3PLR – MAMMAN V. GWANDU NATIVE AUTHORITY

POLICY, PRACTICE AND PUBLISHING, LAW REPORTS  3PLR

[PDF copy of this judgment can be sent to your email for N300 only. Just order through lawnigeria@gmail.com and info@lawnigeria.com or text 07067102097]

DIKKO MAMMAN

V.

GWANDU NATIVE AUTHORITY

FEDERAL SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

F.S.C. 33/1961

5TH JUNE, 1961

3PLR/1961/51 (FSC)

OTHER CITATIONS

BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS:

SIR ADETOKUNBO ADEMOLA, C.I.F. (Presided and read the Judgment of the Court)

JOHN IDOWU CONRAD TAYLOR, F.J.

SIR VAHE BAIRAMIAN, F.J.

MAIN ISSUES

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE –COURT: Judgment of Native Court not signed – Whether S.245 Criminal Procedure Ordinance applies.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE –COURT: Presumption of regularity of proceeding – When raised.

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – S.245 Criminal Procedure Ordi­nance – Signing of Judgment – Whether applicable to Native Courts.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE –JUDGMENT AND ORDERS: Order of Native Courts – Whether there is need for it to be signed – Inapplicabil­ity of 5.245 Criminal Procedure Ordinance.

RELIGIOUS LAW – SHARIA COURT: Murder Trial in Emir’s Court – Procedure for validating judgment

REPRESENTATION:

1. A. Cole -for the Appellant
2. O. Williams, Crown Counsel – for the Respondent.

ADEMOLA, C.J.F. (Delivering the Judgment of the Court):

The appellant was tried and sentenced to death in the Emir of Gwandu’s Court for the mur­der of one Mamman Jika. The Moslem Court of Appeal to which he ap­pealed dismissed his appeal on the 19th September, 1960. His appeal to the High Court was dismissed on the 10th January, 1961. He then appealed to this Court.

The only grounds of appeal argued before us are that the record of ap­peal in the Emir of Gwandu’s Court did not show the names of members of the Court who sat at different adjournments. Also that it does not appear from the record that the judgment in that Court was signed.

We have considered these points raised by Counsel for the appellant. With regard to the panel of Judges there was nothing to show on the record that there was a change in the panel of Judges set out who sat on the first day of the trial. It is to be presumed that everything done was done aright, and in the absence of any proof to the contrary, it must be presumed that the same panel of Judges shown as sitting the first day, sat throughout from day to day.

We have also considered the submission that the judgment was not signed by the Emir who presided at the trial. We made enquiries about this matter and we are satisfied that until recently it was not necessary in the Emir’s Court for the president to sign a judgment, but a record of that judg­ment when issued as a copy must be certified by the registrar. This particular record was so certified.

Section 245 of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance enjoins a Judge or a Magistrate to sign any judgment written by him. It was not suggested that this applied to Native Courts where, we believe judgments are given orally and notes are written down by the Scribe.

We are further of the opinion that the sentence of death passed by the Emir’s Court having gone up on appeal to the Moslem Court of Appeal and from there to the High Court on appeal from where a further appeal was made to this Court, it was clear enough what the judgment and sentence were that were passed.

We therefore reject these grounds of appeal. There are no other grounds of appeal nor is there any other point we can consider in favour of the appellant. This appeal is therefore dismissed.

Appeal Dismissed.