherever there is a contest between technical and substantial justice, substantial justice will prevail. Justice by ambush on technicalities no longer rules the day or holds sway, as Courts have gravitated away from the regime of doing technical justice to the arena of doing substantial justice. The Court cannot abandon substance to chase shadows.

In addition to the above, the finding of the lower Court that the evidence adduced by the Respondent through its eleven witnesses and nine exhibits disclosed a prima facie case against the Appellant which requires him to put in a defence, is borne out by the evidence on the record. I therefore decline to interfere with it.

​In tandem with the law, a detailed or comprehensive analysis of the evidence is uncalled for at this stage of the proceedings in order not to pre-empt, prejudice or jeopardize the outcome of the trial. It suffices to state that the prosecution has divulged facts which linked the Appellant to the offences alleged in the First Information Report (FIR) such as to require an explanation from him in his defence against the charge framed. This procedure, which is amply provided for in the Criminal Procedure Rules, was made crystal clear in the case of Atoyebi V FRN (2017) LPELR-43831(SC) 13-14, D-B, per Sanusi, JSC when he held as follows:
“I must say that at the stage of considering a no-case submission, the Court is simply to ascertain if the prosecution has made a prima facie case requiring the accused to offer some explanation and NOT whether the evidence led against him is sufficient to justify conviction. See Ekwunugo V FRN (2008) 7 SCNJ 241 at 242. Again, in writing a ruling on a no-case submission, it is advisable that a trial Court should try as much as possible to be brief and should refrain from making any remarks or observations on the facts.

Similarly, it is not the duty of the trial Judge to, at that stage, weigh and evaluate evidence or to decide who is telling the truth or not. It should also not conclude that what the prosecution adduced was unreliable.”
See also: Amah V FRN (2019) LPELR-46347(SC) 43, A-B, per Kekere-Ekun, JSC; Oko V State (2017) LPELR-42267(SC) 58-59, C, per Augie, JSC; Agbo V State (2013) LPELR-20388(SC); Adeyemi V State (1991) 7 SC (Pt. II) 1. The trial Court complied strictly with these admonitions of the law, as did the lower Court, and so have I. Therefore, based on these findings, I resolve both issues for determination against the Appellant and in favour of the Respondent.

In the result, this appeal lacks merit. It fails and is dismissed.
Accordingly, I affirm the judgment of the High Court of Justice, Yobe State in Appeal No. YBS/HCA/01CA/2021, delivered on 10th September, 2021, Coram: U.Z. Mohammed, J, and K.B. Yusuf, J.

IBRAHIM SHATA BDLIYA, J.C.A.: I have had the privilege and read in draft the lead judgment of my learned brother, JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY, JCA. I am in agreement with the lucid reasoning and conclusion reached therein, to the significant effect that the instant appeal matter lacks merit and thereby deserves nothing short of an ominous order of dismissal. I therefore do hereby dismiss the said appeal. I abide by the orders made in the said lead judgment of my learned brother, JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY, JCA.

EBIOWEI TOBI, J.C.A.: My learned brother, Jummai Hannatu Sankey, JCA just delivered the leading judgment in this appeal. I had seen the judgment before me and I agree that the appeal has no merit and it is dismissed as it borders more on technical justice than substantial justice. It has become fashionable for counsel to always bring up the issue of lack of fair hearing to change the judgment of a Court. While it is true that the concept of fair hearing is fundamental to the judicial process but the apex Court has frowned against misuse of the concept of fair hearing to challenge the decision of a Court. In this regard, I will refer to the Supreme Court case of Orugbo v. Una (2002) 9-10 S.C 61 where it was held:
“There is need for caution in the application of the fair hearing provision in the Constitution. Where the facts of the case, as in this appeal, do not support the application of the provision, parties should not urge the Court to invoke the provision, and even if so urged, the Court should not succumb to the pressure. Both the respondents and the Court below saw breach of fair hearing principle by the Koko District Customary Court. I do not see any breach. The Court did a very good job and I commend it. It has become a fashion for litigants to resort to their right to fair hearing on appeal as if it is a magic wand to cure all their inadequacies at the trial Court. But it is not so and it cannot be so. The fair hearing constitutional provision is designed for both parties in the litigation and the Court as the umpire, so to say, has a legal duty to apply it in the litigation, in the interest of fair play and justice. The Courts must not give a burden to the provision which it cannot carry or shoulder. I see that in this appeal. Fair hearing is not a cut-and-dry principle which parties can, in the abstract, always apply to their comfort and convenience. It is a principle which is based and must be based on the facts of the case before the Court.

