BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI.                HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU.         CHIDIEBERE NWAOMA UWA.       STEPHEN JONAH ADAH.            ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR.        JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA SGT. AKAWU BALA.                                        APPELLANT AND NIGERIAN ARMY.                               RESPONDENT JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU , JSC I have read the draft of the lead judgement just delivered by my Lord Honorable Justice Helen Moronkeji Ogunwumiju, JSC. I agree entirely with reasoning and conclusion reached therein. However, I also want to lend my voice to the reasoning and conclusion in the lead judgement. This appeal revolves round a very narrow point. It is simply whether in the circumstances of this appeal an order of retrieval will better serve the interest of justice than an order discharging the Appellant. While the Appellant wants a discharge order, the Respondent wants an order of retrial. Both have urged us to accede to their respective prayer. The background fact, in brief, that led to this appeal is that on the 9th December, 2012 at about midnight, while the Appellant was on duty keeping sentry watch, the deceased walked towards the Appellant aggressively heedless of the Appellant’s order to stop thereby prompting the Appellant to shoot at the person. He was tried and convicted by the Nigerian Army General Court Martial. The proceedings of the GCM was set aside but the lower Court neither discharged him nor order his retrial, thereby keeping him in prison till date. Section 36 (9) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), provides “No person who shows that he has been tried by any Court of competent jurisdiction or tribunal for a criminal offence and either convicted or acquitted shall again be tried for that offence or for a criminal offence having the same ingredients as that offence save upon the order of a superior Court”. There is no doubt that from the above provision of the constitution both the lower Court and this Court are vested with the requisite jurisdiction to make an order in appropriate cases, for the trial of a person for a criminal offence for which he had earlier been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction regardless of whether he was convicted or acquitted by that Court for such an offence. It is therefore crystal clear that the lower Court having set aside the proceedings of the General Court Martial which tried and convicted the Appellant upon its finding that it is a nullity and declined to make an order for the discharge and acquittal of the Appellant, ought to have made a consequential order of retrial of the Appellant so as not to leave the faith of the Appellant hanging. Since the decision in ABODUNDU V. QUEEN (1959) SCNLR162 the guidelines to be observed by an appellate court in deciding whether to make an order of retrial in criminal cases are already settled by this Court. In criminal cases before deciding to order a retrial, the Court must be satisfied:- (I) that there has been an error in Law (including the observance of the Law of evidence) or an irregularity in the procedure of such a character that on the other hand the Appellate Court is unable to say that there has been no miscarriage of justice; (2) that leaving aside the error or irregularity, the evidence taken as a whole discloses a substantial case against the accused, (3) that there are no such special circumstances as would render it oppressive to put the Appellant on trial the second time, (4) that the offence or offences of which the Appellant was convicted or the consequences to the Appellant or any other person of the conviction or acquittal of the Appellant are not merely trivial and (5) that to refuse an order for a retrial would occasion a greater miscarriage of justice than to grant it. All these factors must coexist before a case may be sent back for retrial. See:- ANKWA V. THE STATE (1969) I ALL NLR133; AKINFE V. THE STATE (1988) 3 NWLR (PT. 85), DIKE V. THE STATE (1996) 5 NWLR (PT. 450) 553; GANIYU V. THE STATE (2013) 4-5 SC (PT. I) 71. The existence or presence of factors (1) (2) and (4) among the factors set out in the guidelines above is easily ascertainable as those factors do not lend themselves to subjectivity. However, factors (3) and (5) are not so easily ascertainable and largely depend on the peculiar facts of each case at hand. This is because what constitutes special circumstances as would render it oppressive to put the Appellant on trial the second time and what would occasion a greater miscarriage of justice are subjective and may elicit mixed reactions or divergent perspectives from different individuals. So, a decision to order a retrial involves some exercise of discretion by an appellate Court which must be done with utmost caution, judicially and judiciously. I have read the case law in some detail on this point and I am not unaware that long detention of the accused person is no ground to refuse to order retrial. See *ONWE V. STATE (2017) LPELR-42589 (SC); JOSEPH V. STATE (2022) LPELR-59634(SC). *However, each case should be treated on its own peculiar facts. Here the circumstances that led the Appellant to fire the shot ought to be taken into account. The Appellant was in his line of duty as military personnel in the midnight. This taken together with long detention of the Appellant should constitute special circumstances as would render it oppressive to put the Appellant on trial the second time and would occasion a greater miscarriage of justice than to discharge the Appellant. For the above reasons and detailed analysis in the lead judgement, I also affirm the judgement of the lower Court declaring the proceedings of the Court Martial

BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS Musa Uwani Abba Aji. HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU.  CHIDIEBERE NWAOMA UWA.  STEPHEN JONAH ADAH. ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR .    JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA BATURE HASSAN.                      APPELLANT AND THE STATE.                               RESPONDENT JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU , JSC I have read in draft the judgement just delivered by my learned brother CHIDIEBERE NWAOMA UWA, JSC and I agree with his Lordship’s reasoning and conclusion that the appeal lacks and should be dismissed.This is an appeal against the judgement of the Court of Appeal, Kano Division Coram: Abubakar Datti Yahaya, Habeeb Adewale Abiru and Amina Audi Wambai, JJCA delivered on the 22nd day of September, 2020. The Appellant was charged with the following offences: Criminal Conspiracy, Armed Robbery and Culpable Homicide contrary to Sections 97, 298 and 221 of the Penal Code Law of Jigawa State respectively. The Appellant upon arraignment at the trial Court pleaded not guilty.The facts that led to this appeal are as follows: The Prosecution’s case at the trial Court was that on the 2nd day of July, 2016, the Appellant and two others went to the house of one Maiunguwa Idi (now deceased) at Gidan Maza Village, Garki Local Government Area, Jigawa State and attacked him and his wife whilst armed with guns, clubs and matchetes which was used in inflicting injuries on them. The Appellant and two others also stole a red boxer motorcycle belonging to the deceased, the cell phones of the deceased and his wife’s. Further, the Appellant and his cohorts lit a nylon with a lighter and dropped the fireballs on the back of the deceased thereby inflicting burn injuries on him. After the robbery, the deceased was taken to Gumel General Hospital but due to the gravity of the injuries inflicted on him by the Appellant and his cohorts, he was referred to Aminu Kano Teaching where he was pronounced dead on the same day, and subsequently buried at his home in Fagen Gawo according to Islamic rites At the trial, the prosecution called five (2) witnesses and tendered no exhibit. The Appellant testified for himself and did not call any witness. After the hearing and conclusion of trial, the learned trial judge on the 15th day of February, 2019 found the Appellant guilty of the charges and the Appellant was subsequently convicted and sentenced to 14 years imprisonment for the offence of Criminal Conspiracy, 21 years imprisonment for the offence of Armed Robbery and death by hanging for the offence of Culpable Homicide. Dissatisfied with the decision of the trial Court, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal but was unsuccessful in his appeal as the Court of Appeal on the 22nd day of September, 2020 affirmed the judgement of the trial Court. Dissatisfied with the judgement of the Court of Appeal, the Appellant vide a Notice of Appeal, has appealed to this Court on nine (9) grounds of appeal seeking the following reliefs: An ORDER allowing this appeal. An ORDER setting aside the judgement of the Court of Appeal delivered on 22nd September, 2020 in Appeal No: CA/KN/321A/ C/2019. An ORDER setting aside the judgement of the trial Court delivered on the 14th February, 2019 in Charge No: JDU/03C/2017. An ORDER setting aside the conviction and sentences imposed on the Appellant by the trial Court and affirmed by the Court below. An ORDER discharging and acquitting the Appellant of the offences of Criminal Conspiracy, Armed Robbery and Culpable Homicide punishable with death. An ORDER directing the immediate release of the Appellant from the Gumel Correctional Facility. The Appellant in his brief of argument settled by A.S. Gadanya, Esq., formulated two issues for determination to wit: Whether the lower Court was right in affirming the decision of the trial Court that the Respondent has proved the necessary ingredient(s) of the offence of Culpable Homicide punishable with death against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt. (Distilled from Grounds 2, 4, 6 and 8 of the Amended Notice of Appeal). Whether the lower Court was right in affirming the decision of the trial Court that the Respondent has proved the necessary ingredients of the offences of Armed Robbery and Criminal Conspiracy against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt. (Distilled from Grounds,1,3,5 and 7 of the Amended Notice of Appeal). The Respondent in its brief of argument settled by Muneer