➥ CASE SUMMARY OF:
The State v. Chibuzor (CA/B/204/2005, 28 MAY 2010)
by Branham Chima.
➥ ISSUES RAISED
Sentencing a Surety.
➥ CASE FACT/HISTORY
On 30/11/2000, one Maria Uwaifo and Abdul Nsassan were attacked and robbed of various items by a group of armed robbers at No. 23 Agbonlahor Street, Off Okhoro Road, Benin City. One Chibuzor Ebere (M) (Accused/Principal Party) was identified as being one of the robbers. Consequently, a charge for the offence of conspiracy and armed robbery was filed against him. His plea was taken on 27/2/2003, the proceedings for the trial of the said Chibuzor Ebere came to an end abruptly when the Accused person was said to have absconded. At that stage of the proceedings only two witnesses had testified and nothing had been tendered by way of Exhibit. While Chibuzor Ebere was standing trial for the offence of conspiracy and Armed Robbery in the High Court of Justice Edo State, Holden at Benin City, he applied for bail which was granted by the learned trial Judge in the sum of N100,000.00 with two sureties in like sum. The present Appellant stood surety for him. After the PW1 and PW2 had testified for the prosecution, the Accused person stopped coming to court. On 13/1/04 when the Accused person was absent from court the learned trial judge ordered a bench warrant for his arrest while the surety was remanded to prison custody. Being unable to produce the Accused person in court, a formal charge was filed against the surety under section 140 of the criminal procedure law cap 49 Vol. II, laws of Bendel State 1976 as applicable to Edo State, for him to show cause why the bond should not be forfeited. The Surety/Appellant pleaded not guilty. On the opening of the case, one witness testified for the prosecution and tendered the bail documents signed by the surety as Exhibits A1-11. The Surety/Appellant testified and called four witnesses in the proceedings to show cause. It was the case of the surety/Appellant that the Accused person was shot dead in a shoot out by the police. The learned trial Judge however, rejected the story of the surety and his witnesses as an after thought. He found that the Surety had failed to discharge the burden on him and has not shown any good cause why he should not forfeit the bond he entered into. Consequently, he declared the recognizance the surety entered into in the sum of N100,000.00 forfeited and in default to remain in prison for two years under section 137 of the Criminal Procedure Law cap 49, Vol. II Laws of Bendel State 1976 as applicable in Edo State. Being dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial court, the Surety/Appellant has now appealed to the Court of Appeal.
➥ ISSUE(S) & RESOLUTION(S)
[APPEAL ALLOWED]
I. Whether the Appellant was charged with an offence known to law?
RESOLUTION: IN APPELLANT’S FAVOUR.
[THERE WAS NO OFFENCE KNOWN TO LAW
‘From the above quoted the trial Judge based his conviction on section 137 of the CPL Cap 49 Laws of Bendel State 1976 as applicable in Edo State. I agree with the Appellant and Respondent that since no offence is defined in section 140 CPL I hold that the conviction of the Appellant was in violation of his right guaranteed under S. 36(12) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999. In the circumstance the conviction of the Applicant should be quashed and it is hereby quashed.’]
.
.
.
✓ DECISION:
‘’
➥ FURTHER DICTA:
⦿
➥ LEAD JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY:
George Oladeinde Shoremi, J.C.A.
➥ APPEARANCES
⦿ FOR THE APPELLANT(S)
E.T.A. Macfoy Esq.
⦿ FOR THE RESPONDENT(S)
Mrs. Uwuigbe.
➥ MISCELLANEOUS POINTS
➥ REFERENCED (LEGISLATION)
➥ REFERENCED (CASE)
➥ REFERENCED (OTHERS)
