CASE TITLE: STATE v. NGGILARI & ORS (2026) LPELR-84161(SC)
JUDGMENT DATE: 5TH JUNE, 2026
PRACTICE AREA: CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE
LEAD JUDGMENT: MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.S.C.
SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:
INTRODUCTION:
This appeal borders on conviction under an unknown law.
FACTS:
This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Yola Judicial Division, delivered on the 20th day of July, 2017, in Appeal No. CA/YL/80C/2017 coram: Oyebisi Folayemi Omoleye, JCA, James Shehu Abiriyi, JCA, and Saidu Tanko Husaini, JCA.
The 1st Respondent was charged alongside the 2nd and 3rd Respondents on an amended information dated the 25th day of January, 2017
On the 21st day of September, 2016, the trial Court granted leave to prefer a charge against the Respondents and directed that the information dated 21st July, 2016, be read to them. Upon arraignment, the Respondents each entered a plea of not guilty to the 17-count charge. The said information was subsequently amended twice: first, after the close of the prosecution’s case, and finally by an amended information dated and filed on the 25th January, 2017, which amendment was granted on the 2nd February, 2017. The amended charge was read to the Respondents, and they again pleaded not guilty to all the counts before counsel for the parties adopted their respective final written addresses.
The Respondents, who before the institution of this suit held office as the Executive Governor, Secretary to the State Government, and Commissioner for Finance of Adamawa State, respectively, were arraigned before the High Court of Adamawa State on allegations of non-compliance with the provisions of the Public Procurement Law of Adamawa State, 2013, in relation to the procurement of 25 units of Toyota Corolla (2015 model) vehicles. In essence, the prosecution alleged, inter alia, failure to obtain a certificate of no objection, non-compliance with competitive bidding requirements, irregular payment of the contract sum as mobilization, failure to secure a bank guarantee, and failure to obtain requisite quotations from other contractors.
Delivering its judgment, the trial Court discharged and acquitted the 2nd and 3rd Respondents on all counts. The 1st Respondent, however, was likewise acquitted on the count of criminal conspiracy but was convicted on the remaining counts and consequently sentenced to 5 (five) years’ imprisonment without an option of fine.
Dissatisfied with that decision, the 1st Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal, Yola Judicial Division. The Court of Appeal, adopting the issues distilled by the Appellant therein, reviewed the record and the submissions of counsel, and ultimately allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentence, and entering a verdict of discharge and acquittal in favour of the 1st Respondent.
Aggrieved by the said judgment, the Appellant has further appealed to the Supreme Court.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:
The Court considered these issues:
1. Whether the Court below was right when it held that discountenancing of “Issue No, 3” formulated by the 1st Respondent by the trial Court amounted to denying him fair hearing.
2. Whether the Court below was right when it held that the 1st Respondent being a sitting Governor at the time of the alleged commission of the offence and by virtue of that fact a public officer, was consequently exempted from the operation of the Adamawa State Public Procurement Law, 2013, and could not be prosecuted for contravention of it by reason of Section 58(1) of the Law.
DECISION/HELD:
The appeal was dismissed
RATIOS:
- CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – BREACH OF RIGHT TO FAIR HEARING: Whether failure of Court to consider issues placed before it will amount to denial of fair hearing
- COURT – JURISDICTION: Importance of jurisdiction and effect of proceedings conducted where Court lacks jurisdiction
- CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – OFFENCE UNKNOWN TO LAW: Effect of conviction under an unknown law
- CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – OFFENCE UNKNOWN TO LAW: Whether an offence and its punishment must be prescribed by a written law
- INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE – LITERAL RULE OF INTERPRETATION: Approach of Court in interpreting the clear and unambiguous words of a statute
- INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE – PENAL STATUTES: How penal statutes should be interpreted
- INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE – RULES OF INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES: Position of the law where the words used in a statute are clear
To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol
