GANIYU LAWAL & ORS. v. THE STATE (2011)

GANIYU LAWAL & ORS. v. THE STATE

(2011)LCN/4796(CA)

In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

On Wednesday, the 16th day of November, 2011

CA/I/367/09

RATIO

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE : CONSEQUENCE OF NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISION OF S.215 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW AND SECTION 33 (6) (A) OF THE 1999 CONSTITUTION AS TO GUARANTEEING FAIR TRIAL OF AN ACCUSED PERSON

There is substance in the submission of section 215 of the criminal procedure law and section 33 (6) (a) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended are to guarantee the fair trial of an accused person. Where there has been noncompliance with these conditions, the entire proceedings must be a nullity. See the cases of EYOKOROMO VS. THE STATE (1979) 6 – 9 S.C. at 3, KAJUBO VS. THE STATE (1988) 1 N.W.L.R. Part 73 at 721, IDEMUDIA VS. THE STATE (1999) 7 N.W.L.R. Part 601 at 202 and UCHE VS. THE STATE (1999) 7 N.W.L.R. PART 609 at 1. I find it necessary at this stage to reproduce Section 215 of the criminal procedure Law and section 33(6)(a) of the 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended section 215 0f the criminal Procedure Law reads: “The person to be tried upon any charge or information shall be placed before the court information shall be placed before the court unfettered unless the court shall see cause otherwise to order, and the charged or information shall be read over and explained to him to the satisfaction of the court by the registrar or other officer of the court, and such person shall be called upon to plead instantly thereto, unless where the person is entitled to service of a copy of the information he objects tot eh want of such service and the court finds that he has not been duly served therewith”. Under Section 33(6) of the 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended, every person who is charged with a criminal offence shall be entitled – (a) To be informed promptly in the language that he understands and in detail of the nature of the offence. PER MODUPE FASANMI, J.C.A.

POWERS OF THE COURT: WHETHER A COURT OF LAW CAN SPECULATE OR ACT ON CONJECTURE

A court of law should not speculate or act on conjecture but on facts presented in court and as clearly stated in the record of proceedings. See UTB NIGERIA VS. OZOEMENA (2007) 3 N.W.L.R. Part 1022 page 448 at 487 and EJEZIE VS. ANUWA (2008) 12 N.W.L.R Part 1101 page 446 at 490. PER MODUPE FASANMI, J.C.A.

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS: IMPORTANCE OF THE RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS TRANSMITTED TO THE APPEAL COURT

The record of proceedings transmitted to the Appeal court forms the basis upon which an appeal has to be decided’ It is the document authenticating the proceedings and the record of events that transpired during trial. Both parties and the Appellate court are bound by its contents. See the cases of VEEPEE IND. LTD. VS. COCOA IND. LTD (2008) 13 N.W.L.R. Part 1105 page 486 at 512; NITEL LTD. VS. IKPI (2007) 8 N.W.L.R. Part 1035 page 96 at 108. NYAH VS. NOAH (2007) 4 N.W.L.R. Part 1024 Page 320 at 2336 and PAM VS. MOHAMMED (2008) 16 N.W.L.R. Part 1112 Page 1 at 86. PER MODUPE FASANMI, J.C.A.

RETRIAL: PRINCIPLES TO BE CONSIDERED IN ORDERING A RETRIAL

Where a trial has been declared a nullity, the court will consider whether to order a proper trial. The principles laid down for ordering a retrial are well stated in the cases of: (1) Yesufu Abodunde & Ors VS. The Queen 4 F.S.C. Page 70 at 71-72 and (2) Kajubo Vs. The State (1988) 1 N.W.L.R. Part 73 at 721 at 727 Paragraphs D-G where it states: (a) That leaving aside the error irregularity in the proceeding, the evidence taken as a whole discloses a substantial case against the Appellant; (b) That there are no such special circumstances as would render it oppressive to put the Appellant on trial a second time; (c) That the offence or offences of which the Appellant was convicted or the consequences to the Appellant or any other person of the conviction or acquittal of the Appellant are not merely trivial. (d) That to refuse an order for retrial would occasion a greater miscarriage of justice than to grant it. (e) Also the reason for declaring the trial a nullity and the interest of justice are also relevant. PER MODUPE FASANMI, J.C.A.

