Forgery: What Prosecution Needs To Establish(2)

On meaning of “ground of appeal”

A ground of appeal is the allegation of error of law or fact made by an appellant as the defect in the judgment appealed against and on which it is relied upon to set it aside. (metal Construction (W.A.) Ltd. V. Migliore (1990) INWLR (Pt.126) 299 referred to. (P93, paras. A-B)

On Requirements for validity of ground of appeal which alleges an error or misdirection in law to be a valid ground of appeal it must comply with the following conditions:

(a)        Quote a passage in the judgment where the misdirection or error in law is alleged to have occurred;

(b)        Specify the nature of the error in law or misdirector; and

(c)        Give full substantial particulars of the alleged error misdirection.

The  ground of appeal must state clearly the complaint against the judgment so that the adverse party or the court is not thrown into a state of confusion in trying to decipher the content or nature of the ground. Therefore, it must be specific and not general in terms (Lucas Pharmaceutical Chemist Ltd. V. Roche (Nig.) Ltd. (1995) 1 NWLR (Pt.369) 28 referred to.) (p.94, paras. D-F)

On Meaning of “Concise”-

Concise means giving only the information that is necessary and important, using few words. (P.94, para. H)

On Nature of particulars a ground of appeal shall contain-

A ground of appeal shall contain accurate particulars. These particulars give insight into the nature of the ground of appeal, as they bring to the fore the real complaint of the appellant against the judgment appealed. Therefore, the particulars must not be independent complaints from the grounds of appeal itself, but should be auxiliary to it. The particulars of a ground of appeal are intimately related to the ground and cannot be divorced from it. Thus,  particular merely highlights the main ground and is not an independent complaint against the judgment. Therefore, where a particular attached to a ground of appeal, does not flow from or relate to the ground of appeal it must be struck out. In other words,  the particulars as well as the ground it purportedly flows from must be struck out, as the Court of Appeal is not a surgeon who will excise the bad part from the ground. (P. 95, paras. A-B; F-G)

On Meaning of vagueness of a ground of appeal and when may arise-

Vagueness of a ground of appeal may arise where its explicit standard is so uncertain that it is not susceptible of being understood. It may also be considered vague when the complaint is not defined in relation to the subject or it is not particularised, or the particulars are clearly irrelevant. In the instant case, ground ii was vague and was accordingly struck out. (CBN v. Okojie (2002) 8 NWLR (Pt. 768) 48 referred to.) (P.95. paras. C-E; 97, para D).

On Couching of omnibus ground of appeal in civil and criminal cases-

The omnibus ground in a notice of appeal is couched depending on whether it is a civil case or criminal case. In civil case, it is couched that “the judgment is against the weight of evidence”, while in criminal case, the omnibus ground is that “the judgment is unreasonable, unwarranted and cannot be supported by weight of evidence”. (P95, paras. G-H).

On Principles guiding formulation of issues for determination in an appeal-

In formulating issues for determination, counsel must avoid prolixity and keep closely within the confines of the grounds of appeal relied upon. Ideally, a party cannot formulate more issues than one from a ground of appeal as appeals are heard and decided on issues raised on the grounds of appeal filed before the court. (P. 104, paras. D-E).

On Principles guiding formulation of issues for determination in an appeal-

Although framing two issues from a single ground of appeal by an appellant amounts to proliferation of issues. In the instant case the appellant’s ground 3 and issues (i) and (ii) formulated therefrom were competent to sustain the instant appeal, as they constituted subsidiary issues to the sole issue for determination. (Anaeze v. Anyaso (1993) 5 NWLR (Pt. 291) 1; Buraimoh v. Bamgbose (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 109) 352; Yusuf v. Akindipe (2000) 8 NWLR (Pt. 166) 166) referred to.) pp. 104, paras. F-G; 105, para. A)

On Need for court to avoid slavish obedience to rules of court at the expense of substantive justice-

While rules of court and procedure are made to be obeyed, where their strict observance may lead to injustice on any of the parties, the court should be liberal in interpreting the rules in order to do substantial justice. (A.-G., Bendel State v. A.-G., Fed. (1982) 3 NCLR 1 referred to. )(P. 104 para. H)

On Propriety of ground of appeal alleging both misdirection and error at the same time-

A ground of appeal shall not allege both misdirection and error at the same time or allege misdirection in law and fact in the same ground of appeal. (Incar (Nig.) Plc v. Bolex Enterprises (Nig.) Ltd. (1996) 6 NWLR (Pt. 454) 318 referred to. ) (P.94, paras. A-B)

