OWELA

15/12/2025

Kane on fire

08/12/2025

08/12/2025

Pure Football.

05/12/2025

SHEHU v. FRN (2024) LPELR-61662(CA)

EVIDENCE - CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT -

Key Principles:
1. The only time objection to admissibility of a document can be made is at the point of tendering the document during trial.

2. A confessional statement is not inadmissible merely because the version made in vernacular is not tendered along with the version interpreted into English language.

"The point should also be made that the appellant did not object at the trial in regard of the non-calling of the person who interpreted exhibit P4 into exhibit P5 or that the- content of exhibit P5, written in English language, does not reflect the correct version of what is contained in exhibit P4 in Hausa.

As the appellant failed to do so, we are guided by the case of Ganiyu v. State [2023] 11 NWLR (Pt. 1895) 199 at 226-227 which restated the law on how statements made by defendants to the police through interpreters are to be treated, as follows:

"Now, in Olalekan v. State (supra);'(2001) 18 NWLR (Pt. 746) 743, two Justices of this Court dissented, and apparently, in citing the said authority to buttress his position, the appellant is relying upon the minority decision therein, and not the- majority decision, which stands as the judgment of this Court, and holds to the contrary.

In that case, Olalekan v. State (supra), Karibi-Whyte, JSC, explained as follows: In R. v. Ogbuewu (supra), the Court made a very pertinent observation of the error, which still affects the Courts.

After stating that a statement is inadmissible unless the person, who interpreted it, is called as a witness as well as the person, who wrote it down, it was pointed out that rejection of statements for this reason have given rise to a belief that statements are inadmissible unless written in the language in which it was made. But that is not so, it is a matter of proof and not of admissibility - - Exhibit A, was made in, Yoruba language, interpreted into English language, and recorded in the English language - - The correctness of exhibit A was not challenged by the appellant when it was tendered at the trial. There is, therefore, no juridical basis on which exhibit A could be expunged from the record.

The observation in R. v. Ogbuewu - - that statements should be whenever practicable, recorded in the language in which it was made is a practical wisdom directed to avoid the kind of technical arguments, even if unreasonable, capable of being raised by counsel. It is not an invariable practice; but a practice to ensure correctness and accuracy of the statements made by an accused.

In other words, as Onu, JSC, also observed in Olalekan' v. State (supra), "The statement of an accused is not inadmissible merely because it is taken down in a different language from the language of the person making it - see Queen v. Baba Haske (1961) 1 All NLR330 at 333".

The point raised, as this Court said in Olalekan v. State (supra), "is a matter of proof, and not of admissibility." "Proof" is the establishment or refutation of an alleged fact by evidence, while "admissibility" is the quality or state of being allowed to be entered into evidence in a trial, hearing, or other official, proceeding - Black's Law Dictionary, 9th Ed.- Proof and admissibility are, therefore, totally different concepts, and it is an ironclad principle that the appropriate time to object to the admissibility of a document, which is what is in issue in this appeal, is when it is tendered at the trial for admission as part of the evidence, a party relies on in support of and in proof of the case that he intends to put forward - see Kassim v. State (2018) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1608) 20 SC.

Thus, where an accused person desires to exclude any evidence from being tendered on the ground that it is inadmissible, he must raise the objection at the time the application is made to tender the evidence.

Even if the document is admitted, he should cross- examine the witness to bring out the nature of the objection, as the Court can look at the issue of its admissibility and expunge it, if it was inadmissible in the first place - Buhari v. INEC & Ors (2008) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1120) 246. In this case, the appellant merely objected to the admissibility of the said exhibits A & B on the ground that he had not signed them, which does not affect the admissibility of the statements in evidence.

The question of whether he made it or not is decided at the end of the trial by the trial Court - Simon v. State (2017) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1566) 119.

Besides, the appellant did not mention any interpreter or allude to the fact that PW 2 recorded the said statements with the use of an interpreter, when the prosecution applied to' tender them in evidence.

The issue at stake, is admissibility and not proof, therefore, his failure to object when he should have objected is a cross that he must carry. It is not for the respondent to prove that an interpreter was not used.

It is too late in the day for the appellant to ask this Court to delve into the vexed question of whether an interpreter, who assisted PW 2, when he was recording the said statements from Yoruba language to English language, ought to have been called as a prosecution witness.

The issue died when the appellant failed to object on that ground at the trial Court, and nothing can be done to resurrect it in this appeal." Per OLABODE ABIMBOLA ADEGBEHINGBE, JCA (Pp 23 - 27 Paras D - E)

゚viralシalシ

22/11/2025

WHETHER A DEFENDANT CAN BE SENTENCED IN HIS ABSENCE: NNAMDI KANU UNDER REFERENCE.MAINA v. FRN (2022) LPELR-58942(CA)

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE - SENTENCING - Whether a Court can impose a sentence on an accused person in absentia
‎"Section 352 (4) and (5) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 provide as follows: "(4) Where the Court, in exercise of its discretion, has granted bail to the defendant and the defendant, in disregard for the Court orders, fails to surrender to the order of Court or fails to attend Court without reasonable explanation, the Court shall continue with the trial in his absence and convict him unless the Court sees reasons otherwise, provided that proceedings in the absence of the defendant shall take place after two adjournments or as the Court may deem fit." "(5) The Court shall impose a sentence only when the defendant is arrested or surrenders to the custody of the Court." Without a doubt, Section 352 (5) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 expressly stipulates that a Court shall impose a sentence only when the defendant is present. The lower Court was therefore in error when it imposed sentence on the Appellant in absentia."