JUSTICE

STANLEY SHENKO ALAGOA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

MODUPE FASANMI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

JOSEPH SHAGBAOR IKYEGH Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

Between

1. GANTYU LAWAL
2. LUKMAN ADEYEMI
3. ISMAILA LASISI
4. SEMIU GANIYUAppellant(s)

AND

THE STATERespondent(s)

MODUPE FASANMI, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the judgment of the Ogun State High Court of Justice sitting at Ilaro delivered on the 6th of May 2009 in suit No.HCT/9c/2002.
Appellants were arraigned on a two count charge of conspiracy to commit murder and murder contrary to sections 324 and 316 (3) punishable under Section 319 (1) of the Criminal Code Law Cap 29 Laws of Ogun State of Nigeria 1978.
The trial initially started at Ota Judicial Division before the learned trial Judge was transferred to Ilaro where the judgment was delivered. The prosecution called two witnesses and tendered five exhibits in discharging the burden placed upon it by law. At the close of the prosecution’s case, Appellants gave evidence in their defence. Thereafter, both the prosecution and the defence counsel addressed the court. In a well considered judgment delivered by the trial Judge, the Appellants were found guilty and convicted as charged on the two counts and were sentenced to death by hanging.
Dissatisfied with the court’s judgment, Appellants lodged separate notices of appeal to this Court.
The prosecution’s case is that on the 15th day of July 2000, 1st Appellant went to call the deceased Maria Adeniji a.k.a Iya Ibeji from her house to work for the Appellants as a labour hand at a block making site. Later in the day, the said Iya Ibeji failed to return home, thus causing the husband P.W.1 to embark on a search party with other members of their community. They followed it up with a report to the police wherein the woman was declared missing. It was also stated by the prosecution that the Appellants after having sex with the deceased in turns later cut off her head and her private parts including her breasts. They later buried her in a grave around the site. P.W.2 who was the investigating police officer gave evidence of how the 1st Appellant led his team to Saki where the head of the deceased was recovered in the 1st accused person’s room in a box in Saki. He also tendered the confessional statements of all the Appellants as exhibits A, C, D and E in the matter.
(1) Whether the entire proceedings and the trial that led to the conviction and sentence of the 1st and 2nd nullity in view of the breach of section Procedure Law of Ogun State and Section Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
(2) Whether there is any legally admissible evidence led at the trial to justify the conviction and sentence of the 1st and 2nd Appellants by the lower court.
3rd and 4th Respondants formulated three issues as follows:-
(1) Whether the entire proceedings in the trial court in which the 3rd and 4th Appellants were convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of one Maria Adeniji alias “Iya lbeji” on or about the 15th day of July 2000 were null and void having been conducted in breach of the provisions of Section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Law of Ogun State and Section 36(6)(a) of the 1999 Constitution (Ground 3 of the Amended Notice of Appeal).
(2) Whether there was any evidence on record which linked the 3rd accused person to the charge before the trial court (Ground 4 of the Amended Notice of Appeal).
(3) Whether there was any evidence upon which the trial court could convict the 3rd and 4th accused persons.
The Respondent in its brief identified the following issues for determination:
(1) whether the trial of the Appellants was in breach of the provision of section 215 of the criminal procedure Law of Ogun State and  Section 36(6) of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria.
(2) Whether the prosecution proved the counts of conspiracy to commit murder and murder against the Appellants beyond reasonable doubt.
It is however noted that all the issues for determination are the same except that they are differently couched. The issues as framed are in my opinion, apposite. The court will determine the appeal on the issues as framed by the Appellants.
