How to Calculate Time within which to File a Criminal Appeal to the Court of Appeal

CASE TITLE: YAKUBU v. FRN (2022) LPELR-57749(SC)

JUDGMENT DATE: 13TH APRIL, 2022

PRACTICE AREA: CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE

LEAD JUDGMENT: TIJJANI ABUBAKAR, J.S.C.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION

This appeal borders on Criminal Law and Procedure.

FACTS

​ This is an appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, (Coram Abdu Aboki, JCA, Emmanuel Akomaye Agim, JCA and M. Mustapha, JCA) wherein the decision of the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja (Coram A. M. Talba). The trial Court convicted the Appellant based on the Plea Bargain and admission of the 3 Count Charge and sentenced him to two (2) years imprisonment each for Counts 18, 19, & 20 with an option of a fine of N250,000.00 on each of the three Counts to run consecutively.

The Appellant was a civil servant and the Chief Accountant of the Nigerian Police Pension Fund. As the Chief Accountant, he was one of the signatories to the account of the Nigerian Police Pension Fund which he managed with other persons.

Between 2011 and 2012, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission investigated the financial activities of the Nigerian Police Pension Fund. The outcome of the investigation indicted the Appellant and 7 others for misappropriating billions of Naira belonging to the Police Pension Fund. Thus by an application dated the 28th day of March 2012, the Respondent obtained the leave of the trial Court to prefer a charge against the Appellant and 7 other Defendants. After the investigation, the Appellant was charged to Court at the Federal Capital Territory High Court. The Appellant made a Plea Bargain based on his proposal to the Respondent. The Appellant’s Solicitor and the Respondent after extensive discussions agreed that the Appellant should forfeit 32 landed properties and the sum of N325,187,867.18 as a refund of the N3 Billion misappropriated by the Appellant. Based on the forfeiture of the 32 properties and the sum of N325,187,867.18, the Appellant was to be charged under Section 309 of the Penal Code for a lesser punishment. The Plea bargain arrangement was presented to the trial Court which made it the judgment of the Court without much ado.

​Being dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial court, the Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal delivered its judgment wherein it dismissed the Appellant’s Notice of Preliminary Objection and set aside the judgment of the trial Court and substituted the same with stiffer and harsher sentences. The Court sentenced the Appellant to 2 years imprisonment on each of Counts 18, 19 & 20 for which the Appellant was convicted. The terms of imprisonment are to run consecutively. The Court further imposed in respect of Counts 18, 19 & 20 additional fines of 20 Billion Naira, 1.4 Billion Naira and 1.5 Billion Naira respectively.

Dissatisfied, the Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

Appellant formulated the following issues for the determination of the appeal:

1. “Whether the Court of Appeal was right in dismissing the Appellant’s Notice of Preliminary Objection on the grounds that Section 15(2)(b) of the Interpretation Act overrides the express provisions of Section 24(2) of the Court of Appeal Act

2. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in quashing the judgment of the trial Court and substituting the same with more punitive and severe sentences in total disregard of the plea bargain reached between the Appellant and the Respondent whereby 32 properties and the sum of N325,187,867.18 (Three Hundred and Twenty-Five Million, One Hundred and Eighty-Seven Thousand, Eight Hundred and Sixty- Seven Naira, Eighteen Kobo) were forfeited to the Federal Government as a refund of the N3,000,000,000.00 (Three Billion Naira) misappropriated by the Appellant?”

Respondent formulated the following issues:

1. “Whether the Court of Appeal was not right when it held that the Respondent’s appeal before it was competent and valid?

2. Whether the Court of Appeal was not right in quashing the sentence of the trial Court and substituting it with a more severe sentence?”

DECISION/HELD

The apex Court unanimously dismissed the appeal.

RATIOS:

• APPEAL- CRIMINAL APPEAL: Appropriate time within which to file a criminal appeal to the Court of Appeal; how same is calculated
• COURT- DUTY OF COURT: Duty of Court in the fight against corruption
• CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE- SENTENCING: Whether sentencing is at the discretion of the trial Court; the attitude of the appellate Court to the exercise of the same
• CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE- SENTENCING: What a trial court must consider when sentencing a convicted offender
• CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE- PLEA BARGAIN: Whether a criminal can through plea bargain benefit from the proceeds of his or her crime
• CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE- PLEA BARGAIN: Advantages of a plea bargain; need to ensure same is not adopted to defeat the attainment of substantial justice