UGWU DANIEL v. THE STATE
(2018)LCN/12370(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Friday, the 2nd day of February, 2018
CA/E/57C/2017
RATIO
BAIL: BAIL APPLICATION FOR CAPITAL OFFENCE
“Generally, it is very unusual and uncommon for a person standing trial for murder to be admitted to bail pending the hearing and determination of the case against him. Oladele v. The State (1993) 1 NWLR (pt. 268) 249 at 308 (SC). However, where an applicant in an application for bail such as in the instant matter, predicates his reason for the application on ill – health and the need for medical care and treatment, while the trial proceedings last, that has been held to be a special or exceptional circumstance to be considered by the Court in the exercise of his discretion whether or not to grant bail to the accused/applicant. Mohammed Abacha v. The State (2002) LPELR ? 15 (SC); Chief Gani Fawehinmi v. The State (1990) 1 NWLR (Pt.127) 486; Chinemelu v. Commissioner of Police (1995) 4 NWLR (pt. 390) 467. It must always be borne in mind that each case is usually considered and determined on its peculiar facts and circumstances.” PER TOM SHAIBU YAKUBU, J.C.A
BAIL: WHETHER ILL-HEALTH AMOUNT TO SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES
“The law is well settled to the effect that when in detention or custody the responsibility of affording him the (applicant) access to proper medical facilities rests with those in whose custody he is, invariably the prison authorities. Therefore, for ill-health to amount to a special/exceptional circumstances, which would actuate the mind of the Court to grant an application of this nature, it must be demonstrated by affidavit evidence that the ailment is beyond the capacity and competence of the prison authority to handle it and that fact must come from the prison authority itself and not from any other source. Bamaiyi vs. The State (2001) 86 LRCN 1156 at 1183 (SC); Jimoh vs. Commissioner of Police (2004) 17 NWLR (pt. 902) 389 at 396; Abacha vs. The State (2002) 95 LRCN 362 at 367; (2002) LPELR 15 (SC) at pp. 26 27.” PER TOM SHAIBU YAKUBU, J.C.A
Before Their Lordships
HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJUJustice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
TOM SHAIBU YAKUBUJustice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
MISITURA OMODERE BOLAJI-YUSUFFJustice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
UGWU DANIELAppellant(s)
AND
THE STATERespondent(s)
TOM SHAIBU YAKUBU, J.C.A.(Delivering the Leading Judgment):
This appeal is sequel to the decision of the Enugu State High Court of Justice, holden at Enugu, which on 17th January, 2017; dismissed the appellant’s application for bail, pending his trial. The appellant along with some other ten (10) persons are arraigned in the murder charge No. E/56c/2016. The State v. Dennis Ozongwu & Ors pending at the Court below, in respect of the killing of Barrister Theophilus Ejimofor Ozongwu on 23rd December, 2015 at Okwojo Ngwo – the common village/community of the deceased and the accused persons.
The appellant, with the leave of this Court having been sought and obtained, on 23rd June, 2017 filed his appeal against the decision of the Court below. The appeal is erected on three 3 grounds.
In order to prosecute the appeal, the appellant was armed with the appellant?s brief of argument dated and filed on 18th September, 2017. On the other hand, the respondent?s brief of argument dated and filed on 30th November, 2017 was deemed by this Court as properly filed and served on same 30th November, 2017.
Thereafter, the appellant’s reply brief was filed on 4th December, 2017.
Oladimeji Ekengba, Esq., who settled the appellant’s brief of argument, identified two issues for the determination of the appeal, to wit:
Whether in the entire circumstances before this Honourable Court, the lower Court did not exercise his discretion judicially and judiciously when it refused to admit the Appellant to bail pending trial having shown exceptional and special circumstances warranting the admittance of the Appellant to bail on ground of ill health. (Culled from Grounds 1 and 2 of the Notice of Appeal).
Whether in the entire circumstances before this Honourable Court, the lower Court did not exercise his discretion judicially and judiciously when it on its own without affording the parties opportunities to address it faulted some exhibits of the Appellants as not genuine or manipulated thereby turning itself as an investigator. (Culled from Ground 3 of the Notice of Appeal).
In the respondent’s brief of argument, settled by Chief P. M. B. Onyia, a sole issue was nominated for the resolution of the appeal, thus:
Whether the learned trial judge’s exercise of his discretion in refusing to grant the appellant bail, pending the murder trial, is perverse and liable to be set aside. (Distilled from Grounds 1, 2 and 3).
In my consideration and determination of this appeal, I shall be guided by the sole issue nominated by the respondent for the resolution of the appeal, as it appears to me to be more precise and straight forward.
A resum of the appellant’s contentions is that although the charge of murder for which the appellant is standing trial at the Court below, is a serious one, the Court still has the discretion to grant him bail pending his trial, moreso as the appellant has been suffering from some serious life threatening ailments evidenced in Exhibits DU 3 and DU 4, DU13, DU 14 and DU 15.
Learned appellant’s counsel, submitted that the fact of appellant’s ill health, constituted on exceptional circumstance, which the learned trial judge ought to have considered to grant the appellant’s application for bail. He insisted that the report by the SP Medical of the Nigerian Prison Service at the Enugu Prison indicates that the said prison lacked the capacity to manage the appellant’s ill health and that this was an exceptional circumstance to have moved the learned trial judge to exercise his discretion judiciously in favour of the appellant. He placed reliance on Ani vs. The State (2002) FWLR (Pt.125) 661.
Furthermore, it is the appellant’s contention that the learned trial judge unduly investigated Exhibit DU 5 and came to the conclusion that it was not real, without giving the parties an opportunity of addressing the Court on it, before coming to the conclusion that the said Exhibit DU 5 was not real.
Arguing per contra, the learned respondent’s counsel submitted that the appellant did not make out any special circumstance to have entitled him to bail pending the hearing of the murder charge against him, which carries a capital punishment. He referred to Yunus vs. FRN (2015) 10 NWLR (pt. 1466) 86; Ali vs. The State (2012) 10 NWLR (pt. 1309) 589. Furthermore, he submitted that the quality of medical evidence of ill health put forward by the appellant was not compelling enough for the trial Court to have exercised its discretion in favour of the appellant. He placed reliance on Bulama v. FRN (2004) 12 NWLR (pt. 888) 498; Abacha vs. The State.
With respect to the appellant’s contention on Exhibit DU 5, learned respondent’s counsel submitted that at paragraphs 17 and 18 of the respondent’s counter-affidavit against the motion for bail at pages 66 – 68 of the record of appeal, the respondent had pointed out some manipulations on appellant’s Exhibit DU 5, therefore, according to him, the learned trial judge was justified in not relying on the said Exhibit DU 5 to grant the appellant’s application for bail.
Resolution:
The charge against the appellant is that of murder, which is a very serious offence. The punishment for it is a capital one. Generally, it is very unusual and uncommon for a person standing trial for murder to be admitted to bail pending the hearing and determination of the case against him. Oladele v. The State (1993) 1 NWLR (pt. 268) 249 at 308 (SC). However, where an applicant in an application for bail such as in the instant matter, predicates his reason for the application on ill – health and the need for medical care and treatment, while the trial proceedings last, that has been held to be a special or exceptional circumstance to be considered by the Court in the exercise of his discretion whether or not to grant bail to the accused/applicant. Mohammed Abacha v. The State (2002) LPELR ? 15 (SC); Chief Gani Fawehinmi v. The State (1990) 1 NWLR (Pt.127) 486; Chinemelu v. Commissioner of Police (1995) 4 NWLR (pt. 390) 467. It must always be borne in mind that each case is usually considered and determined on its peculiar facts and circumstances.
