When is the Appropriate Time to Object to a Formal Defect in a Charge?

CASE TITLE:  STATE v. AMOS (2024) LPELR-62533 (SC)

JUDGMENT DATE: 21ST JUNE, 2024

PRACTICE AREA: CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE

LEAD JUDGMENT: OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA, J.S.C.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:

This appeal borders on the Jurisdiction of Court based on an unsigned charge.

FACTS:

This appeal emanated from the decision of the Court of Appeal, Yola Division.

The Respondent was one of the five persons arraigned before the trial Court by the Appellant on a five-count charge of criminal conspiracy, culpable homicide punishable with death, inciting disturbance, mischief by killing or maiming animals, and causing the disappearance of evidence. The Respondent pleaded not guilty and the matter proceeded to trial in course of which the Appellant called six witnesses in proof of the charge against the Respondent and the Respondent testified as the sole witness in his defence. After trial and after the filing and adoption of final written addresses by Counsel to the parties, the trial Court entered judgment wherein it convicted the Respondent on all the counts and sentenced him to death and terms of imprisonment.

The Respondent was aggrieved by the judgment and he caused an appeal to be filed against it with the Court of Appeal sitting in Yola. One of the grounds of appeal questioned for the first time was the competence of the motion to prefer a charge and of the charge by which the proceedings were commenced in the trial Court for the failure of the Counsel who filed the motion and the charge to sign either of them. The Court of Appeal heard the appeal on its merits and it delivered a considered judgment where it allowed the appeal by declaring the trial a nullity for the non-signing of the charge.

Dissatisfied, the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE(S) FOR DETERMINATION:

The Court adopted the following issue for the determination of this appeal:

“Was the lower Court not in error when it held that the matter was not initiated before the trial Court by due process of law and upon fulfilment of a condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction, thereby rendering the whole exercise futile, and yet went ahead and discharged and acquitted the appellant.”

DECISION/HELD:

In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed.

RATIOS:

• COURT- JURISDICTION: Conditions that must be satisfied before a Court is competent to exercise its jurisdiction in respect of any matter; whether same must co-exist
• COURT- JURISDICTION: Meaning and nature of jurisdiction
• COURT- JURISDICTION: Instances where it may be said that a Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain an action
• COURT- DUTY OF COURT: Duty of Court to consider\pronounce on all the issues in a case
• COURT- JURISDICTION: Whether a party can be said to have waived his right where the Court lacks jurisdiction
• CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE- CHARGE(S): Appropriate time to object to a formal defect in a charge; the consequence of failure to do so
• CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE- CHARGE(S): Nature and purpose of a charge
• CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE- CHARGE(S): Position of the law as regards defect in a charge
• CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE- CHARGE(S): Effect of failure to sign a charge
• EVIDENCE- DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE: Effect of an unsigned document
• JUDGMENT AND ORDER- NULL AND VOID JUDGMENT/ORDER: Meaning and effect of nullity
• JUDGMENT AND ORDER- ORDER OF RETRIAL/TRIAL DE NOVO: Instances where an order of retrial will not be made

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