Musdapha, Esq., formulated a sole issue for determination wit:*Whether the learned Justices of the lower Court were right in affirming the judgement of the trial Court, including its evaluation of evidence, findings, conviction and sentencing of the Appellant for the commission of the offences of Criminal Conspiracy, Armed Robbery and Culpable Homicide. After reading the record and the arguments of both Counsel, I have distilled a sole issue for determination to wit: Whether with the totality of evidence adduced by the prosecution in the circumstance of this case, the two lower Courts rightly affirmed the conviction of the Appellant. Learned Appellant’s Counsel submitted that in a criminal matter, the prosecution (Respondent) has the onus of proving the guilt of the defendant beyond reasonable doubt before his conviction can be sustained. Counsel submitted that in order to prove the offence of Culpable Homicide punishable with death, the following ingredients must be proved; a) that the deceased died, b) that the death of the deceased had resulted from the act of the defendant, c) that the act or omission of the defendant which caused the death of the deceased was intentional with the knowledge that death or grievous bodily harm will be its probable consequence. Counsel relied on Section 138 of the Evidence Act, 2011 and cited EGWUMI V. STATE (2013) ALL FWLR (PT. 678) Pg. 824 at para C, HABIBU USMAN V. STATE (2014) ALL FWLR (PT. 713) Pg. 1917 @1923 – 1924 para H-A, OCHIBA V. STATE (2012) ALL FWLR (PT. 608) 849 @ 870 para E-F. Learned Counsel submitted

BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI.   CHIDIEBERE NWAOMA UWA.             STEPHEN JONAH ADAH.           ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR.           MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS.          JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA BATURE HASSAN.                      APPELLANT AND THE STATE.                               RESPONDENT JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR , JSC I have read in advance the judgement of my learned brother, Chidiebere Nwaoma Uwa, JSC, just delivered. I agree with the reasoning and conclusion that the appeal is without merit. On the 2nd day of July 2016 at about 2:00 am, the Appellant and 2 others went to the house of Mai Ungwa Idi ( the deceased) with his wife at Gidan Maza village in Garki LGA of Jigawa State and broke into her room while armed with guns, clubs and machetes. They beat them and she sustained an injury as a result. They brought out a lighter and nylon, lit the nylon as it was dropping fireballs and put it on the back of the deceased, burning him in the process. After torturing the deceased, they robbed them of their cell phones and carted away the deceased’s motorcycle. She and the deceased were hospitalized at Gumel General Hospital and later referred to Aminu KANO Teaching Hospital where the deceased died same day. He was later buried at Fagen Gawo his hometown. PW2 (Dayyabu Habu Danzomo) testified that he knew the 1st accused, the 3rd accused as well as the Appellant. That on the 2nd day of July 2016 at about 3:30 am, the Bulama of Fagen Gawo called him on the phone and informed him that one Namalamawa (the deceased) was robbed and that the robbers were on their way to escape between Fagen Gawo and Danzomo. He requested help in order to get the robbers apprehended. The PW2 mobilized two vehicles and pursued the robbers. As the robbers sighted them, they diverted following another route. The robbers were three in number on one bike. They continued to pursue them. As they reached one village, they met one person coming out of the mosque and asked him whether he saw some people on a motorbike. He told them that he saw Hardo Shua’ibu, the 1st accused with two other people. He also pointed out the tire print of their motorbike and showed them the route the accused persons followed. They also followed that same way and saw the accused persons entering into a thick bush near Gayaya where their motor vehicle could not gain entrance. They therefore returned to the house of the 1st accused person where they left their people and saw the deceased’s motorcycle at the back of the 1st accused person’s house near a cattle route. At that point, policemen came and arrested them including the Appellant with the motorcycle. The conviction and sentence of the Appellant was affirmed by the lower Court, hence this appeal. In proving the offence of armed robbery, the Prosecution has a bounden duty to prove beyond reasonable doubt that: a. That there was a robbery; b. That the robbers were armed with offensive weapons as at the time of the robbery; and c. That the accused person participated in the robbery. See Per PETER-ODILI, JSC, in MINDI V. STATE (2020) LPELR-52897 (SC) (PP. 44-45 PARAS. D-D). While the 2 ingredients were not contested, the 3rd ingredient has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the Appellant was among the armed gang that participated in the offences charged and for which he was convicted and sentenced. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT APPEARANCES: A.S GADANYA, ESQ, FOR THE APPELLANT.MUNEER MUSDAPHA, ESQ, FOR THE RESPONDENT.