For example, in Abacha v. The State (supra) where the complaint of the applicant was that he suffered from some kidney disease which needed an intensive medical attention by his own doctor, it was held that there was no expert evidence to the effect that his kidney disease was a life threatening ailment which cannot be treated and managed while he was in detention pending his trial, hence his bail application was refused. So also in Chinemelu v. C. O. P. (supra) where the applicant claimed that he was hypertensive, bail was refused him because he did not satisfactorily provide the Court with documentary medical evidence, to the effect that he could not be treated satisfactorily while in detention in the prison custody, awaiting his trial. On the other hand, in Fawehinmi v. The State (supra), the applicant was able to satisfy the Court that he had to see a cardiologist every other day of his life, and that a particular type of equipment was needed for his treatment. Those facts were not contradicted by the respondent, hence the Court accepted the depositions in the affidavit evidence proffered by Fawehinmi and the Court?s discretion was judiciously exercised in his favour.
Now, to the instant application, the linch-pin of the appellant’s quest to be admitted to bail, pending the determination of the murder charge against him, is that of ill – health and his need of medical care. The motion on notice for the bail application at the Court below is at pages 4 and 5 of the record of appeal. In support of the application is an affidavit of 22 paragraphs, inter alia:
I, Mrs. Angelina O. Ugwu, Female, Christian and retired Teacher and Nigerian citizen, residing at Okwojo-Ngwo, Ngwo, in Udi Local Government Area of Enugu State do hereby make oath and state as follows:
1. That I am the wife of the 7th Accused/Applicant (Chief Daniel Ugwu) who is the Traditional Chief/head of Okwojo Ngwo (the item of Okwojo Ngwo) and as such, I am very conversant with the facts and circumstances of this Application. I also have the consent and authority of the 7th Accused/Applicant who is my husband to depose to this affidavit.
2. That the 7th Accused/Applicant is a Pensioner and a retired Civil Servant. He is 73 years old and a senior citizen.
3. That I know as a fact the 7th Accused/Applicant was arraigned on the 16th day of June 2016 at the Enugu North Chief Magistrate Court on a four-count charge of conspiracy to commit murder and armed robbery of one Bar. (Engr.) Ejimofor Theophilus Ozongwu. He was remanded in Prison custody by the said Chief magistrate.
4. That the Certified True Copy of the Charge Sheet MEN/282c/2016 is hereby attached and marked EXH DU 1 while the Record of Proceedings of the learned Chief Magistrate Grade 1 on Thursday the 16th day of June 2016 is also attached herewith and marked EXH DU 2.
5. That the Charge is a trumped up one and there is no truth in the allegation that the 7th Accused/Applicant conspired with people to murder or did the murder or did arm themselves with gun and robbed one Barr. (Engr.) Ejimofor Ozongwu or any body at all.
6. That the family of the said late Barr. (Engr.) Ejimofor Theophilus Ozongwu and our family are blood relations and we relate very well with each other. Their late father Chief Wilson Ozongwu was the mentor of my husband the 7th Accused/Applicant who trained him in the Primary School when his mother died. The said Chief Wilson Ozongwu and my husband the 7th Accused/Applicant’s maternal grand-father are from the same parent of the full blood.
7. On that 23rd of December 2016, when the said incident took place, my husband the 7th Accused/Applicant was in the family prayer meeting in our compound with Pastor Victor Ndubuisi Nwogu from Grace of God Church Ukaka Ngwo who can also testify. The said Pastor Victor Ndubuisi Nwogu from the Grace of God Ukaka Ngwo has filed a 2nd affidavit in support of the bail application for the 6th Accused person which also covers the present application of my husband.
8. That the 7th Accused/Applicant was earlier arrested and made Statement to the Police on 15th February 2016. He was again re-arrested on the 16th June 2016 by the State Anti Robbery Squad (SARS) Enugu and was subsequently charged to the Chief magistrate Court on the same 16th February 2016.
