OMEGA V. THE STATE

• Pages: 283-287

OMEGA V. THE STATE



263

OMEGA V. THE STATE

5

SUNDAY OMEGA

V

10 THE STATE

APPELLANT

RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. SC 430/1964

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

BRETT,



J.S.C.

BAIRAMIAN,



J.S.C.

15



COKER,



J.S.C.

27th November, 1964

Legislation - Federal - Constitution of the Federation 1963, s.22(5)(h) - Northern

Nigeria - Criminal Procedure Code s.174 - Practice and Procedure - Criminal

20



Law - Trial - Request for adjournment to summon witnesses - refused.

ISSUE:

1.

Whether the refusal of a trial judge to grant an accused person an adjournment

to summon his witnesses is contrary to s.22(5)(b) of the 1963 constitution.

25

FACTS:

At the preliminary inquiry the magistrate asked the defendant for the names of

the witnesses he wished to call at his trial, and allowed him to give the names with-

in a week after committal: s.174 of the Criminal Procedure Code N.N.). He did

not give the names. He had counsel at the trial who had been briefed a fortnight

30



earlier. A week after the trial began at Jos, his counsel asked for an adjournment

on the ground (a) that he was ill and (b) that he wished to summon witnesses; the

trial judge granted a short adjournment on ground (a) but refused it in regard to

(b). The defendant did not apply for summonses then or subsequently. The pros-

ecution's case closed nine days later, and then the defendant said his defence was

35



an alibi and asked for an adjournment to call two witnesses from Enugu, but the

judge refused it. The main point in the appeal was that this refusal was contrary

to s.22(5)b) of the 1963 Constitution (which entitles an accused person "to be given

adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence").

HELD:

40



The defendant was the one to blarne; he had had plenty of time to summon his

witnesses, but did not do so; and the trial Judge acted rightly in refusing to grant

him an adjournment when the prosecution case was closed.

An accused person is entitled to reserve his defence until the appropriate stage

of his trial, but he must take timely steps to have his witnesses ready to give evi-

45



dence at that stage; if the trial court 1.3 convinced that the lateness of his applica-

tion for summonses is not due to mistake or justified reason it can refuse to adjourn

the trial.

Shorunke v. The King (1946) A.C. 316, 327.

CASES REFERRED TO IN JUDGMENT:

50



1.

Shorunke v. The King

(1946) A.C.316, 327.

2.

Auzinawa v. Kano N.A.

(1956)I.F SC.27.

3.

Gun/ v. Hadeija N.A.

(1959) 4 F.S.C.44.

4.

Gokpa v. I.G. of Police

(1961) All N.L.R. 423.