 I have read in draft the Lead Judgement just delivered by my learned brother, C.N. UWA, JSC. I agree in toto with the depth reasoning and conclusion reached in the Judgement, which I adopt as mine.   I, too, penalise the appeal with a deserved dismissal, and the cross appeal succeeds.    I abide by the order to cost in favour of the Respondent/Cross Appellant. ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT APPEARANCES: A.S Gadanya Esq, with him, N.S. Uthman Esq. for the Appellant. Muneer Musdapha Esq, for the Respondent.  I have read in draft the Lead Judgement just delivered by my learned brother, C.N. UWA, JSC. I agree in toto with the depth reasoning and conclusion reached in the Judgement, which I adopt as mine.   I, too, penalise the appeal with a deserved dismissal, and the cross appeal succeeds.    I abide by the order to cost in favour of the Respondent/Cross Appellant. ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT APPEARANCES: A.S Gadanya Esq, with him, N.S. Uthman Esq. for the Appellant. Muneer Musdapha Esq, for the Respondent. BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI.   CHIDIEBERE NWAOMA UWA.             STEPHEN JONAH ADAH.           ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR.           MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS.          JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA BATURE HASSAN.                      APPELLANT AND THE STATE.                               RESPONDENT JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR , JSC  I have read in draft the Lead Judgement just delivered by my learned brother, C.N. UWA, JSC. I agree in toto with the depth reasoning and conclusion reached in the Judgement, which I adopt as mine.   I, too, penalise the appeal with a deserved dismissal, and the cross appeal succeeds.    I abide by the order to cost in favour of the Respondent/Cross Appellant. ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT APPEARANCES: A.S Gadanya Esq, with him, N.S. Uthman Esq. for the Appellant. Muneer Musdapha Esq, for the Respondent.

BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI.   CHIDIEBERE NWAOMA UWA.             STEPHEN JONAH ADAH.           ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR.           MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS.          JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA BATURE HASSAN.                      APPELLANT AND THE STATE.                               RESPONDENT JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY CHIDIEBERE NWAOMA UWA, JSC This is an appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal (Court below) sitting in the Kano Division (Coram: A.D. Yahaya, H.O. Abiru and A.A Wambai, JJCA.,) delivered on the 22nd September, 2020 affirming the conviction and sentence of the Respondent by the High Court of Justice, Jigawa State presided over by Hon. Justice Ado Yusuf Birnin Kudu delivered on 14th February, 2019 in suit No. JDU/03c/2017.  The facts that led to this appeal are that the appellant, as 3rd defendant, was arraigned before High Court of Jigawa State, with two other defendants for offences of Conspiracy, Armed Robbery and Culpable Homicide. In the course of the trial, the prosecution called two witnesses and like the other defendants, the appellants testified in his defence and called no other witness. At the end of the trial, the Appellant and the other two defendants were each convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for 14 years for the offence of Conspiracy, 21 years for Armed Robbery and to death for the offence of Culpable Homicide. Dissatisfied with the judgement of the trial Court, the Appellant appealed to the Court below which affirmed the decision of the trial Court. The Appellant being dissatisfied with the decision of the Court below appealed to this Court via an Amended Notice of Appeal filed on 7/3/24 but, deemed properly filed and served on 28/3/2024. The Appellant’s Amended brief of argument was filed on 7/03/2024 but, deemed properly filed and served on 28/3/2024. In the said Appellant’s Amended brief of argument settled by A.S. Gadanya, two issues were formulated for determination thus: Whether the lower Court was right in affirming the decision of the trial Court that the Respondent has proved the necessary ingredients of the offence of Culpable Homicide punishable with death, against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt. (Distilled from Grounds 2,4,6 and 8 of the Appellant’s Amended Notice of Appeal) Whether the lower Court was right in affirming the decision of the trial Court that the Respondent has proved the necessary ingredients of the offence of Armed Robbery and Criminal Conspiracy against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt (Distilled from 1,3,5 and 7 of the Appellant’s Amended Notice of Appeal) Arguing issue one, the learned counsel to the Appellant restated the ingredients of the offence of Culpable Homicide to be: That the deceased had died; That the death of the deceased had resulted from the act of the accused person; That the act of omission of the accused which caused the death of the deceased was intentional with the knowledge that the death or grievous bodily harm was its probable consequence. See HABIBU USMAN V. STATE (2014) ALL FWLR (PT.713) PG. 