By Isah Bala Garba
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/2026-Summer-IDRI-Masterclass.jpg")
Today’s juridical survey shall majorly focus on the procedural aspect of this decision, with less emphasis on the facts, as the facts themselves are not unusual. It is a typical case of armed robbery and unlawful possession of firearms involving multiple accused persons. They were nine (9) in number, all charged together in what is known as a “joint trial.”
However, one striking feature stood out: the 9th accused person was never found throughout the trial. Only the 1st to 8th accused persons were arrested, arraigned, and made to face trial. Yet, at the point of judgment, the learned trial judge held that he found “all the accused” guilty of the offence charged and accordingly sentenced them to death by hanging.
Now, that singular statement, “all the accused,” set in motion the entire procedural controversy. The 5th accused person appealed.
At the Court of Appeal, Yola Judicial Division, the present respondent (who was the appellant at that court) raised a fundamental issue: whether convicting a person in absentia one who was never present for arraignment, whose charge was never read to him, who never took a plea, and whose plea was never recorded would not render the entire proceedings a nullity.
Surprisingly, the Court of Appeal found the argument convincing and answered the question in the negative. It held that since the charge contained the names of nine (9) accused persons, the trial was a joint trial, and the absence of the 9th accused person throughout the proceedings ipso facto nullified the entire trial. In effect, the proceedings against the eight others were also rendered a nullity, and the matter was ordered to be sent back to the Chief Judge of Adamawa State for reassignment to another judge, other than the earlier judge, for a fresh accelerated trial.
The State (Appellant) was, however, dissatisfied and questioned how that could be the law. Indeed, that could hardly be the law. In light of this, the State approached the Supreme Court.
Before delving into the central issue, the Supreme Court, per Idris, J.S.C., while delivering the lead judgment, first addressed a procedural misstep by the State’s counsel, namely the improper couching of an omnibus ground of appeal. The appellant’s ground one (1) had complained that the judgment of the lower court was “against the weight of evidence.” At first glance, that sounds perfectly fine, right? But that applies only in civil litigation.
My Lord made it clear that although there is also an omnibus ground in criminal appeals, it is not the same as that in civil matters.
In civil appeals, the omnibus ground is properly couched as:
“The judgment is against the weight of evidence.”
This is so because civil cases are determined on the balance of probabilities, where the court weighs evidence on an imaginary scale.
However, in criminal appeals, the law is different. The burden is not on a balance of probabilities, but beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the omnibus ground must be couched differently, such as:
“The decision is unreasonable, unwarranted, and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence,”
or
“The judgment is against the evidence.”
The rationale is simple and settled: importing the phrase “weight of evidence” into criminal appeals invites the court to determine a criminal case using civil standards, which is fundamentally wrong and contrary to Section 135(1) of the Evidence Act.
Accordingly, My Lord had no hesitation in holding that the appellant’s ground one of appeal, being one complaining of weight of evidence in a criminal matter, constituted a serious coup de grâce to the competency of the said ground. It was, in his words, not arguable, as it was incompetent. It was therefore struck out.
Having cleared that procedural quagmire, the court then turned to the main issue: the net effect of the absence of the 9th accused person. The Supreme Court approached the issue with precision: when does a joint trial truly arise? Is it merely when names are listed on a charge sheet, or when accused persons are actually present, arraigned, heard, and subjected to the jurisdiction of the court?
The answer, as settled by the court, is the latter. Joint trial is not born on paper; it is born in the courtroom.
The 9th accused person, as revealed by the record, was marked “at large” (i.e., nowhere to be found). He was never arrested, never brought before the court, never arraigned, and never took a plea. In the eyes of the law, no trial ever commenced against him.
As we all know, arraignment is the foundation of every criminal trial. It requires, concurrently:
- the presence of the accused in court unfettered;
- the reading and explanation of the charge to him;
- the taking of his plea; and
- the recording of that plea by the court.
Failure of any of these renders the trial a nullity, but only in respect of that accused person.
Therefore, the Supreme Court found it flabbergasting that the Court of Appeal would hold that the absence of a person who was never part of the trial could invalidate proceedings against those who were properly before the court.
My Lord did not mince words and stated:
“I am disappointed at how the Court of Appeal allowed itself to be swayed by such an attractive but baseless argument which screams ‘technicality’.”
Indeed, the eight accused persons who stood trial were present throughout. They were represented by counsel, cross-examined witnesses, and fully participated in the proceedings. They were given a fair trial. Thus, the mere fact that the trial judge made a sweeping statement that “all accused persons” were convicted, including the one at large, was only an error. However, such an error cannot, will not, and should not vitiate a judgment. Most importantly, it did not occasion a miscarriage of justice against those who were properly tried.
The Supreme Court therefore held that the absence of the 9th accused person could only affect him, and him alone. It could not be used as a weapon to destroy the valid trial of the other eight.
Consequently, the appeal succeeded in part. The judgment of the Court of Appeal was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the Court of Appeal, not for a fresh trial at the High Court, but for determination of the appeal on its merits in respect of the eight accused persons.
The other Justices, in their concurring judgments, adopted the reasoning of the lead judgment entirely, as there was no basis to depart from it.
Simply put, and very importantly: counsel must be meticulous in couching grounds of appeal. An omnibus ground in civil proceedings is not the same as that in criminal proceedings. To confuse the two is at one’s peril.
Equally, the absence of one accused person in a purported joint trial does not nullify the entire proceedings. It affects only that person—nothing more, nothing less.
As usual, we say: as the Court pleases. We are most obliged for the constant guidance. May Your Lordships continue to be blessed with long life and wisdom.
My dear readers, thank you for following through this lucid juridical survey.
Isah Bala Garba is a Level 400 student of Common and Islamic Law and a Senior Advocate of Bayero University, Kano (SABUK). He has authored numerous legal articles and analysed many cases in clear, plain language. He can be reached for comments or corrections via:
Email: isahbalagarba05@gmail.com
Tel: 08100129131.
“Order Your Copy Now” — Basil Momodu, Esq. Unveils Second Edition Of His Book, "Civil Procedure In Nigeria"
According to the learned author, Basil Momodu Esq. "Law review is a continuum. We will continue to track changes in the law to enrich future editions." Recommended Booksellers: Lagos: 08033855230, Abuja: 08035991379, and others.
_______________________________________________________________________
“Enhance Legal Practice With Authoritative Reports” — Alexander Payne Offers Comprehensive Law Reports, Spanning Over A Century Of Nigerian Jurisprudence
Interested buyers are encouraged to place their orders and enquiries via:
0704 444 4777, 0704 444 4999, 0818 199 9888
Website: www.alexandernigeria.com
The book, titled The Law of Torts in Nigeria: A Functional Approach, authored by Professor Hagler Sunny Okorie Ph.D and Ikeocha, Nathaniel Ngozi Esq, offers law students, practitioners, and academics a comprehensive guide to understanding and applying tort law in Nigerian courts. Interested buyers can place orders via the following contact numbers: 08028636615, 08037667945, 08032253813, or +234 902 196 2209.
________________________________________________________________________
[A MUST HAVE] Evidence Act Demystified With Recent And Contemporary Cases And Materials