Only the facts of the case can influence and determine the application or applicability of the principle. The principle of fair hearing is helpless, or completely dead outside the facts of the case.” Per TOBI, J.S.C

​A Court primarily exists to do justice. A Court is not only a Court of law but also a Court of justice. I make bold to say it is much more a Court of justice than a Court of law. The law or legislation is mere words and has no life without the interpretation by a Court. The word in a statute is given life by the interpretation a Court gives to do. This accounts for the different rules of interpretation which guides the Court to find out the intention of the lawmakers. No law or statute in my mind will be enacted to promote injustice. With that settled, it stands to reason that in interpreting or applying any law, what should be upper most in the mind of any Court is to ensure that justice is done. The question is what then justice is. Justice in whichever way it is looked at is the promotion of fairness, equality and equity. Any interpretation of any law which does not promote justice in its substantial sense is a wrong interpretation and application of the law. This is why the Courts are at all times required to do substantial and not technical justice. See Saleh v. Monguno & Ors (2006) LPELR-2992(SC), Alioke v. Oye & Ors (2018) LPELR-45153(SC).

Now to the case at hand, I cannot see any substantial challenge with the procedure adopted by the Court which now amounts to miscarriage of justice or denial of fair hearing.

​On issue I of the Appellants issue for determination, I am of the opinion that in the light of the 11 witnesses called and the exhibits tendered, the Respondent has established a prima facie case against the Appellant which demands some explanation from him and on that premise the no-case submission was properly refused by the Chief Magistrate Court. To appreciate this point a little excursion into the law on no case submission and what it entails will not be out of place. The implication and the law on when a no-case submission can succeed is settled beyond all doubt and it is clear which no counsel should have a problem understanding same. By making a no-case submission, the Appellant is telling the lower Court that a prima facie case has not been made out against him in the evidence of the Respondent witnesses. That is to say, that the Respondent has not proved the ingredients of the offence in such a way that would requires some explanation from the Appellant. A no case submission will therefore succeed if there is no evidence in the testimony of the prosecutions presented before the Court and the documents tendered through them which establish some form of proof on the face valve which requires the Respondent to give some explanation. In Fagoriola v. FRN (2013) LPELR-20896(SC), the apex Court stated what a no case submission implies when it held as follows:
“… when a “no case submission” is made, in a criminal trial, at the close of the case for the prosecution, a submission of no prima facie case to answer made on behalf of the accused person postulates one or two things or both of them at once: (a) Such a submission postulates that there has been, throughout the trial, no legally admissible evidence of whom the submission has been made linking him in any way with the commission of the offence with which he had been charged, which would necessitate his being called upon for his defence.
(b) That whatever evidence there was which might have linked the accused person with the offence has been so discredited that no reasonable Court can be called upon to act on it as establishing criminal guilt in the accused person concerned.
Therefore, when a submission of no case is made, the trial Court is not hereby called upon, at that stage of proceeding, to express any opinion on the evidence before it. The Court is only called upon to take note and to rule accordingly that there is, before the Court, no legally admissible evidence linking the accused person with the commission of the offence with which he is charge or that there is evidence before it linking the accused person with the offence charged. See Aituma v. State (2007) 5 NWLR (pt.1028) 466, Igabele v. State (2004) 15 NWLR (pt.896) 314, Ajiboye v. The State (1998) ACLR 555.” Per MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE, J.S.C.

​In the circumstance, I also agree with my lord, Jummai Hannatu Sankey, JCA that this appeal lacks merit and it is dismissed.

Appearances:

F.A. Akinola Esq. For Appellant(s)

A.B. Mohammed Esq., PSC Yobe State Ministry of Justice. For Respondent(s)