Categories: General

Whether Criminal Liability is Transferable

CASE TITLE: SMART v. IDIOKITA & ORS (2026) LPELR-83267 (SC)

JUDGMENT DATE: 30TH JANUARY, 2026

PRACTICE AREA: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

LEAD JUDGMENT: HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, J.S.C.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:

This appeal borders on Civil Procedure.

FACTS:

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal Coram: Bolaji-Yusuff, Obaseki-Adejumo, Abdul-Azeez Obaseki-Adejumo, and Waziri, JJCA, delivered on 13/3/2024.

The summary of the 1st Respond, John Samuel’s, case before the trial Court (which gave rise to the instant appeal) is that the 1st Respondent was allegedly approached by the Appellant herein to prevail on his (the 1st Respondent’s) son, John Samuel, to pay the Appellant his money arising from a business transaction. The 1st Respondent claimed not to be part of the alleged business transaction between the 6th Respondent and the 1st Respondent’s son, John Samuel. It was the case of the 1st Respondent that, as a result of the 1st Respondent’s inability to get his son to pay the Appellant’s money, he was allegedly arrested and detained unlawfully at the Delta State Police Headquarters under the command of the 6th Respondent herein between the 8th and 13th days of August, 2021. The 1st Respondent claimed that his alleged arrest and detention was at the instigation of the Appellant. The 1st Respondent also stated that after his unlawful detention at the Delta State Police Headquarters, he was again invited to Zone 5 Headquarters of the Nigeria Police Force, Benin City, Edo State, where he was allegedly subjected to persistent harassment, and the 2nd and 5th Respondents threatened to arrest and detain him if he failed to produce his son. It was on the basis of the foregoing that the Appellant approached the trial Court for the enforcement of his fundamental rights.

When the application came up for counter-affidavit hearing at the trial Court, the counsel to the Appellant informed the Court that on 22nd November, 2021, he filed the Appellant’s Counter Affidavit in opposing the 1st Respondent’s Motion on Notice dated the 25th day of October, 2021 for the Enforcement of the 1st Respondent’s Fundamental Rights and a Motion on Notice for Extension of Time to regularise the said Counter in opposing the 1st Respondent’s application. When the attention of the trial Court was drawn to the counter affidavit and the Motion for Extension of Time filed by the Appellant, the trial Court then delivered a bench ruling to the effect that because the Appellant’s Counter Affidavit and the Motion for Extension of Time were not found in the Court’s file, the Appellant herein and the 2nd – 6th Respondents had no Counter Affidavit and other processes in response to the application before the trial Court. The 1st Respondent’s Counsel was directed by the trial Court to move the application in the absence of opposition from the Appellant and the 2nd – 6th Respondents. The 1st Respondent then argued his application for the enforcement of his fundamental rights unopposed by the Appellant and the 2nd – 6th Respondents at the trial Court. The trial Court delivered judgment on 18/2/2022 wherein it dismissed the case of the 1st Respondent for lacking merit. The 1st Respondent appealed to the court below, and the Court below delivered its judgment wherein it allowed the 1st Respondents appeal on 11/1/2024 and granted the 1st Respondent with a downward review of the financial reliefs and legal reliefs sought in the motion for enforcement of his fundamental human rights.

Aggrieved, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:

The Appellant formulated the following issues for the determination of the appeal thus:

1. Whether, the Lower Court was right to have ascribed probative value, accepted and acted on the self-conflicting, though unchallenged, affidavit evidence of the 1st Respondent, having regard to the fact that the 1st Respondent was claiming declaratory and injunctive reliefs.

2. Whether the principle of law in A.C.B. v. OKONKWO (1997) 1 NWLR Pt. 480 pg. 194, which is enshrined in Section 7 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015, is applicable to the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case; having regard to the self-incriminating statements made by the 1st Respondent to the 2nd – 6th Respondents which conspiratorially links the 1st Respondent to the commission of the offence with his son – John Samuel Ita (for which the 1st Respondent was arrested).

3. Whether from the totality of the affidavit evidence as well as the self-incriminating statements made by the 1st Respondent to the 2nd – 6th Respondents, there are overwhelming and established facts that the 1st Respondent actually shielded his son from police investigation and conspired with his son, John Samuel Ita, to defraud the Appellant herein.

DECISION/HELD:

On the whole, the appeal was dismissed.

RATIOS:

APPEAL- RECORD OF APPEAL: Whether an appellate Court is entitled to look at the Record of Appeal and take notice of its contents
APPEAL- PARTICULARS OF GROUND OF APPEAL: Effect of defective particulars of ground(s) of appeal
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW- ENFORCEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT(S): Principle of law as regards the grant of declaratory reliefs in enforcement of fundamental rights proceedings
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE- ARREST: Position of the law on substitutional arrest
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE- CRIMINAL LIABILITY/RESPONSIBILITY: Whether criminal liability is transferable
EVIDENCE- AFFIDAVIT EVIDENCE: When can a Court act on affidavit evidence