FRN v. UMAR & ANOR
(2022)LCN/16699(CA)
In The Court Of Appeal
(JOS JUDICIAL DIVISION)
On Friday, February 11, 2022
CA/J/154/C/2021
Before Our Lordships:
James Shehu Abiriyi Justice of the Court of Appeal
Mudashiru Nasiru Oniyangi Justice of the Court of Appeal
Olasumbo Olanrewaju Goodluck Justice of the Court of Appeal
Between
FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA APPELLANT(S)
And
1. ABUBAKAR MUHAMMAD UMAR 2. ISA ABDULLAHI RESPONDENT(S)
RATIO
THE MEANING OF A “NO CASE SUBMISSION”
A no case submission means that there is no evidence on which the Court could convict even if the Court believed the evidence given. See Ohuka & Ors v The State No. 2 (1988) LPELR -2362 (SC). If there is legally admissible evidence however slight, the matter should proceed as there is something to look at. See Agbo & Ors. v The State (2013) LPELR-20388 (SC). Where the Court is satisfied that a prima facie case has been made out the less said the better. See Amah v F.R.N (2019) LPELR -46347.
As the Court below was not satisfied that a prima facie case had been made out, it ought to have shown that it evaluated the entire evidence adduced by the Appellant. Learned counsel for the Respondents in my view is wrong in his contention that the objective of a no case submission is not to evaluate the entire evidence led by the prosecution.
It is the law that it is only when the Court finds that a prima facie case has been established that it is enjoined to say little. PER ABIRIYI, J.C.A.
THE POSITION OF LAW ON UPHOLDING A NO CASE SUBMISSION
Let me add in support that a no case submission ought to be upheld only if at the close of the case for the prosecution there is no proof of the essential elements in the charge. See UBANATU V COP (2000) 1 SC 31. Such is not applicable in the appeal at hand having regard to the evidence of the prosecution before the Court. PER ONIYANGI, J.C.A.
THE POSITION ON LAW ON THE FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING A NO CASE SUBMISSION
In determining a no case submission, the poser before the Court is not whether the Court believes the evidence elicited by the prosecution nor is the credibility of the witness in issue. At the stage where the Court is invited to determine whether there is a no case, the Court is to evaluate the prosecution’s evidence and determine whether there is evidence against the accused which calls for explanation(s) regarding the offence he is being charged. At this stage, it is not the duty of the Court to determine whether the evidence is sufficient to secure a conviction of the accused persons all that will arise when the accused has been availed with the opportunity to offer a defence. See Ohwovoriole vs. FRN 2003 FWLR (141) 2019 AT 2045; Ajiboye The State (1995) 8 NWLR (1414) 408. The role of the Court is simply to consider whether there is admissible evidence to warrant the calling of the accused person to answer or explain some facts. In other words, all that a trial Court is required to do in the determination of a no case submission is to look at the evidence adduced by the prosecution to find if a prima facie case was disclosed by evidence in proof of the offence(s) the accused is charged with. It is not the same as proof which comes later when the Court has to find whether the accused is guilty or not, See SHINKAFI & ANOR vs FRN (2017) LPELR-42701 (CA). PER GOODLUCK, J.C.A.
JAMES SHEHU ABIRIYI, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against a decision handed down on 29th March, 2019 in the High Court of Plateau State sitting in Jos.
In the High Court (the Court below), the Respondents were charged with criminal conspiracy and criminal misappropriation contrary to Sections 96 and 309 of the Penal Code.
The case of the Appellant against the Respondents was briefly as follows: The Respondents were engaged to distribute tricycles for a company called Albaia Trading Company and collect money on weekly basis from the operators of the tricycles here in Jos. The Respondents were collecting the money and remitting it into the company’s account. When PW1 came to reconcile the account, he discovered “a short fall” of six million, three hundred and fifteen thousand, four hundred naira (N6,315,400.00). The Respondents said that the money was with them. They promised to pay the money instalmentally.
Inspite of the promise by the Respondents to pay the money instalmentally, the company reported the matter to EFCC. Statements made by the Respondents in the EFCC office were admitted in evidence and marked Exhibits EFCC 2(a) and (b).
Learned counsel for the Respondent and the Appellants addressed the Court below on a no case submission. The Court below upheld the no case submission, discharged and acquitted the Respondents.
The Appellant has approached this Court by a Notice of Appeal containing four grounds of appeal. From the four grounds of appeal the Appellant formulated the following lone issue for determination;
“Whether the trial Court was not wrong in upholding the no case submission made by the Respondents in respect of counts 1 and 2 of the charge.”
The Respondent also formulated one issue for determination. It is reproduced immediately hereunder:
“Whether the Appellant made out a prima facie case at the trial Court to warrant this Honourable Court to upturn the trial Court’s Judgment.”
