EKPEWIB V. THE STATE

• Pages: 143-144

143



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1982] N.S.C.C.

EKPEWIB V. THE STATE

5

AKPAN EKPEWIB

V

THE STATE

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

IRIKEFE,



J.S.C.

BELLO,



J.S.C.

ESO,



J.S.C.

NNAMAN I,



J.S.C.

UWAIS,



J.S.C.

3rd June, 1982

APPELLANT

RESPONDENT



10

SUIT NO. SC 4/1980

15

Criminal Appeal - Notice of Appeal incorrectly headed - Appeal wrongly struck



20

out by Federal Court of Appeal on mere technicality - Grounds of Appeal

disclosing merit - Appeal remitted to Federal Court of Appeal for hearing -

Offence attracting a capital sentence.

ISSUE:



25

1. Whether it is proper for a Court of Appeal to strike out an appeal on a mere

technicality.

FACTS:

The appellant was convicted of murder in the High Court of Cross River State.

The Court of Appeal struck out his appeal on the simple ground that the appeal



30

papers had not been properly headed. The appellant had delivered the notice of

appeal within time and the grounds of appeal showed that the appeal had merit.

HELD:

1.

That the Court of Appeal should have heard the appeal on its merit and should

not have struck it out due to mere technicalities; especially since the appeal has



35

merit.

2.

That the Court of Appeal should have on its own motion amended the alleged

wrong in the heading in the interest of justice.

3.

That the decision of the Court of Appeal be set aside and the case be remitted

to the Court of Appeal for hearing on its merit.



40

CASES REFERRED TO IN JUDGMENT:

1.

Enweliku v. The State

(1970) 1 All N.L.R. 55.

2.

Udo v. State

(1981) 6-7 S.C. 157.

3.

Ekwere v. The State

(1981) 9 S.C.4.

4.

lkpasa v. Bendel State (1981) 9 S.C.7.

V.C.O.

Achikeh, Deputy Director, Legal Aid Council

for Appellant.

T.E. Ekpe, P.S.C. Cross River State

for Respondent.

IRIKEFE J.S.C.

(Presiding): This appeal, when it came before the Court of Appeal

on 13/t1/79 was struck out on the ground that the appeal papers had not been

properly headed. This was clearly stretching a technicality to an undesirable and

absurd end to the detriment of an appellant who was charged with an offence

45

50