9. That the 7th Accused/Applicant has no previous criminal record. He is a well known, peaceful and religious person and a Community Leader in Okwojo Ngwo. He is 73 years old and will not jump bail if bail is granted him. He has also assured me and I verily believe him that he did not commit such heinous crime and that he is not afraid of whatever might be the punishment for the offence.
10. The 7th Accused/Applicant is only a victim of a continued community politics, hatred and primordial enmity over the tussle of community leadership and land problem.
11. That the 7th Accused/Applicant has been in Enugu Prison Custody since that 16th day of June 2016. That the 7th Accused/Applicant has a long history of failing ill health regarding hypertension, prostate, peptic ulcer etc and a medical report from the family doctor is attached herewith and marked EXH DU 3.
12. Secondly, the 7th Accused/Applicant has an impaired loss of vision being treated by University of Nigeria Teaching Hospital (UNTH), the UNTH Medical Report for his referral to Abuja by UNTH is hereby attached as EXH DU 4.
13. Thirdly and finally while in the Enugu Prison, he collapsed as a result of his failing ill health, serious health condition and impaired loss of vision, he was quickly rushed to Mother of Christ Specialist Hospital Enugu on 28th June 2016 for resuscitation and treatment. The Medical Report from the said Hospital dated 28th June 2016 is hereby attached and marked EXH DU 5.
14. I am informed by our lawyer Ven. Anene Nzelu Esq. and I verily believe him that he has written a letter to the Attorney General & Commissioner of Justice Enugu State for all the documents in the case file, to wit: (i) Information for this trial, (ii) Proof of Evidence for the trial (iii) Written Petition and complaints of the complainants (iv) Written statement of the prosecution witnesses (v) Written statement of all the Accused persons (vi) All other documents in the Police Case file in order to enable him prepare for the defence of the Applicant/Accused. A copy of the said letter to the Attorney General and Commissioner of Justice Enugu State dated 17/03/2016 and acknowledged by the office of the said Attorney General & Commissioner of Justice Enugu State on the same 17 March 2016 is hereby attached and marked EXH DU 6. This letter though written on behalf of the 6th Accused, the son of the 7th Accused is also very relevant in this application for bail.
15. The Trial Information Sheet Charged No. E/56c/2016 (The State v. Ozongwu Denis and 6 others) served on our counsel for the 7th Accused/Applicant does not contain all the documents and information requested by the said counsel Ven. Anene Nzelu Esq.
16. That the 7th Accused/Applicant has reasonable persons within jurisdiction to take him on bail.
17. I also attach herewith the following charge sheets and Records of Proceedings viz:
(A1) Charge No. MEN/83C/2016 ? COP v. (1) Ugwu Ezechina Nkem (aka Tewas) & (2) Nat Eze Daniel (aka Uchenna Ugwu) marked as EXH DU 7.
(A2) Record of Proceedings in the said Charge marked as EXH DU 8.
(B1) Charge No. MEN/16C/2016 COP v. (1) Ozongwu Dennis (2) Emeka Offor Sabatine & (3) Elder Thomas Ugwu dated 14/1/2016 marked as EXH DU 9.
(B2) Record of Proceedings in the said Charge marked as EXH DU 10.
(C1) Charge No. CME/68C/2016 COP v. (1) Ude Uchechukwu dated 8/2/2016 marked as EXH DU 11.
18. All the persons in the above mentioned four charge sheets namely Exhibits DU 1, DU 7, DU 9 & DU 11 are all alleged to be involved in the so called crime of murder of Barr. (Engr.) Ejimofor Theophilus Ozongwu as co-accused persons. These four charge sheets will enable the Court to appreciate the true picture and nature of the charge and the offence against the 7th Accused/Applicant and the other co-accused persons.
19. That it will be in the interest of justice that the application is granted as the respondent will not in any way be prejudiced nor suffer any hardship, if the bail is granted. Moreover the police has since completed their investigation and charged same to Court and have subsequently filed the Information Trial Sheet and as such the 7th Accused/Applicant cannot interfere with investigation.
20. There is no place in the statements of the 13 Prosecution Witnesses PW 1 – PW 13 where the 7th Accused/Applicant was mentioned or implicated in the alleged crime.
21. There is also no place in the statements of the 9 Accused persons where the 7th Accused/Applicant was mentioned or implicated in the alleged crime.
22. That I make this oath in good faith and in accordance with the Oaths Act.
Furthermore, there is an affidavit of urgency and further affidavit of 11 paragraphs, in support of the application for bail; to wit:
I Christian Anayo Eze, Male, Christian, Nigerian Citizen, a lawyer working at Anene Nzelu & Associates Chambers of No. 53 Obioma Street, Achara Layout, Enugu do hereby make oath and state as follows:-
1. That I am a lawyer working at the Chambers of Anene Nzelu and Associates and I have the authority of my Principal in Chambers, Venerable Anene Nzelu Esq. and that of the Applicant to depose to this Affidavit of Urgency and Further Affidavit.
2. That the 7th Accused/Applicant was remanded in Enugu Prison Custody on the 16th day of June 2016, by the order of the Chief Magistrate Court Enugu.
3. That since then, the health of the 7th Accused/Applicant at the Enugu Prisons has so much deteriorated that he needs a more specialist attention.
4. That on the 12th of July 2016, the Chief Magistrate, Enugu South magisterial District made an order directing the Enugu Prison Authority to take 7th Accused/Applicant to the University of Nigeria Teaching Hospital UNTH Ituku Ozalla to run a thorough Medical Examination and diagnosis to ascertain the health condition of the 7th Accused/Applicant. And secondly for the hospital to issue a full medical report on the present health status and condition of the 7th Accused/Applicant. The said Court order is attached herewith and marked EXH DU 12.
5. That based on the findings, the University of Nigeria Teaching Hospital (UNTH) has now issued a full medical report on the present health status and condition of the 7th Accused/Applicant Chief Daniel Ugwu. The said full medical report dated 25th August 2016 is hereby attached and marked EXH DU 13.
6. That the University of Nigeria Teaching Hospital while carrying out the said order of the Court EXH DU 12, made the following findings:
(a) The 7th Accused/Applicant has systematic Hypertension.
(b) The 7th Accused/Applicant has severe Lumbar Spondylosis which requires immediate surgery (laminectomy) involving admission in a hospital.
(c) The 7th Accused/Applicant has severe prostatic Hypertrophy causing obstructive uropathy which requires immediate surgery involving admission in a hospital.
(d) The 7th Accused/Applicant has severe extensive Retinal detachment which requires Retinal Surgery involving admission in a hospital.
(e) Peptic Ulcer Disease.
7. Moreover, while treating the patient, the University of Nigeria Teaching Hospital issued the 7th Accused/Applicant one week bed rest from 11th August to 18th August 2016 and a further 2 week bed rest from 18th August 2016 to 1st September 2016. The documents are hereby attached and marked EXH DU 14 and EXH DU 15 respectively.
8. That this is an Affidavit of Urgency and Further Affidavit made to complement and in addition to 1st Affidavit in Support of Motion for Bail of the 7th Accused/Applicant deposed to by the wife of the 7th Accused/Applicant because the 7th Accused/Applicant is facing a serious, critical and life threatening health condition.
9. That this Affidavit of Urgency and Further Affidavit is to show and exhibit clearly the present health status and condition of the 7th Accused/Applicant who has serious, critical health and life threatening condition which if not treated promptly may lead to an irreparable loss.
10. That it is in the interest of justice that the application for the bail of the 7th Accused/Applicant is granted based on the serious, critical health and life threatening condition of the 7th Accused/Applicant because of the irreparable loss and damage the delay in granting bail to the 7th Accused/Applicant may occasion.