Learned Counsel for the 1st and 2nd Appellants contended on issue one that the matter first came before the trial Judge Hon. Justice O. A. Onafowokan on the 9th of June 2005. On this day, the charge was not read to the accused persons neither was their plea taken. Learned Appellants’ Counsel submitted that Section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that the charge shall be read over and explained to the accused to the satisfaction of the court. He submitted that the court have in several cases stated how an accused person in a criminal trial can be properly arraigned.
Learned Counsel for the 1st and 2nd Appellants referred to the case of DIBIE VS THE STATE (2007) 9 N.W.L.R, Part 7038 at 30. He went further to ask what is the effect of the failure to take the plea as; required. He posited that the whole proceeding, inclusive of the trial, conviction and sentence is a nullity. Learned Counsel for the 1st and 2nd Appellants referred to the case of IDEMUDIA VS. THE STATE (799) 7 N.W.L.R. Part 610 at 202.
Learned Counsel for the 1st and 2nd Appellants urged the court not to order a retrial because of the hardship and double jeopardy it will on the 1st and 2nd Appellants. Submitted that the prosecution’s case is riddled with contractions and gaps.  Learned counsel for the 1st and 2nd Appellants urged the court to resolve this issue this issue in favour of the 1st and 2nd Appellants.
Learned Counsel for the 3rd and 4th Appellants on this issue submitted that the first proceeding before the learned trial Judge took place on the 9th of June 2005 for mention and was adjourned at the instance of the accused persons to enable them obtain legal representation. From the record the Appellants were neither arraigned nor their plea taken. The prosecution opened its case on the 7th of March 2006 without the charge being read to the Appellants.
Learned Counsel for the 3rd and 4th Appellants argued that the consequence of a trial conducted without proper arraignment is a nullity. He cited the case of DIBIE VS. THE STATE (2007) ALL F.W.L.R. Part 384 page 192 at 211 Paras D – E.  Submitted further that the arraignment of an accused person is laden with statutory responsibility as provided in Section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Law and that the law is trite on how a plea of individual accused is to be taken. He referred to the Supreme Court authority in DIBIE us THE STATE (2007) ALL F.W.L.R. Part 363 Page 83 at 773 Paras F-G. where it opined thus:
“When two or more persons are jointly arraigned or tried on any charge or information and are placed before the court, the law requires and what satisfies the purpose of the law is that each of them should Plead separately on it”‘
The observation of the learned trial Judge at page 25 of the record does not constitute an arraignment as it falls short of the expectation of the law. The plea of each accused person must be separately and individually listed out on the record and not roundly endorsed on the file.
Learned counsel for the 3rd and 4th Appellants urged the court not to make an order of a retrial as a retrial will be a sheer exercise in futility. Learned counsel urged the court to resolve issue one in favour of the 3rd and 4th Appellants.
Learned counsel for the Respondent on issue one contended that the observation of the learned trial Judge at page 25 of the record which states:
Though I observed from the endorsement on the file that the plea of the Accused persons was taken on 10/2/02 but it does not appear that they had legal representation…”
Is that the court was satisfied that the two counts charge were read and that they pleaded not guilty to the charges.
He submitted further that assuming without conceding that the plea was not taken, will this entitle the Appellants to an acquittal as proffered by the counsel to the Appellants? Learned counsel stated that the effect is a nullity and that it will not amount to an acquittal. He referred to the cases of KAJUBO VS. THE STATE (1988) 1 NWLR Part 73 at 721; EWE VS. THE STATE (1992) 6 NWLR Part 246 at 147 and UCHE VS. THE STATE (1999) 7 NWLR Part 609 at 1.
He argued further that where a trial is declared a  nullity, the consequential order available to the court the Respondent referred to the cases of ABODUNDE & ORS VS. THE QUEEN 4 F.S.C. Page 70 at 71 – 72; KAJUBO VS. THE STATE supra and AWKWA VS. THE STATE (1969) 1 ALL N.L.R. Page 133.
