The proceedings in this matter originated in the Chief Magistrate Court, Benin City. There, the two appellants were charged with the offences of
-
1
Wilful and unlawful damage contrary to section 154 of the Criminal Code Cap 48 Vol. 2 Laws of Bendel State of Nigeria.
-
2
Stealing contrary to section 390 of the Criminal Code Cap 48 Vol. 2 Laws of Bendel State of Nigeria1976.
One Edomwonyi Eguakun was charged and tried along with them. He was discharged and acquitted on both counts but the two appellants were convicted on count 1, the count charging wilful and unlawful damage and each was sentenced to 1 year imprisonment with hard labour and acquitted and discharged on count 2.
The appellants were dissatisfied and appealed to the High Court. Indeed, oral notice of appeal was given on the 1st March, 1979 immediately the convictions and sentences were pronounced. It was recorded immediately by the learned trial Chief magistrate who then proceeded without delay to make the order specifying the conditions of appeal. On the same day, the memorandum of the grounds of appeal was filed. Only one ground was stated. It is the omnibus ground and reads
-
“That the decision of the learned trial magistrate is wrong unreasonable and cannot be supported having to the evidence”.
Before the hearing of the appeal, the 1st appellant sought in High Court and obtain leave to file and argue additional grounds of appeal. Seven additional ground of appeal were filed. Of the seven additional grounds of appeal filed only ground 4 which reads that:
-
“the learned Chief Magistrate erred in law in delivering a written judgment not signed and dated at the time of pronouncing it contrary to section 245 of the Criminal Procedure Law”.
Was argued by the 1st appellant’s counsel in the High Court. The 2nd appellant also sought and obtained leave to argue 7 additional grounds of appeal. Thereafter, he sought and obtained leave to file and argue a further ground of appeal.
Of all the grounds and additional grounds of appeal filed by the 2nd appellant only the further ground of appeal which reads:
-
“that the learned trial Chief Magistrate erred in law when he failed to sign the judgment delivered on the 5th March, 1979”.
Was also argued before the High Court by the 2nd appellant counsel
The appeal was argued before Moje Bare, J. who ordered the criminal record book of the Chief Magistrate to be produced before him for inspection. This was done before he heard arguments from counsel on the 18th day of February 1982.
It had been contended that the magistrate erred in law in delivering a written judgment not signed and dated at the time of its pronouncement.
The High Court allowed the appeal.
The Court of Appeal re-instated the judgment of the magistrate court.
Appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court.