11. That I make this Affidavit of Urgency and Further Affidavit in good faith and in accordance with Oath Act.
The respondent at paragraphs 17 and 18 of the counter affidavit at page 67 of the record of appeal, with respect to the appellant’s documentary medical evidence, deposed thus:
17. That Exhs. DU 3, DU 4, DU5 annexed to the affidavit and Exhs. DU 12, DU 13, DU 14 and DU 15 are inconsistent to one another and are all made for the purpose of this application.
18. That the purported medical reports cannot pass a test of scrutiny.
The learned trial judge, in his ruling on the appellant’s application was not persuaded by the contents of Exhibits DU3, DU 4 and DU 5 to grant the application for bail. I have myself perused Exhibit DU 3 at page 14 of the record of appeal. It indicates that the appellant ‘is a known hypertensive patient with prostatic hyperplasia and peptic ulcer disease.’ He was to report to the Family Hospital Ngwo, after two weeks from 16th June, 2016. And furthermore, that the appellant ‘be not subjected to any stressful condition as this is capable of worsening his condition.’
Exhibit DU 4 at page 15 of the record of appeal, is no more than a referral from the Department of Ophthamology of the University Teaching Hospital Ituku – Ozalla, Enugu to the Eye Foundation Hospital Group, Abuja, FCT, ‘for a possible Retinal detachment surgery’ on the appellant.
Exhibit DU 5 is at page 16 of the record of appeal. It is from the Mother of Christ Specialist Hospital, Ogui, Enugu, dated 28th June, 2016. It indicated that the appellant was on admission for about one week and recorded ‘marked improvement ….. but will need weekly check up …. on Thursday.’
To my mind, there are no compelling reasons of any debilitating ill-health which could have persuaded the learned trial judge to exercise his discretion in favour of the appellant. There are no depositions in the affidavits in support of the appellant’s application, to the effect that his hypertension and peptic ulcer diseases cannot be treated and managed while in prison custody nor is there any deposition to the effect that the prison authorities will not take the appellant to the Mother of Christ Specialist Hospital, Ogui, Enugu, for his weekly check up on Thursdays as medically advised in Exhibit DU 5. There is no deposition to the effect also that the Prison authorities failed to take the appellant to the Family Hospital Ngwo, after two weeks from 16th June, 2016 as recommended in Exhibit DU 3. So also, there is no allegation against the prison authorities of subjecting the appellant to stressful conditions against the medical advice proffered in Exhibit DU 3.
I have considered the contention of the parties herein touching on the integrity of Exhibit DU 5. Upon my perusal of the same document, it is glaring that the particulars. Re: UGWU DANIEL, 73 YRS, M, 047282. was superimposed on it. The learned trial judge just like this Court had the power to evaluate every documentary evidence placed before it. Salisu v. Odumade (2010) 2 SCNJ 257; Iwuoha v. NIPOST (2013) 110 LRCN 16 22. Therefore the contention of the appellant to the effect that the learned trial judge ought to have invited counsel’s addresses on his view on Exhibit DU 5, as appearing unreal to him is, disingenuous and unmeritorious. In any event, I have earlier demonstrated that the said Exhibit DU 5 recorded that upon the admission of the appellant for about one week at the Mother of Christ Specialist Hospital, Ogui, Enugu, there was a marked improvement of his health as at 28th June, 2016. This, to my mind, did not add any prosperity but poverty to the appellant’s application for bail.
With respect to Exhibits DU 13, DU 14 and DU 15, it is clear to me that the recurring decimal touching on the ill – health of the appellant centres on systematic hypertension, prostatic hypertrophy, retinal detachment and peptic ulcer disease, which were earlier diagnosed in Exhibits DU 3 and DU 4 which I have commented upon earlier in this judgment. The new dimension in Exhibit DU 13 issued from the University of Nigeria Teaching Hospital, Ituku-Ozalla, Enugu on 25th August, 2016 is that the appellant ought to be released from the Prison custody and admitted into a hospital for some surgical operations. That may well be so albeit, magisterial.