Learned counsel urged the court for a retrial. He submitted further that a prima facie case has been disclosed against the Appellants and to order their acquittal will not meet the Justice of the case’ Learned counsel urged the court to resolve this issue in favour of the Respondent.
The compiled record of appeal indicated that the case first came up before the lower court on the 9th of June 2005. At page 25 of the record, the proceedings of the day were as follows:
“Accused persons are in court
I. I. A. Abudu (Mrs.) (S.C.) for the State
Accused Persons not represented’
Abudu (Mrs) the case is for mention. I shall be asking for a date for hearing. We would be calling 4 witnesses, though none of them is in court. I ask for 15/7/05.
Court – Though I observed from the endorsement on the file that the plea of the accused persons was taken on 10/2/2002; but it does not appear that they ever had legal representation’ In the circumstance of the charge of murder against all the accused, the Public Defendant should be contacted to provide their legal representation 15/7/05 for mention”.
A closer look at the record of proceedings shows that on 15th July 2005, the matter was further adjourned to 10th August 2005. On 10th August 2005 when the matter came up it was further adjourned to 6th of September 2005. The next time proceedings took place in court was 7th March 2006 when the trial commenced and PW1 one John Adeniyi was called to give evidence’
It is clear that there was no where the charge was read to the Appellants and their pleas taken. There is substance in the submission of section 215 of the criminal procedure law and section 33 (6) (a) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended are to guarantee the fair trial of an accused person. Where there has been noncompliance with these conditions, the entire proceedings must be a nullity. See the cases of EYOKOROMO VS. THE STATE (1979) 6 – 9 S.C. at 3, KAJUBO VS. THE STATE (1988) 1 N.W.L.R. Part 73 at 721, IDEMUDIA VS. THE STATE (1999) 7 N.W.L.R. Part 601 at 202 and UCHE VS. THE STATE (1999) 7 N.W.L.R. PART 609 at 1. I find it necessary at this stage to reproduce Section 215 of the criminal procedure Law and section 33(6)(a) of the 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended section 215 0f the criminal Procedure Law reads:
“The person to be tried upon any charge or information shall be placed before the court information shall be placed before the court unfettered unless the court shall see cause otherwise to order, and the charged or information shall be read over and explained to him to the satisfaction of the court by the registrar or other officer of the court, and such person shall be called upon to plead instantly thereto, unless where the person is entitled to service of a copy of the information he objects tot eh want of such service and the court finds that he has not been duly served therewith”.
Under Section 33(6) of the 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended, every person who is charged with a criminal offence shall be entitled –
(a) To be informed promptly in the language that he understands and in detail of the nature of the offence”‘Can the observation of the learned trial Judge constitute enough evidence that there was proper arraignment or put in another way, can the endorsement of the court registrar amounts to compliance with Section 215 0f the criminal procedure Law? The answer is in the negative because there was no record of event that transpired before the court on 10/2/2002 and it is unsafe to make a conjecture. A court of law should not speculate or act on conjecture but on facts presented in court and as clearly stated in the record of proceedings. See UTB NIGERIA VS. OZOEMENA (2007) 3 N.W.L.R. Part 1022 page 448 at 487 and EJEZIE VS. ANUWA (2008) 12 N.W.L.R Part 1101 page 446 at 490.
The record of proceedings transmitted to the Appeal court forms the basis upon which an appeal has to be decided’ It is the document authenticating the proceedings and the record of events that transpired during trial. Both parties and the Appellate court are bound by its contents. See the cases of VEEPEE IND. LTD. VS. COCOA IND. LTD (2008) 13 N.W.L.R. Part 1105 page 486 at 512; NITEL LTD. VS. IKPI (2007) 8 N.W.L.R. Part 1035 page 96 at 108. NYAH VS. NOAH (2007) 4 N.W.L.R. Part 1024 Page 320 at 2336 and PAM VS. MOHAMMED (2008) 16 N.W.L.R. Part 1112 Page 1 at 86.The provision of Section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Law was not complied with. Also Section 33 subsection 6(a) of the 1999 Constitution has been vitiated. It is trite law that once the provision of Section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Law and Section 33 subsection 6 of the Constitution are not followed in a criminal trial, the trial is rendered null and void ab initio. I therefore hold that the whole proceeding is a nullity.
Where a trial has been declared a nullity, the court will consider whether to order a proper trial. The principles laid down for ordering a retrial are well stated in the cases of:
(1) Yesufu Abodunde & Ors VS. The Queen 4 F.S.C. Page 70 at 71-72 and
(2) Kajubo Vs. The State (1988) 1 N.W.L.R. Part 73 at 721 at 727 Paragraphs D-G where it states:
(a) That leaving aside the error irregularity in the proceeding, the evidence taken as a whole discloses a substantial case against the Appellant;
(b) That there are no such special circumstances as would render it oppressive to put the Appellant on trial a second time;
(c) That the offence or offences of which the Appellant was convicted or the consequences to the Appellant or any other person of the conviction or acquittal of the Appellant are not merely trivial.
(d) That to refuse an order for retrial would occasion a greater miscarriage of Justice than to grant it.
(e) Also the reason for declaring the trial a nullity and the interest of Justice are also relevant.Having gone through the record of proceedings, it is clear from the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 that there is nexus between the acts of the Appellants and the death of the deceased. Appellants made confessional statements admitting committing the offence. In my humble opinion a prima facie case has been made against all the Appellants and this has satisfied condition (a).
On condition b, the fact that the Appellants have been in custody since the date of arrest till now can not amount to sufficient punishment for the offences to render a retrial oppressive. If the circumstances of both the Appellants and the deceased are considered together, the order of retrial should not be regarded as oppressive.
On condition (c) the offence or offences of which the Appellants have been convicted and sentenced are not trivial. The offence of murder carries capital punishment. The years stayed in custody awaiting trial cannot be regarded as sufficient punishment for the offence of murder.
On condition (d) to order their acquittal will not meet the Justice of the case.
On condition (e), the Appellant rights to freedom has to be weighed against the security of the general public to are entitled to be protected from murderers. Justice is not to the Appellants alone, it is also for the deceased who is crying in her lonely grave for Justice to be done to those who killed her in a gruesome manner and also to the public at large. In the case of YAHAYA VS. THE STATE 9 N.S.C.Q.R. at 36, the learned jurist UWAIS C.J.N. as he then was said on page 18 thus:
“I accept that to remain in prison custody for ten years awaiting trial is outrageous and is such a long period that should undoubtedly evoke sympathy and concern. However the nature of the offence with which the Appellant is accused is murder, is so grave that there is no offence under our laws which carries heavier sentence. As it has been stated elsewhere, Justice is not for the accused only. Therefore, if the circumstances of both the accused and the victim are considered together, the order of fresh trial should not in my opinion be regarded as oppressive. Besides in our laws, a sentence of 10 years is not regarded as sufficient punishment for murder”.
I therefore resolve issue one in favour of the Appellant that the whole proceeding is a nullity.
Since the whole proceeding is a nullity, considering issue two will be an exercise in futility or mere academic exercise. This court will not order the acquittal of the Appellants but instead order a retrial of the Appellants before another judge. The case is hereby sent back to the Hon. Chief Judge of Ogun State to assign to another Judge for the trial of the Appellants to begin denovo.

