Can a Process With Multiple Legal Practitioners Be Sealed by One?

CASE TITLE: AUDU v. FRN (2024) LPELR-62977(SC)
JUDGMENT DATE: 19TH JULY, 2024
PRACTICE AREA: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
LEAD JUDGMENT: JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY, J.S.C.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:

This appeal borders on criminal law and procedure.

FACTS:

This appeal is against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division wherein the sentence and conviction of the Appellant by the trial High Court of the FCT were affirmed.

The Appellant was arraigned along with one Yahaya Ayodeji (2nd accused) before the trial Court on a 10-count Amended Charge bordering on offences of criminal conspiracy and deriving benefit from contracts emanating from their place of employment, contrary to Sections 12 and 26 of the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission Act, 2000. The charge was preferred by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission.

At the conclusion of trial, the trial Court in its judgment found the Appellant and the co-accused guilty of counts 1, 3, 4, 5, and 9 and sentenced them to 7 years’ imprisonment each, while on counts 2, 6, 7, 8, and 10, the Appellant alone was convicted and sentenced to 7 years’ imprisonment. Both sentences to run concurrently.

Dissatisfied with judgment of the trial Court, the Appellant lodged an appeal at the Court of Appeal. At the close of hearing, the Court of Appeal delivered its judgment wherein it dismissed the appeal for lacking merit and affirmed the conviction and sentence of the Appellant of the trial Court.

Displeased with the decision, the Appellant appealed.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:

The Court adopted the issues formulated by the respondent viz:

1. Whether the lower Court was wrong to hold that the absence of Counsel’s stamp and seal on the Amended 10-count charge preferred against the Appellant by the Prosecution did not rob the trial Court of the jurisdiction to determine the charge.

2. Whether the lower Court was right in holding that the prosecution proved the charge against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

DECISION/HELD:

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the appeal.

RATIOS:

• EQUITY- PRINCIPLES OF EQUITY: Whether a party can benefit from his own wrong
• EVIDENCE- BURDEN OF PROOF/ONUS OF PROOF: Whether he who has raised an allegation of bias must prove same
• EVIDENCE- HANDWRITING EVIDENCE: Whether the Court is empowered to compare the handwriting and signature on documents
• EVIDENCE- TRIAL WITHIN TRIAL: Instances where a trial within trial will not be conducted
• EVIDENCE- ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE: The effect where an objection is not raised to the admissibility of a document/evidence and the exceptions
• EVIDENCE- PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT: How is proof beyond reasonable doubt attained
• LEGAL PRACTITIONER- STAMP/SEAL: Rationale behind the requirement of affixing stamp and seal on a legal document; effect of failure to affix stamp and seal
• LEGAL PRACTITIONER- STAMP/SEAL: Whether a process which bears the names of more than one legal practitioner can be affixed with the stamp and seal of one of the legal practitioners listed on the face of the process

To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol