Judgment

This is the final decision of the court. The court delivers its judgment at the conclusion of evidence and final or closing address which is the reasoned and binding decision of the court. Thus, the court delivers judgment after the presentation of the case for the prosecution and the case for the defence and addresses have been delivered by counsel to both parties.

The Black’s Law Dictionary, 6^th Edition defined a judgment as the final determination of a court of competent jurisdiction upon matters submitted to it. It is the conclusion of law upon facts found or admitted by the parties or upon their default in the course of the case.

CONTENTS AND FORM OF A VALID JUDGMENT

A judgment which must be written before delivery must contain the following –

1.      The point or points (issue) for determination.

2.      The decision of the court on the point or points for determination.

3.      The reason or reasons for the court’s decision.

4.      The signature and date on which the judgment was delivered.

5.      The seal of the court.

THE POINT OR POINTS (ISSUE) FOR DETERMINATION

This is the issue between the two parties to the criminal cause or matter that has been brought before the court for determination by the court.

The point or points for determination, which has to be determined by the court is whether or not in law the accused committed the offence alleged against him, despite his plea. If an accused pleads not guilty to a charge, issues are joined between the accused person and the prosecution. The prosecution has the onus of proving beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the offence alleged against him.

Therefore, the issue for determination is whether the accused person committed the offence alleged against him and is therefore guilty, or whether the accused person did not commit the offence and is therefore not guilty (innocent), or whether the accused person did commit the offence alleged against him, but committed a lesser offence for which he could be convicted under the law and is therefore guilty of the lesser offence.

THE DECISION OF THE COURT ON THE POINT OR POINTS FOR DETERMINATION

The courts must decide whether the prosecution proved the allegation against the accused beyond reasonable doubt on the one hand, or whether on the other hand, the prosecution has failed to establish the allegations made against the accused.

The court must decide the point or points for determination in favour of either the prosecution or the defence. Where the court is in doubt as to whether the point for determination should be decided in favour of the prosecution or the defence, the doubt should resolved in favour of the defence – Onafowokan v. The State (1987) 7 SCNJ 233.

THE REASON OR REASONS FOR THE COURT’S DECISION

The judgment of the court must state the reason or reasons upon which the court’s decision is based.

The court must give cogent and compelling reason or reasons as to why the evidence of one party is to be preferred to that of another. It cannot merely states that it believes the evidence of one party than the other party without any reason or justification for such a belief.

In Willie John v. The State (1967) NMLR 101, the accused persons were charged and convicted on two counts of burglary and housebreaking. In his judgment, the trial judge stated that the evidence against the accused persons was overwhelming and found the accused persons guilty. The accused persons appealed against conviction on the ground inter alia that the judgment of the court did not contain the points for determination, the decision of the court and the reasons for the decision. The Supreme Court agreed with the counsel’s contention that the judgment delivered by the court did not comply with the requirements of the law, because neither the evidence of the prosecution, nor that of the defence was reviewed. Furthermore, no reasons were given for the court’s decision. The appeal was allowed.

THE SIGNATURE AND DATE ON WHICH THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED

The judgment must bear the date on which the judgment was delivered. There must also be the signature of the magistrate or the judge in the judgment at the time of delivering it.

Where a magistrate or a judge appends his signature and writes the date not immediately after the judgment, but after some ancillary such as conditions of appeal, the judgment is deemed in law to have been signed and dated. The reason for this is that the signature appended and the date stated relate to the judgment and the order.

In Obareki v. The State (1982) 2 NCR 63, the accused person was convicted of offences of stealing and forgery. There was no signature and date at the foot of the judgment. But the trial magistrate signed and dated an order giving conditions of appeal. This order was recorded immediately below the judgment. The accused appealed against conviction on the ground that the trial magistrate failed to comply with the provisions of the CPA because the judgment was not signed and dated. The Court of Appeal held that it would have been neater to sign the judgment and the order separately. Nonetheless, there had been sufficient compliance with the CPA because the order was made at the time of delivering the judgment. Therefore, the judgment had been signed at the time of pronouncing it.

THE SEAL OF THE COURT

The Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) provides that the judgment of the court must bear the seal of the trial court.

It should be noted that where a magistrate delivers oral judgment in the south, the judgment is not required to contain all the essential elements except the decision of the court, brief reasons for the decision, signature of the magistrate and date of delivery – proviso to section 245 of the CPA.

The difficulty encountered by magistrates and judges in writing judgments that comply with the provisions of the enactments led Oputa JSC in Stephen v. The State (1986) 12 SC 450 to formulate, and to reiterate in Onuoha v. The State (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt. 83) 460 what his Lordship considered as the appropriate stages to be transverse in writing a good judgment. The stages are as follows –

Stage 1 – If the plea of the accused person is guilty no issues and no evidence is required. The trial court can proceed straight to judgment. But of the plea is not guilty (as it is bound to be in murder trials) then all the constituent elements of the offence or offences charged are put in issue. And the onus lies heavily on the prosecution to prove the offence charged beyond reasonable doubt.

