YERIMA V. BORNU N.A.

• Pages: 329-334

YER1MA V. BORNU N.A.



329

would, in the circumstances, have convicted the appellant. We are of the view that

these are sufficient and enough reasons for the court to have discharged the ap-

pellant.

We feel compelled to say that fo

-

all these reasons the conviction of the Urban

5





Area Court cannot be supported and this appeal must be allowed. We therefore

set aside the decision of the Urban Court and allow this appeal. The appellant will

therefore be acquitted.

Appeal allowed: Decision of

Urban Area Court set aside.

YERIMA V. BORNU N.A.

MUKTAR YERIMA



APPELLANT

V

BORNU NATIVE AUTHORITY



RESPONDENT

20





SUIT NO. SC 132/1968

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

ADEMOLA,



C.J.N.

LEWIS,



J.S.C.

MADARIKAN,



J.S.C.

25



FATAYI-WILLIAMS, J.S.C.

31st December, 1968.

Criminal Law - Charges - Conviction - Appeal - Whether S.22(2) of the Constitution

applies to appeals - Charge - Accused asked "did you commit this offence"?

30



-

Whether sufficient compliance with S.161 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

ISSUES:

1.

Whether S.22(2) of the 1963 Constitution applies to appeals.

2.

Whether chapter 16 of the Criminal Procedure Code applies to Native Courts.

35



3. Where an accused is asked "did you commit this offence?", does that constitute

sufficient compliance with S.161 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

4. Where S. 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been complied with and

following thereon the accused pleaded guilty, does s.389 of the Code still need

to be complied with.

40

FACTS:

The appellant was convicted by the Chief Alkali in the Maiduguri "A" Limited

Native Court of rape contrary to s 282(1) (e) of the Penal Code and sentenced to

a fine of £20. s.283 lays down that rape "shall be punished with imprisonment for

life or any less terms and shall also be liable to fine." An Inspector of Native Courts,

45



by virtue of his powers under s.52(1) of the Native Courts Law (Cap.78, 1963 Laws

of Northern Nigeria), reported the case to the High Court giving as his reason "sen-

tence does not fit the crime as provided for in the Penal Code." The Jos High

Court considered the Inspector's report and heard counsel for the appellant. The

High Court overruled counsel's objection that S.389 of the Criminal Procedure

50



Code had not been complied with, holding that notwithstanding the non- com-

pliance with S.389 there had been no failure of justice, accordingly the conviction

was confirmed, but the judge substituted a sentence of 4 years imprisonment and

6 strokes of the cane for the fine of £20. The appellant appealed to the Supreme

Court arguing,

inter alia

that the Chief Alkali erred in law in failing to call upon him

10

15