SADAU & ANOR. V. THE STATE

• Pages: 93-97

SADAU & ANOR. V. THE STATE



93

fences of such an aggravated nature that should have prompted him to exercise

the powers of his office if he did not support the whole exercise from the begin-

ning to the end. He was convicted of house trespass by being a member of a

gang of persons who entered the house of the first prosecution witness unlaw-

5



fully. Barring the provisions of section 108 of the Penal Code, which we think

apply, it was satisfactorily shown by the evidence accepted by the judge that the

ninth accused also entered the house of the complainant. We do not think that

this ground of appeal can be sustained.

All the grounds of appeal argued on behalf of the first and the second appel-

10



lants with respect to the third count fail and their appeals on that count are dis-

missed and their convictions and sentences affirmed. The appeal of the first

appellant on the first count is allowed. The conviction and sentence are set aside

and it is ordered that in their place a verdict of acquittal be entered.

Appeal allowed in part.

15

SADAU & AMOR. V. THE STATE

20

1.

MUSA SADAU

2.

AUDU YARO

V

25 THE STATE

APPELLANTS

RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. SC 394/67

SUPREME

COURT OF NIGERIA

BRETT,



J.S.C.

COKER,



J.S.C.

30



MADARIKAN,



J.S.C.

4th April, 1968.

Criminal Law - Possession and use of forged documents Properties found in

search admitted in evidence without objection - S.78(1) of Criminal Procedure

35



Code not complied with - Whether documents relevant and admissible.

ISSUES:

1. Whether in a criminal case, relevant evidence can be excluded because of the

way in which it was obtained.

40



2. To whom or what, will the consequence of an irregularity occuring in executing

a search warrant under s.78(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, attach.

FACTS:

The two appellant were tried and convicted on various counts of the several

charges laid against them and i.wo others. The prosecution's case was that the

45



accused persons were illegally printing and selling vehicle licences and similar

forms. The second appellant was refused leave to appeal out of time by the Su-

preme Court. The first appellant was convicted on the first, third and sixth counts.

His house was searched by a police officer with a search warrant, and a large

quantity of vehicle licences, licensing forms, driving licence booklets, etc., were

50



recovered. At the trial he denied having in his possession any of the recovered

articles and stated that the police officer who conducted, the search planted them

in his house. The trial judge disbelieved him and convicted him on the three counts.

He appealed arguing that the decision was unreasonable and cannot be supported

by the evidence; that the judge was wrong in holding that non-compliance with