‎

17/11/2025

*FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA vs. ATUCHE & ORS.(2022)LCN/16691(CA)*

The court is always in the habit of overlooking minor irregularities such as HEADING IN THE WRONG COURT.

*ISSUE:* NOTICE OF APPEAL-Whether a wrongly headed notice of appeal is incompetent

*PRINCIPLE:*
"Order 1 Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2021 provides as follows:
“The Forms set out in the First and Second Schedules to these rules, or Forms as near thereto as circumstances permit, shall be used in all cases to which such forms are applicable.”
The form relevant to this appeal is Form 5 in the 2nd Schedule of the Court of Appeal Rules. It is headed as follows:
CRIMINAL FORM 5
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
NOTICE OF APPEAL
The Notice of Appeal in this instant case was wrongfully headed “IN THE COURT OF APPEAL HOLDEN AT ABUJA” as against “IN THE COURT OF APPEAL HOLDEN AT LAGOS”. It is however clear that from the body of the Notice of Appeal, particularly, the First Paragraph, that the Appellant intended to appeal to this Court. The defect as to the heading of the Notice of Appeal is not a fundamental vice that will vitiate the appeal. Thus it is not fatal to the Notice of Appeal. It will therefore be wrong to strike out the Notice of Appeal as canvassed by the learned Silk to the 3rd Respondent simply because the Notice of Appeal was wrongly headed and addressed to the wrong Court. See OWUNALI VS. STATE (1982) 9 SC 48; CLEV JOSH LTD. VS. TOKIMI (2008) 13 NWLR (PART 1104); SURAKATU VS. NIGERIAN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY (1981) 4 SC 26. In AKPAN EKPEWIB VS. THE STATE (1982) SC NSCQR AT PAGE 385; (1982) 6 SC AT 1, it was stated that the appeal should be heard on its merits, despite been improperly headed. The issue is that the Parties were not in any way prejudiced by this wrong heading and were not mistaken as to the proper venue for the action, this Court would consider the error not to be fatal to the hearing on the merits of the appeal." Per BANJOKO, JCA.
゚viralシalシ

17/11/2025

*SAEBY JERNSTOBERI MASKINFABRIC A/S v. OLAOGUN ENTERPRISES LTD* (1999) LPELR-2973(SC)

ACTION - CAUSE(S) OF ACTION -
The question the court laboured to answer in this case is: When does cause of action arise for payment of purchase price where a contract of sale provides that the entire quantity of goods is to be delivered to the buyer but the buyer shall pay the price of the goods by installments?

The Supreme court in seeking to answer this question held as follows:

"When the terms of a contract of sale provide that the entire quantity of goods is to be delivered to the buyer, but the buyer shall pay the price of the goods by installments, a cause of action for the purchase price does not accrue immediately upon delivery of the goods as it would have, had the agreement been silent as to the time of payment of the purchase price, the true legal position has been well put in Benjamin's Sale of Goods (1974 Ed) para. 721 thus:

"The terms of the contract of sale may provide that the entire quantity of goods is to be delivered to the buyer, but that the buyer shall pay the price of the goods by installments. In such a case, credit is granted to the buyer pro tanto until each installment falls due." Also, as noted in note 89 to the same paragraph:

"Some agreements contain 'acceleration clauses' under which, if any installment is for a certain period of time in arrears, the whole balance for the time being owing thereupon becomes due and payable."

It seems evident that where there is acceleration clause, the cause of action for the entire balance for the time being owing, accrues from the expiration of the period of time any installment is agreed to be in arrears.

In this case, there is no acceleration clause and the question is whether a cause of action accrues in respect of each installment that has fallen into arrears and from the date of the falling into arrears?

The matter seems capable of two views. One is that upon each installment falling due, a debt is created as to that installment which is enforceable immediately by action.

Another is that the amount of the installment in respect of which a default has been made could be rolled into the next to swell the amount of the next installment, and subsequently, until at the end of the period agreed for the payment of all installments the seller knows and can sue for the balance of the purchase price then remaining unpaid.

In the former case, where, as in the present case, the buyer is permitted to pay the purchase price by six equal installments six separate obligations to pay are incurred, each accruing at the time each installment falls due and enforceable by the number of actions as there are defaults.

In the latter case, the obligation to pay the purchase price remains a single obligation enforceable, in order not to be caught by the Limitation Law, within six years of the default in paying the whole balance due at the time fixed for the payment or the last installment. In the latter case where there is no acceleration clause, the whole balance owing becomes due and payable at the end of the period.

The latter position which, for one thing, is tidier and more consistent with the existence of one single obligation to pay the purchase price created by the contract of sale, was, in effect, rightly chosen by the trial judge. Indulgence granted to the buyer, albeit by the agreement of the parties, to pay by installments should not be used to obliterate the fact that there was that single obligation. The position would have been different had the action been instituted on the bills.

In that case, in respect of each bill, the rule for computation of limitation would have applied and it would have been necessary to find out when in respect of each bill a cause of action first accrued to the holder or drawer of each of the bills against the respondent." Per EMMANUEL OLAYINKA AYOOLA, JSC (Pp 12 - 14 Paras D - F)
゚viralシalシ






#

11/11/2025

A threat to national security

11/11/2025

Impunity of Nigerian politicians.