STANLEY SHENKO ALAGOA, J.C.A.: I have had the privilege of reading before now the judgment just delivered by my learned brother Fasanmi, J.C.A. I agree with his reasoning and conclusion that the appeal succeeds. I also allow same and send back this case to the Hon. Chief Judge of Ogun State to be assigned to another judge for trial de novo.

JOSEPH SHAGBAOR IKYEGH, J.C.A.: I agree with the judgment prepared by my learned brother, Fasanmi, J.C.A., which I had the advantage of a preview.
The printed record of appeal (the record) shows leave to prefer an information containing a two count charge of criminal conspiracy to commit murder contrary to section 324 of the Criminal Code Law (cap.29) of the Laws of Ogun State, 1978 and murder contrary to section 319 (1) of the same Criminal Code Law against the appellants was granted by Ogundepo, J., on 20.2.2002 (see page 2 of the record). The pleas of the appellants were not taken before Ogundepo, J.
The record reflects in page 25 thereof that when the matter came before another learned judge (Onafowokan, J.) the following was recorded:
“Court:- Though I observed from the endorsement on the file that the plea of the accused persons was taken on 10/2/2002; but it does not appear that they ever had legal representation. In the circumstance of the charge of murder against all the accused, the public Defendant should be contacted to provide their legal representation. 15/7/05 for mention.”
There is, however, no indication in the record that the court sat on 10.2.2002. Without evidence in the record showing the court sat on 10.2.2002, the above quoted statement that the plea of the appellants was taken on the said date does not appear to be correct.
Remarkably, leave to prefer the two heads of charge was given on 20.2.2002, therefore the pleas of the appellants could not have been taken on 10.2.2002, before leave to prefer the information was granted on 20.2.2002. In other words, the taking of the pleas should come after leave to prefer the information is given. So it appears the first step in the progress of the trial – arraignment – with its object of establishing the identity of the appellants and acquainting them with the details and essentials of the charge in order to obtain their pleas to it were not followed by the court below the trial and conviction of the appellants ensued.
In effect the pleas of the appellants were not taken by Ogundepo, J., and Onafowokan, J., before the case against them proceeded to hearing and fatal conclusion on the merits before Onafowokan, J. Their trial and conviction cannot therefore stand, having been vitiated by the failure to take their pleas in breach of the condition precedent to valid arraignment of the appellants under section 36 (6) (a) of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, (as amended), and section 215 of the criminal procedure Law of Ogun State.
The failure to take the pleas of the appellants before proceeding with the hearing and determination of the case against them rendered the entire trial a nullity and I so hold – see Salisu Yahaya v. The State (2002) 3 NWLR (Pt.754) 289 at 303 and 307 as follows:-
“So that not only were the provision of section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Law, Cap. 30 not complied with but also those of section 33 section 6(a) of the 1079 Constitution (which are the same as those of section 36(6)(a) of the 1999 Constitution). As has been seen above, it has been settled by this court by a plethora of cases that once the provisions of section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Law and those of the Constitution referred to above are not followed in a criminal trial, the trial is rendered null and void ab initio. All the other matters that follow thereafter amount to an exercise in futility and are of no significance…
…It cannot be over-emphasized of the necessity for all trial courts engaged in criminal trials and counsel involved in the prosecution of cases that it is a sine qua non for the provisions of the said section of the Criminal Procedure Law to be complied with before the commencement of the trial of an accused person.
It is the fulfillment of the provisions of the said section that gives jurisdiction to the court to try accused persons arraigned before it.”
See also Kajubo v. The State (1988) 1 NWLR (pt.73) 721, Okon v. The State (1991) 8 NWLR (Pt.210) 424, Peter v. The State (1997) 12 NWLR (Pt.531) 1, Kalu v. The State (1998) 13 NWLR (Pt.583) 531, Idemudia v. The State (1999) 7 NWLR (Pt.610) 202 and Yerima v. The State (2010) 14 NWLR (Pt.1213) 25 at 46 – 47.The purported trial of the appellants was, accordingly, void ab initio. The consequence is that they were not tried at all. I would allow the appeal. The question is whether to remit their case back for fresh trial. The evidence against the appellants appears weighty. The itself – murder – is capital in scope. The evidence shows it was allegedly committed in a barbaric manner: after the deceased, a hapless woman, was allegedly murdered by the appellants in cold blood, the appellants cut and carried away her head and breast and buried her in a shallow grave.
The capital crime was allegedly committed by the appellants on or about 15.7.2000, and the appellants were arrested in the month of August of the same year. Between August, 2000, and 2011 is a period of about 11 years. The ritualistic manner the capital crime was allegedly committed together with the prima-facie strength of the case against the appellants and the gravity of the offence convince me a new trial of the appellants shall meet the Justice of the case. After all, Justice is not only for the appellants. It is also for the victim or relations of the victim of the crime (in murder cases) and society in general – see Salisu Yahaya v. The State (supra) at page 305 as follows:
“I accept that to remain in prison custody for ten years awaiting trial is outrageous and is such a long period that should undoubtedly evoke sympathy and concern. However, the nature of the offence with which the appellant is accused – murder, is so grave that there is no offence under our laws which carries heavier sentence. As has been stated elsewhere Justice is not just for the accused person but for the victim as well. Therefore, if the circumstances of both the accused and victim are considered together the order of fresh trial should not in my opinion be regarded as oppressive. Beside in our laws a sentence of ten years is not regarded as sufficient punishment for murder – See Kajubo’s case (supra) per Nnamari, JSC at p.734 D-E and Erekanure’s case at p. 396 per Olatawura JSC.”
Accordingly, I order a new trial of the appellants before another learned judge of the High Court of Justice of Ogun State to be designated by the learned Chief Judge of Ogun State.