Time Within Which to File a Criminal Appeal to the Supreme Court

CASE TITLE: STATE v. EFEREBO (2026) LPELR-83362(SC)

JUDGMENT DATE: 6TH MARCH, 2026

PRACTICE AREA: CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE

LEAD JUDGMENT: MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.S.C.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:

This appeal borders on Criminal Law and Procedure.

FACTS:

The Respondent was arraigned before the Bayelsa State High Court, Yenagoa (trial Court) by the Appellant on two (2) counts of charges: CONSPIRACY contrary to Section 444 (a) of the Bayelsa State Criminal Code Law Cap. 14, Laws of Bayelsa State, 2006, and ROBBERY contrary to Section 329 (2) of the Bayelsa State Criminal Code Law Cap. 14, Laws of Bayelsa State, 2006.

On the day of arraignment, the proceedings before the trial Court, the charge was read to the accused in English Language and he pleaded not guilty. The accused was also remanded in prison custody, and the matter was adjourned for hearing.

Thereafter, the matter proceeded to trial during which the Appellant called three (3) witnesses: PW1 & PW2 who were the victims of the alleged offence and PW3, Police Inspector Mbong Emmanuel, who was an investigator.

​After his no-case submission was overruled by the trial Court, the Respondent testified as the sole witness in defence of the charge, and in the judgment delivered, he was found guilty of the two (2) counts and sentenced to life imprisonment.

The Respondent was dissatisfied by his conviction, and he appealed against the same to the Court of Appeal via a Notice of Appeal supported with grounds.

After a consideration of the arguments by the Learned counsel for the parties on the issues for determination of parties, the Court of Appeal delivered it judgment in the appeal, allowing the appeal, primarily on the following grounds: –

(a) that no plea was taken by the trial Court on count II of the charge which the Appellant was convicted for.

(b) that Respondent was charged for robbery simpliciter but committed armed robbery.

(c) no evidence of conspiracy.

Being dissatisfied with the decision of the Court of Appeal, the Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court.

The issues raised by the parties were discountenanced on the grounds that the Notice of Appeal was incompetent.

ISSUE(S) FOR DETERMINATION:

The appeal was determined on the issue of the incompetence of Notice of Appeal which was raised suo motu by the Court.

DECISION/HELD:

The Amended Notice of Appeal alongside the original Notice of Appeal were struck out.

RATIOS:         

• APPEAL- NOTICE(S) OF APPEAL: Time within which to file criminal appeal to the Supreme Court; effect of failure to file same within the stipulated time or to seek leave to file same out of time
• APPEAL- NOTICE(S) OF APPEAL: Whether an invalid notice of appeal can be amended
• COURT- RAISING ISSUE(S) SUO MOTU: Whether a Court can raise the issue of jurisdiction suo motu and determine it without hearing parties

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