HONOURABLE HOSEA AYOOLA AGBOOLA v. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA
(2014) LCN/7024(CA)
RATIO
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: WHAT CONSTITUTE A PRIMA FACIE CASE
My research reveals that there is no statutory definition of the phrase “prima facie case”. At least I have not come across such a statute. The definition I came across came from case law as enunciated by the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal. I however found that most of the cases in which the phrase” prima facie case” was propounded arose from submissions of no case to answer. In the determination of this appeal, I have been careful to see that this application to quash the information filed against the appellant arose before the commencement of trial as no evidence had been led. This observation is necessary in view of the dictum of Ejiwunmi, JSC in his concurring judgment in the case of Ohwovoriole v. F.R.N. (supra) wherein My Lord said:- “The principles set down in the above cases were with due respect set down deliberately to emphasise that the case relied upon by the learned trial judge becomes applicable on the trial of criminal cases only when evidence had been led at the trial and when the prosecution had closed its case. At that stage, the defendant may, if he so wishes, make a submission to the effect that the prosecution by the evidence led in support of the charge had not established a prima facie case to call upon him to make a defence on the said charge… However, whereas in the instant case, the prosecution had not called any evidence and had only filed various statements in support of the charge seeking leave to prosecute the accused, then different principles apply. Therefore, whereas in this case, the defence is contending that the offences alleged in the charge have not disclosed by the statements and proof of evidence before the court, then the court has to consider the position upon the principle laid in Ikomi v. The State (1986) 3 NWLR (Pt. 28) p. 340.”
It is instructive to note that My Lord Ejiwunmi, JSC in the same case of Ohwovoriole v. F.R.N. (supra) at p. 176 while citing Lort-Williams, J who had relied on the case of Sher Singh v. Jitendranathesen (1931) I.L.R. 59 Calc. 275, stated thus:- “What is meant by a prima facie case? It only means that there is ground for proceeding… But a prima facie case is not the same as proof which comes later when the court has to find whether the accused is guilty or not guilty “…and” the evidence discloses a prima facie case when it is shown that if uncontradicted and if believed it will be sufficient to prove the case against the accused.”
My Lord Nnamani, JSC (of blessed memory) had held in the case of Ikomi v. State (1986) 3 NWLR (Pt. 28) p. 340, that in determining whether a prima facie case has been made, the judge ought to be satisfied that a prima facie case has been established on the proofs of evidence and that a challenge to the information or charge, as in the instant case, can only be successfully established by showing that no prima facie case could have been made on the proof of evidence put before the judge. That the issue is not whether the evidence is sufficient to ground a conviction, but all that is necessary is whether the evidence discloses a prima facie case, even if weak, against the accused Person. Similarly, in the case of Abacha v. State (2002) 11 NWLR (pt. 779) p. 437, the Supreme Court adopted the definition of prima facie case as enunciated in the case of Sher Singh v. Jitendranathsen (supra), which was quoted with approval by the Federal Supreme Court in Ajidagba v. I.G.P. (1958) S.C.N.L.R. p. 60. In Duru v. Nwosu (1989) NWLR (Pt. 113) p. 24 at 43, Nnamami, JSC also defined the phrase “prima facie” case in these words:-
“… “There is ground for proceeding”. In other words, that something has been produced to make it worthwhile to continue with the proceeding. On the face of it, “suggests that evidence produced so far indicates that there is something worth looking at.” From the above stated principles, I understand the term prima facie case to mean that, from the facts as disclosed in the proofs of evidence as contained in the information, there is evidence that the crime the accused is charged with has been committed, and the accused is linked with the crime allegedly committed. At this stage, unlike at a stage where a no case submission is made and the trial court has to decide from the evidence adduced or led before it, whether a prima facie case has been established, the court is only called upon to carefully scrutinise the proof of evidence attached to the charge, so as to see whether the crime alleged has been committed and that the evidence links the accused (Appellant) with the offence charged, In determining the issue, the court should always bear in mind that at this stage, the proofs of evidence are yet to be tested in the rigour of cross-examination during the trial. The issue should thus be determined with the view to determine whether the proof of evidence to be relied upon at the trial, has reveal facts which make it just that the accused person should stand trial thereon. At this stage it is not the business of the court to determine whether or not the proofs of evidence would ultimately lead to conviction of the Appellant. Per Haruna Simon Tsammani, J.C.A.