Stage 2 – When issues are thus joined, evidence is led in proof or disproof of each issue. At this stage, the duty of the trial court is merely to record the evidence led and observe the demeanour of the witnesses called by either party.

Stage 3 – This is the most important and critical stage as it deals with the perception of facts, evaluation of facts, belief or disbelief of witnesses and findings and conclusions based on the evidence accepted by the trial court. At this stage, the trial court will briefly summarise the case of either party. This does not mean reproducing verbatim the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and of defence witnesses one by one, but means using such evidence to tell a coherent and connected story. Having done this, the trial court will then decide which story to believe.

Stage 4 – Having exercised his prerogative to believe or disbelieve, having made his findings of fact the trial court will then draw the necessary inference or conclusion from the facts as found. Finally, the trial court would then discuss the appellate law against the background of the facts found – Stephen v. The State (1986) 12 SC 450 at 504 – 506; Onuoha v. The State (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt. 83) 460 at 475 – 476.

EFFECT OF FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF Section 245 OF THE CPA and Section 269 OF THE CPC

Section 245 of the CPA provides thus –

“The judge or magistrate shall record his judgment in writing and every such judgment shall contain the point or points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision and shall be dated and signed by the judge or magistrate at the time of pronouncing it:

Provided that in the case of a magistrate in lieu of writing such judgment it shall be sufficient compliance under this section if the magistrate:

(a)   records briefly in the book his decision thereon and where necessary his reasons for such decision and delivers an oral judgment, or

(b)   records such information in a prescribed form.”

“Section 269 of the CPC provides that –

“Every judgment shall contain the point or points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision and shall be dated and signed or sealed by the court in open court at the time of pronouncing it.”

A judge of the High Court must reduce his judgment into writing before he delivers it. He cannot deliver an oral judgment. By oral judgment is meant a judgment which has not been reduced into writing before its delivery orally in court.

The effect of not complying with the above provisions will result in the judgment being nullified.

In Atunde v. C. O. P (1952) 14 WACA 171 at 173, de Comarmond Ag. C.J. in delivering the judgment of the court stated inter alia that –

“The important point about section 245 (CPA) is that it does not provide that non-compliance with its provision invalidates a conviction.”

However, subsequent decisions on the issue under both the CPA and the CPC indicate the contrary. In Nwaefulu & Anor. v. The State (1981) 1 NCR 229, and Alagbe & Anor. v. The State (1976) NNLR 184; (1976) 9 – 10 S.C 77, it was held that the failure of the judges to give reasons for their decisions violated the provisions of section 245 of the CPA thus vitiating conviction. Similarly, in Mohamman v. I.G.P (1970) NMLR 98 and Shinfada v. C. O. P (1970) NNLR 113, (cases decided under the criminal Procedure code), the effect of not complying with the section was held to vitiate conviction. Thus, null and void.

TIME LIMIT WITHIN WHICH JUDGMENT SHALL BE DELIVERED AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL IMPLICATION OF FAILURE TO DO SO WITHIN TIME

Before the coming into force of the 1979 Constitution, presiding officers of court were expected to deliver judgment within a reasonable time after delivery of final address by counsel to both parties. Judgment must not be unduly delayed. If judgment in a criminal cause or matter is unduly delayed, justice is delayed, and justice delayed is justice denied.

In Aposi v. The State (1971) NMLR 315, the accused was charged with murder. He was tried and at the conclusion of the hearing, the trial judge reserved judgment sine die (without a date set). Judgment was delivered 12 months after the conclusion of the hearing. The accused was convicted and sentenced to death. The appellant appealed against his conviction. Although the appeal was dismissed, the court noted, with disapproval, the delay in delivering judgment. Oyemade J. A delivering the judgment of the court observed as follows –

“It is desirable in a case like this (offence committed 26^th September 1965, trial began 4^th December 1967, and concluded 17^th July 1968) that neither the prosecution nor the judgment should be unduly delayed, in view of the mental agony of the accused person for his life and of the fact that impressions get blurred with time”.

Therefore, before the coming into force of the 1979 constitution, there was no specified time period within which judgment should be delivered.

Section 258(1) of the 1999 Constitution, however, set a time limit of three (3) months for delivery of judgment by all the constitutional courts in Nigeria. This provision is replicated in section 294(1) of the 1999 constitution, which prescribes 90 days from final address to delivery of judgment as the time limit.

Time is calculated from the date of the final address. A final address is the last or ultimate speech or submission made to the court in respect of the issue before it – Chief Harold Sodipo v. Lemmin Kainenoy & Ors. (1985) 7 S.C 492 at 544.