Arguing the appeal, learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the trial Court was wrong to have upheld the no case submission of the Respondents in respect of the charge. This, it was contended, was contrary to the evidence led by the Appellant. The Court below, it was submitted, failed to make findings in respect of Exhibits EFCC 2(a) and (b) as it was bound to do. The statements, it was argued, were confessional and were sufficient to link the Respondents with the charge against them.
Learned counsel for the Respondents submitted that from the totality of evidence adduced by the Appellant at the trial, no prima facie case was established.
The primary objective of a no case submission, it was argued, is not to evaluate the entire evidence of the prosecution.
A no case submission means that there is no evidence on which the Court could convict even if the Court believed the evidence given. See Ohuka & Ors v The State No. 2 (1988) LPELR -2362 (SC). If there is legally admissible evidence however slight, the matter should proceed as there is something to look at. See Agbo & Ors. v The State (2013) LPELR-20388 (SC). Where the Court is satisfied that a prima facie case has been made out the less said the better. See Amah v F.R.N (2019) LPELR -46347.
As the Court below was not satisfied that a prima facie case had been made out, it ought to have shown that it evaluated the entire evidence adduced by the Appellant. Learned counsel for the Respondents in my view is wrong in his contention that the objective of a no case submission is not to evaluate the entire evidence led by the prosecution.
It is the law that it is only when the Court finds that a prima facie case has been established that it is enjoined to say little.
In the instant case in which the Court below found that no prima facie case had been established, it ought to have shown that it considered all the legally admitted evidence before it. This, it failed to do in its judgment. I agree entirely with learned counsel for the Appellant that there was legally admissible evidence before the Court below upon which the Respondents ought to have been called upon to defend themselves.
The only issue for determination should therefore be resolved in favour of the Appellant and against the Respondents. It is accordingly resolved in favour of the Appellant and against the Respondents.
The appeal is allowed. The judgment of the Court below in suit No. PLD/J17C/2018 delivered on 29th March, 2019 is hereby set aside by me. The complaint No. PLD/J17C/18 Federal Republic of Nigeria v (1) Abubakar Muhammed (2) Isa Abdullahi is hereby remitted to the Honourable Chief Judge of Plateau State to be heard de novo by another Judge other than Honourable Justice D.D. Longji.
MUDASHIRU NASIRU ONIYANGI, J.C.A.: I had the advantage of reading before now in draft the lead judgment just delivered by my learned brother JAMES SHEHU ABIRIYI JCA (PJCA) and I agree with his reasoning and conclusion reached thereat.
Let me add in support that a no case submission ought to be upheld only if at the close of the case for the prosecution there is no proof of the essential elements in the charge. See UBANATU V COP (2000) 1 SC 31. Such is not applicable in the appeal at hand having regard to the evidence of the prosecution before the Court.
Simply put, what the learned trial judge did by upholding the no case submission is to allow wrong to triumph over right. The result in such circumstance will be injustice.
For the foregoing and the fuller reasoning contained in the lead judgment, I also allow the appeal and abide by the consequential orders made therein.
OLASUMBO OLANREWAJU GOODLUCK, J.C.A.: I have been availed of an advance copy of the lead judgment delivered by his Lordship, Hon. Justice James Shehu Abiriyi, PJCA and I align myself with his decision in the light of the facts and the circumstances relating to no case submission ordered by the lower Court.
I am also inclined to hold that the statement made by the Respondents at the EFCC office, Exhibits EFCC 2(a) and (b) ought not to have been discountenanced by the trial judge in determining whether to uphold or set aside the no case submission.
In determining a no case submission, the poser before the Court is not whether the Court believes the evidence elicited by the prosecution nor is the credibility of the witness in issue. At the stage where the Court is invited to determine whether there is a no case, the Court is to evaluate the prosecution’s evidence and determine whether there is evidence against the accused which calls for explanation(s) regarding the offence he is being charged. At this stage, it is not the duty of the Court to determine whether the evidence is sufficient to secure a conviction of the accused persons all that will arise when the accused has been availed with the opportunity to offer a defence. See Ohwovoriole vs. FRN 2003 FWLR (141) 2019 AT 2045; Ajiboye The State (1995) 8 NWLR (1414) 408. The role of the Court is simply to consider whether there is admissible evidence to warrant the calling of the accused person to answer or explain some facts. In other words, all that a trial Court is required to do in the determination of a no case submission is to look at the evidence adduced by the prosecution to find if a prima facie case was disclosed by evidence in proof of the offence(s) the accused is charged with. It is not the same as proof which comes later when the Court has to find whether the accused is guilty or not, See SHINKAFI & ANOR vs FRN (2017) LPELR-42701 (CA).
Guided by these considerations I am not left in doubt that the trial judge erred when he failed to consider Exhibits EFCC 2(a) and (b) in arriving at his finding, he ought to have taken cognizance of the Exhibits which tends to link the Respondents to the charges against them.
I associate myself with his Lordship’s decision that this appeal should be allowed. I also agree with the attendant orders made in the lead judgment.
Appearances:
Michael Ojo Esq. For Appellant(s)
Z.A. Bulus Esq. For Respondent(s)