1917. It was argued that the prosecution in a criminal trial has an unshifting burden to prove the guilt of a defendant beyond reasonable doubt before a conviction can be sustained in line with the constitutionally guaranteed presumption of innocence. See EGWUMI V. STATE (2013) ALL FWLR (PT. 678) PG. 824 and SECTION 138, EVIDENCE ACT 2011. It was further submitted that all the ingredients of the offence must be proved or co-exist before a conviction could be secured. See OCHIBA V. STATE (2012) AL FWLR (PT. 608) 849. It was contended that the finding of the court below at page 135 of the printed record of Appeal that “it is clear from the the offensive weapons used, the injuries inflicted on the deceased, the appellant and his co-accused intended to cause death of the deceased or knew that death would be the probable consequence of their acts”(in italics) has no support from the evidence adduced before the trial court. It was further submitted that the only evidence of the death of the deceased is the PW1 that he died and was buried. The learned counsel insisted that no specific evidence or media report was tendered before the trial court and that no other member of the community testified as to the death of the deceased. Still on the death of the deceased, it was argued that “stronger evidence” ought to have been led before the trial Court showing that the deceased died. On the second ingredient of Culpable Homicide, the learned counsel submitted that the finding of the court below at pages 134-135 of the records that the finding of the trial court that it was the defendants who robbed the PW1 and her husband was not hasty, is perverse and occasioned a miscarriage of justice against the Appellant. It was argued that the court below did not re-evaluate the evidence of the PW2 with a view of arriving at a just decision. Learned counsel relied on ACHILIHU V. ANYATONWU (2013) ALL FWLR (PT. 696) PG. 483. It was further submitted that the deceased who did not die on the spot, was taken to two different hospitals and died the after and there was no evidence showing the condition of the deceased and the medication administered in the two hospitals. It was conceded that where a deceased dies on the spot after an attack, cause of death could be inferred and medical evidence dispensed with. The learned counsel relied on UGURU V. STATE ( 2002) FWLR (PT. 103) PG. 330 and argued that the sort of evidence needed in the case is such that that ought to be supported medically which will indicate that the deceased died from injuries following the attack. It was maintained that the finding which was affirmed by the court below is perverse and has occasioned miscarriage of justice against the Appellant. The learned counsel to the Appellant further

BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI.   CHIDIEBERE NWAOMA UWA.             STEPHEN JONAH ADAH.           ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR.           MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS.          JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA BATURE HASSAN.                      APPELLANT AND THE STATE.                               RESPONDENT JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY STEPHEN JONAH ADAH, JSC I was privileged to read in draft, the judgement just delivered by my learned brother, Chidiebere Nwaoma Uwa, JSC. I agree completely with the reasoning and the conclusion that this appeal is devoid of merit and that it be dismissed. One of the curious arguments raised by the Appellant in the instant appeal is whether the lower Courts were right to convict the Appellant without a medical report indicating the cause of death. Our law has crystalized on the fact that medical evidence is not essential in all cases to prove the cause of death. Cause of death is a fact that can be inferred from the circumstances of the death as disclosed by the available credible evidence. It is good law that medical evidence is not always essential though desirable to prove the cause of death, but the evidence must in any case be such as to show that the death of the deceased was caused by the act of the Appellant. See the cases of *Omonuju v. State (1976) LPELR- 2653 (SC); Azu v. State (1993) LPELR-689 (SC); CPL Andrew Emuenya v. Att. Gen. of Bendel State (1993) LPELR-1137 (SC) and Saleh v. State (2018) LPELR-46337 (SC). The position of our law remains that where the cause of death is obvious, medical report ceases to be any practical necessity in murder cases. In the instant case, the Prosecution ably showed through the evidence of PW1 and PW2 that the deceased was beaten and that injuries were inflicted upon him while robbing him. He made it to the hospital but did not come out of the hospital alive. My learned brother in the lead judgement did an elaborate examination of all the issues raised in this appeal to which I concur. I therefore, have no hesitation in agreeing with the reasoning and the conclusion that this appeal lacks merit. I too, dismiss this appeal and I abide by the order affirming the conviction and the sentences passed on the Appellant by the lower Court. STEPHEN JONAH ADAH JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT APPEARANCES: A.S Gadanya Esq., with N.S. Uthman Esq., for the Appellant. Muneer Musdapha Esq., for the Respondent.

