Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

LT. Col Awusa V. Nigerian Army (2018) CLR 5(r) (SC)

Judgement delivered on 4th May, 2018

Brief

  • Desertion – Offence of in Military law
  • Miscarriage of justice
  • Fresh point of appeal
  • Particulars of a ground of appeal
  • Concurrent finding of fact
  • Issues for determination and Preliminary objection
  • Grounds of appeal
  • Brief of argument
  • Reply Brief
  • Section 60 (1) (a) of the Armed Forces Act 2004
  • Section 60 (4) of the same Armed Forces Act
  • Section 233 (2) of the 1999 Constitution
  • Section 233(2) (a) of the 1999 Constitution
  • Section 233(2) (b) of the 1999 Constitution
  • Section 233(2) (c) of the 1999 Constitution
  • Section 172(4) of the Armed Force Act
  • Section 173(2) of the Armed Force Act
  • Section 50 (1) (a) of the Armed Forces Act

Facts

The Appellant, who was at the Nigerian Army School of Finance and Administration (NASFA), failed to join his unit from 21/2/2008 to 2/2/2010, and a General Court Martial (GCM) was convened by then Chief of Army Staff, Lt. General A. B. Dambazau, to try him for "desertion", contrary to Section 60(1)(a) of the Armed Forces Act.

At the trial, Respondent called eleven witnesses and tendered thirty-two Exhibits, while Appellant testified in his own defence and tendered fourteen Exhibits. The GCM delivered its Judgment on 9/8/2010, wherein it found the Appellant guilty as charged and recommended that he be dismissed from the Nigerian Army, and this was confirmed by the Appropriate Superior Authority.

Dissatisfied, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal with a Notice of Appeal containing six Grounds of Appeal. Both sides formulated Issues for Determination in their Briefs of Argument; however, the Court of Appeal, upon considering the facts, was of the view that there were two Issues for Determination, as follows:

The claim came before Desalu, J. as Suit No. LD/2185/ 90. Desalu, J entered judgment against the First Bank Plc to the extent of the limit of the amount guaranteed by the bank and the interest due thereon. The bank has since fully settled the judgment debt. The bank was brought into the proceedings before Ilori, J. by the Appellant issuing a third party notice by motion which the learned trial Judge granted. But the High Court, in its ruling, awarded the interest payable and dismissed the third party notice. The Appellant did not appeal against the dismissal of the third party notice to the Court of Appeal. The Bank is therefore strictly speaking not a party in the present appeal.

Issues

  • Was the Appellant's fundamental right to fair hearing breached by the pre-...
Read More