On Need for ground of appeal to address a perceived wrong-

A ground of appeal is not supposed to serve a mere academic purpose, but to address a wrong or perceived wrong. It therefore should not be an academic question. The grounds of appeal should address themselves to and consider the facts of the particular case. (Peters v. State (1992) 9 NWLR (Pt. 265) 323; Laah v Opaluwa 92004) 9 NWLR (Pt.879) 558 referred to.) (P.94, paras. B-C)

Nigerian Cases Referred to in the Judgment:

A.-G., Bendel State v. A.-G., Fed. (1982) 3 NCLR 1 Aina v. Jinadu (1992) 4 NWLR (Pt. 233) 91

Akpan v. State (1992) 6 NWLR (Pt. 233)439

Akuchie v. Nwamadi (1992) 8 NWLR (Pt. 258) 214

Amadi V. State (1993) 8 NWLR (Pt. 314) 644

Anaeze v. Anyaso (1993 5 NWLR (Pt. 291) 1

Buraimoh v. Bamgbose (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 109) 352

C.B.N. v. Okojie (2002) 8 NWLR (Pt. 7680) 48

Elendu v. Ekwoaba (1995) 3 NWLR (Pt. 386) 704

Idowu v. State (1998) 11 NWLR (Pt. 574) 354

Incar (Nig.) Plc v. Bolex Ent. (Nig.) Ltd. (1996) 6 NWLR (Pt. 454) 318

Laah v. Opaluwa (2004) 9NWLR (Pt. 879) 558

Lawal v. Salami (2002) 2 NWLR (Pt. 752) 687

Lucas Pharmaceutical Chemist Ltd. v. Roche (Nig.) Ltd. (1995) 1 NWLR (Pt. 369) 28

Metal Const. (W.A.) Ltd. v. Migliore (1990) 1 NWLR (Pt. 126 299

N.B. Plc v. Adetoun Oladeji (Nig.) Ltd. (2002) 15 NWLR (Pt. 791) 589

Odu v. State (1965 1 All NLR 25

Osondu v. F.R.N. (2002) 12 NWLR (Pt. 682) 483

Peters v. State (1992) 9 NWLR (Pt. 265) 232

Scott v. King (1950) 13 WACA 25

Utih v. onoyivwe (1991) 1 NWLR (Pt. 166) 166

Yusuf v. Akindipe (2002) 8 NWLR (Pt. 669) 376

Foreign Cases Referred To In The Judgment:

Morison v. London County & West-Minister Bank Ltd. (1914) 3 KB 356

R v. Dodge (1972) 1 QB 416

R v. Windsor (1865) 10 Cov. 118

Nigeria Statutes Referred to in the Judgment:

Criminal Code Act Cap. C38 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 Ss. 464(b), 467(1)(2)(3)(4)(5) Criminal Procedure Act Cap. C41 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 S. 166

Failed Banks (Recovery of Debts) and Financial Malpractices Banks Decree No. 18 of 1994 Ss. 2(1), 3(1)(d); Schedule 2 paras. 2(1), 18

Nigerian Rules of Court Referred to in the Judgment:

Court of Appeal Rules 2011 0.6 r 2(2)(3) & (4)

Book Referred to in the Judgment:

Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary 6th Ed.

Appeal:

This was an appeal against the judgment of the Lagos Zone of the Failed Banks (Recovery of Debts and Financial Malpractices in Banks Tribunal which convicted and sentenced the appellant to imprisonment for forgery. The court of Appeal in a unanimous decision, allowed the appeal, and set aside the judgment of the tribunal.

History of the case:

Court of appeal:

Division of the court of Appeal to which the appeal was brought: Court of Appeal, Lagos

Names of Justices that sat on the appeal: John Inyang Okoro, J.C.A. (Presided); Sidi Dauda Bage, J.C.A.; Rita Noskhare Pemu, J.C.A. (Read the Leading Judgment) Appeal No.: CA/L/163/2002

Date of Judgment: Friday, 10th February, 2012

Names of Counsel: Dr. Onyechi Ikpeazu, SAN – for the Appellant

Muyiwa Ogunkolade, Esq. – for the Respondent

Tribunal:

Name of the Tribunal: Failed Banks (Recovery of debts) and Financial Malpractices in Banks Tribunal, Lagos Zone.

Chairman: Amina Augie, J.

Date of Judgment: Monday, 9th June 1997

Counsel:

Dr. Onyechi Ikpeazu, SAN –for the Appelant

Muyiwa ogunkolade, Esq. – for the Respondent.