SC/CV/1130/2023IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIAHOLDEN AT ABUJAON FRIDAY, 22 DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023 BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS JOHN INYANG OKORO    ——————————- JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT  MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA——————-         JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT  HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU ——–         JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT        TIJJANI ABUBAKA—————————————- JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT  EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM ———————–  JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT  BETWEEN. 1. EDEOGA CHIJOKE JONATHAN 2. LABOUR PARTY                                                              APPELLANTS                                                                 1. INDEPENDENT NATION ELECTORAL COMMISSION2. MBAI PETER NDUBUISI3. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY                                   RESPONDENTS                                                                 JUDGMENT(Delivered by MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, JSC) Appellants’ Appeal No. CA/E/EP/GOV./EN/21/2023 by which the appeal was dismissed and the decision of the Enugu State Governorship Election Tribunal (trial tribunal) in petition No. EPT/EN/GOV./01/2023 was affirmed.The Appellants; as a candidate and the political party who sponsored the candidate, and the 2″‘ and 3″ Respondents had participated in the election for the office of Governor of Enugu State, conducted by the 1″ Respondent on the 18″ March, 2023, at the end of which, the 2″‘ Respondent was declared and returned as the winner.Aggrieved by the declaration and return of the 2″‘ Respondent as the winner of the said election, the Appellants in line with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022, challenged the declaration and return by way of an election petition before the trial tribunal, on three (3) grounds as follows:- “I. The 2″‘ Respondent was at the time of the election notqualified to contest the election.1. ” The 2″ Respondent was not duly elected by the majority of lawful votes cast at the election.2. The Election and Return of the 2″ Respondent is invalid because of non-compliance with the Electoral Act, 2022″.At the end of the trial, the petition was dismissed and the declaration and return of the 2″‘ Respondent as the duly election Governor of Enugu State in the election by the 3 Respondent was affirmed by the trial tribunal in the judgment delivered on the 21″ September, 2023.The Appellants brought the appeal in this court vide two (2) separate Notices of Appeal both dated 21% but filed on 22″ November 2023 at the Lagos and Enugu Divisions of the court below. In paragraph 2.8 on page 3 of the Appellants’ Brief filed on the 4″ December, 2023, the Notice of  Appeal filed at the Lagos Division is relied on for the purpose of prosecuting the appeal while the Notice of Appeal filed at the Enugu Division, was withdrawn at the hearing of the appeal and it is struck out accordingly.From the thirteen (13) grounds contained on the extent Notice of Appeal, which appears at pages 3116 – 3139 of Vol. III of the Record of Appeal, four(4) issues are said to be “necessary” for determination in Appellants’ Brief,thus: – “I. Was the lower Court right in affirming the trial Tribunal’s decision in expunging from its record and refusing to assess the evidence of PWI, PW2, PW3, PW3, PW6 and PW36 together with all the Exhibits they tendered? /Grounds 2, 3 and 4 of the Notice of Appeal).1. Was the lower court right in holding that the 2″‘ Respondent was qualified to contest or was not disqualified by the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended from contesting the Governorship Election held in Enugu State on 18″ March, 2023? /Ground 5 of the Notice of Appeal).2. Was the lower Court right in affirming the trial Tribunal’s assessment of the evidence of the witnesses called by the Appellants and the documentary evidence tendered by them on the one hand; and the totality of the evidence called by the parties on the other hand? /Grounds 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12 of the Notice of Appeal).4. Was the lower Court right when it refused to strike out the respective Briefs of Arguments of the 2″d and 3′ Respondents and when it discountenance the ‘Appellants’ Reply Briefs? [Grounds 1 . and 11 of the Notice of Appeal).”These issues are adopted at paragraph 6 on page 3 of the 1″ Respondents’ Brief filed on the 9″ December, 2023 while four (4) issues are also formulated for determination in the 2″‘ Respondent’s Brief filed on the 11″h December, 2023 in the following terms:-“i.Whether the court below did not correctly overrule the appellants’ objection to the validity of the 2″‘ respondent’s brief? (Ground 1 of the Notice of Appeal).ії.Whether the court below did not rightly affirm the decision of the trial Tribunal that the respondent. was qualified to contest the Enugu State Governorship Election of 18h March, 2023?(Grounds 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Notice of Appeal.iti.Whether the court below was not correct,considering the applicable laws, in affirming the trial Tribunal’s resolution of the evidential issues before it. (Grounds 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the Notice of Appeal). iv. Having regard to settled law, whether the lower Court did not rightly strike out the appellants’ reply brief and. dismiss their appeal? (Grounds 11 and 12 of the Notice of Appeal.”For the 3nd Respondent, it “contends that the issues which are called for the determination of the Court of Appeal (sic)”, at paragraph 3.00 on page 2 of the 3″” Respondent’s Brief filed on the 8′” December, 2023, are as follows:-“1.Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong and occasioned a miscarriage of justice, when it dismissed the Appellants’ objection to the respective Briefs of Argument of the