However, the fact that an accused person standing trial for murder is diagnosed for some ailments and which needed surgical operations in a hospital, is not necessarily tantamount to admitting such an accused person to bail, in order for him to be treated first before standing his trial. For that to happen, the applicant for bail, in such circumstances, must depose to facts indicating that the prison authorities or the State such as the respondent, is incapable and lacks the capacity to provide for the medical care of the applicant while in their custody and pending his trial. I am afraid, there are no such depositions in the affidavit evidence in support of the application for bail.
The law is well settled to the effect that when in detention or custody the responsibility of affording him the (applicant) access to proper medical facilities rests with those in whose custody he is, invariably the prison authorities. Therefore, for ill-health to amount to a special/exceptional circumstances, which would actuate the mind of the Court to grant an application of this nature, it must be demonstrated by affidavit evidence that the ailment is beyond the capacity and competence of the prison authority to handle it and that fact must come from the prison authority itself and not from any other source. Bamaiyi vs. The State (2001) 86 LRCN 1156 at 1183 (SC); Jimoh vs. Commissioner of Police (2004) 17 NWLR (pt. 902) 389 at 396; Abacha vs. The State (2002) 95 LRCN 362 at 367; (2002) LPELR 15 (SC) at pp. 26 27.
My Lords, before I let off and draw the curtain on this appeal, it is instructive to ponder on the admonition of his Lordship, Ayoola, JSC in his lead judgment in Abacha vs. The State (supra) at pages 12 – 13 of the LPELR, to the effect that:
“Were it the law that an accused person remanded in custody to await trial is entitled to be granted bail but pursuant to a right to have access to a medical practitioner or medical facility of his choice, hardly would any accused person remain in custody to await trial.There is no general principle of law affording that right to an accused person remanded in custody. The duty of the State to ensure that the medical needs of persons in custody are met does not create such extravagant right as claimed that a person in custody is entitled to be treated by a doctor of his own choice.”
For all I have demonstrated in this judgment, I am satisfied with the decision of the learned trial judge, when he refused to exercise his discretion in favour of the appellant. It would have been injudicious to have granted the application in favour of the appellant.
The sole issue in this appeal is resolved against the appellant. Hence, the appeal is dismissed, for being devoid of merits. The ruling of C. O. Ajah, J., delivered in re Suit No. E/56c/2016 on 17th January, 2017 is hereby affirmed.
HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, J.C.A.: I have read the erudite decision of my learned brother TOM SHAIBU YAKUBU, JCA. I am in complete agreement with his Lordship that this appeal has no merit at all. The application for bail pending trial was rightly refused by the learned trial judge who exercised his discretion judiciously in the ruling. Appeal Dismissed. The well-considered ruling of C. O. Ajah J. delivered in Re Suit No.E/50C/2015 on 17/1/17 is hereby affirmed.
MISITURA OMODERE BOLAJI-YUSUFF, J.C.A.: I have read the draft of the judgment delivered by my learned brother, TOM SHAIBU YAKUBU, JCA. I agree with his reasoning and conclusion therein that the appeal has no merit. There is no evidence that the University of Nigeria Teaching Hospital that diagnosed and started treating the ailments of the appellant cannot continue the treatment. A grant or refusal of bail application is an exercise of a Court’s discretion and like any other discretionary power cannot lightly be interfered with once it is shown that it was judicially and judiciously exercised. The appellant failed to show that the Court below wrongly exercised its discretion in refusing him bail. I too dismiss the appeal.
Appearances:
Oladimeji Ekengba, Esq., with him: C. A. Eze, Esq.For Appellant(s)
Chief P. M. B. OnyiaFor Respondent(s)