In order to determine whether a judgment was delivered within or outside the constitutional time limit, the number of days between the delivery of final addresses and the delivery of judgment must be reckoned. If the number of days is less than three (3) months and therefore falls within the 3 months prescribed time limit, the judgment will be valid and will be delivered within time. However, if the number of days is more than 3 months, even if it is by one extra day, and therefore falls outside the 3 months prescribed limit, the judgment will be invalid. The crucial date for purposes of reckoning the number of days is the date of delivery of the final addresses and the date of the delivery of the judgment.

In Shehu v. The State (1982) 1 NCR 1, the accused was charged with culpable homicide punishable with death. After the conclusion of evidence and final address, judgment was reserved. Eventually judgment was delivered five months after the hearing of final addresses. The accused was found guilty and sentenced to death. On appeal against conviction on the ground inter alia that the judgment of the court was delivered outside the prescribed three month time limit, the Court of Appeal held that a State High Court being a court created by the constitution was bound by the provisions of section 258(1) of the constitution to deliver its judgment within three months was a contravention of the constitutional provision.

Where there is more than one address, the determination of whether judgment was delivered within or outside the 3 months period is more difficult. Ordinarily, an address is delivered by each party to the proceedings, and these addresses are final addresses. However, circumstances may arise where the court of its own volition after reserving judgment invites the parties to address it on a point of law for the just determination of the case.

In Chief Harold Sodipo v. Lemmin Kainenoy & Ors (1985) 7 S. C 492, Aniagolu JSC stated that the following two situations could arise during a trial –

1.      after reserving judgment, but within 3 months period allowed by section 258(1), a trial judge forced with a problem... reconvenes the court for the parties and their counsel to argue a fresh point, contained in the pleadings or to re-argue a point or points on which he had earlier received addresses. This is valid because the court is still seized of the matter when further addresses were invited; and

2.      After reserving judgment, but beyond and outside, the 3 months period allowed by section 258(1), the trial judge purports to reconvene the parties and counsel for a fresh, or a continued, argument on the case or some aspects of it. This is invalid because the court is functus officio.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL IMPLICATION OF FAILURE TO DO SO WITHIN TIME

Section 294(5) of the 1999 Constitution provides thus –

“The decision of a court shall not be set aside or treated as a nullity solely on the ground of non-compliance with the provisions of subsection (1) of this section unless the court exercising jurisdiction by way of appeal or review of that decision is satisfied that the party complaining has suffered a miscarriage of justice by reason thereof”.

This means that the decision of the court is no longer automatically invalid once it is delivered outside ninety days. The court of appeal must examine the judgment to ascertain whether the delay has occasioned a miscarriage of justice before it will declare the judgment invalid. Thus, it is only where there is a miscarriage of justice due to failure of the court to deliver judgment within 90 days that the judgment will be nullified.

CONVICTION AND ALLOCUTUS

The judgment of the court must end with a finding of guilty or not guilty. A finding of guilty is a conviction.

Allocutus is a plea made by an accused person after conviction.

Where an accused is convicted or pleads guilty, before the court pronounces sentence, the accused should first be asked by the registrar or by the judge or the magistrate, whether he has anything to say as to why sentence should not be passed on him according to the law, but an omission to do this does not affect the validity of the proceedings. This procedure is known as the allocutus.

Whatever the accused person says in allocutus, if accepted, can only go to mitigate sentence and cannot avail him as a defence to the charge – section 247 of the CPA. The allocutus therefore affords the accused person an opportunity of saying something in mitigation of the sentence. In I. G. P v. Tegbe (1957) WRNLR 125, where an accused person was deprived of an opportunity for allocutus, because the judgment given by the trial magistrate was read by another magistrate under section 251 and that judgment included as its part, the sentence which was, however, manifestly light for the offence, it was held that, although the practice adopted was ‘undesirable’, the sentence would not be reduced.

After the allocutus, the prosecution is then asked about the criminal records, if any, of the accused person. This is to help the court determine the appropriate punishment. The prosecuting counsel should confine himself to giving such record and to other relevant facts such as the prevalence of the offence. It is undesirable for the prosecution to ask for maximum sentence; the sentence should be left for in the discretion of the trial judge – Enahoro v. Queen (1965) 1 All NLR 125.

Where previous convictions are alleged, the admission thereof by the accused, it seems, should be recorded; in the absence of such admission they should be proved and a record made of such proof – Police v. Ankra & Ors. (1939) 5 WACA 180. The term ‘previous conviction’ used in this sense, means a conviction had before the commission of the offence charged, any conviction thereafter should not be taken into consideration in awarding sentence – R. v. Eku Eyu (1942) 8 WACA 49. Also, it is only previous convictions had in respect of similar offences as the one for which the accused has been found guilty that are relevant for this purpose. Thus, allocutus is made either after a conviction or a plea of guilty but always before a sentence.

However, it should be noted that the plea of allocutus is not applicable in death sentence.

By Barr. Chigozie Ezekiel +2348034997413, victorezekielc@yahoo.com

Follow @wingrassnews