Where the Defence fails at the Commencement of a Trial, to make a Preliminary Objection to quash an Information because of a defect in the Procedure followed by the Magistrate, such Objection will not be entertained on Appeal: See the QUEEN VS IJOMA (1962) 1 ALL NLR PAGE 402. In OBAKPOLOR VS THE STATE (1991) 1 NWLR, 113, the Supreme Court held that Objection to a Defective Charge should be made immediately after the Charge is read over and explained to accused because pleading to such a Charge is a submission to jurisdiction, if the defect does not deprive the Court of its jurisdiction. In THE QUEEN VS MICHAEL ADEDAPO OMISADE & 17ORS DELIVERED ON 1ST JULY 1964 AND REPORTED IN LC VOLUME 1 2004 AT PAGE 412, ADEMOLA CJN held in regard to Vagueness and an Omission in a Charge that it can be inferred that the Defendants understood the meaning of the Count and were not misled or embarrassed and no Miscarriage of Justice was held to have occurred. See also A.V. MEYNCK & ANOR 21 CR. APP. RATIO 94 Further, in the case of JOHN TIMOTHY VS THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA (2012) 6 SCNJ PAGE 247, it was held that where there is a defect in a Charge, an Objection must be raised immediately, otherwise the Defendant’s Rights thereto is foreclosed and an Appeal would not avail him. The Omission in a Charge must have sufficiently misled and prejudiced the Defendant, before it can be said to have occasioned a Miscarriage of Justice. ONNOGHEN, J.S.C. (now CJN), held thus: “It is very clear from the above provision that for an appellant to benefit from any defect in a charge, he (she) has the duty/burden to prove to the satisfaction of the Court, at any stage of the case, that the omission was material to the case and that the omission has misled the accused/appellant. If the above ingredients are not established, the omission will be regarded as an irregularity which is not fatal to the proceedings." See also the case of ELIJAH AMEH OKEWU VS THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA (2012) 2 SCNJ PAGE 126, where it was held that the appropriate time to complain or respond to a Charge as framed, is at the time it is being read and before the Plea is taken. A Conviction on a Charge, which states a known Offence with Incomplete Particulars, can be upheld where the Defence was not misled and no Substantial Miscarriage of Justice has occurred. See also case of COMMISSIONER OF POLICE VS OKOYEN (1964) 1 ALL NLR PAGE 305. Where the mistake or incomplete Particulars of a Charge for a known Offence neither Misleads the Defence nor occasion any Substantial Miscarriage of Justice, a Conviction based on such a Charge shall be upheld and not Set Aside: see the Case Law Authorities of MEDICAL & DENTAL PRACTITIONERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL VS DR. JOHN OKONKWO (2001) 5 NSCQR PAGE 650 AT PAGE 678; POLICE VS OHOYEN (1964) 7 NSCC PAGE 217; R VS IYOMA (1962) 2 NSCC PAGE 295. There is also the fact that when the Plea of the Defendant was taken on his Arraignment and ReArraignment before this Court, he stated that he understood the nature of the Charges preferred against him and then proceeded to plead Not Guilty to all the Charges in both the Original Charges and the Amended Charges. At no time, before this Court, or before the Court of Appeal and even before the Apex Court, did he express any ignorance as to the Charges and their Nature, and had not uttered a single complaint that he did not understand the nature of the Charges he is facing before the Court throughout the conduct of the Trial, which spanned over a length of time. More importantly, the Defendant, was represented throughout his Trial by not One But Four Senior Advocates of Nigeria and there were no Objections raised at any point. On the First Arraignment, a 39