According to him, before the Prosecution can secure a conviction for a Criminal Offence, it must look
for the ingredients of the Offence and ascertain critically that the acts or omissions of the Defendant
come within the confines of the Particulars of the Offence charged. See the case of AMADI VS THE
STATE (1993) 8 NWLR (PT 314) 644 REFERRED TO P.270, PARAS E-F, and G-H.
In the case of CAPTAIN ABIDOYE VS FRN (2013) 12 SC (PT1) 99 @ PG 119 PARAS 25-30, the
Supreme Court held that any mistake in the Particulars of an Offence in a Charge, shall result in any
Conviction based on such Charge, liable to be quashed on Appeal. Reference was further made to the
cases of OKEKE VS IGP (1965) 2 ALL NLR 81 AND THE QUEEN VS GBADAMOSI (1959) 4 FSC 181.
The elements or ingredients, which constitute the Offence charged, must be explicit and not left to
speculation or inference. This also implies that non- essential ingredients are excluded from the
Particulars of the Offence with which any Person is charged. A Charge should be clear, the Particulars
and Statement of Offence must contain the Offence as prescribed by any Written Law and must accord
with the Section of the Law creating the Offence, otherwise failure to comply, would lead to an
acquittal. See the cases of COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (MW) VS AKPATA (1976) 1 ALL NLR
235@240 -241; TIMOTHY VS FRN (2008) ALL FWLR (402) 1136.
In the case of AMADI VS THE STATE (1993) 8 NWLR (PT 314) 644 @ 664PARAS A-D, the Supreme
Court stressed that it was pertinent to adhere to the Words of the Statute, which the Prosecution
failed to do in the present case. He cited also the cases of LATIFU SALAMI VS CHAIRMAN L.E.D.B
AND ORS (1989) 5 NWLR (PT 123) 539 @555-556, ALHAJI UMARU ABBA TUKUR VS GONGOLA
STATE GOVERNMENT (1988) NWLR (PT 68) 39 (1988) 1SC 78@101.
IN FRN VS USMAN (2012) 8 NWLR (PT 1301) 141 @ 156-157 PERRhodes-Vivour JSC, held that,
the Prosecution must prove the elements of the Offence strictly as contained in the Charge, since the
purpose of the Charge is to give notice to the Defence of the case it is up against.
Further, Learned Silk submitted that the Rules of Judicial Discipline also known as the Rules of
Precedence are binding on all Courts in Nigeria, and lack of Judicial Discipline, would incur the wrath
of the Appellate Courts. On this contention, he cited the cases of OSHO VS FOREIGN FINANCE
CORPORATION (1991) 4 NWLR (PT 184) 157, UIVERSITY OF LAGOS VS OLANIYAN AND 2ORS
(1985) 1 NWLR (PT1) 156, DALHATU VS TURAKI AND 5ORS (2003) 15 NWLR (PT 843) 310 and
ACTION CONGRESS VS JANG (2009) 4 NWLR (PT 1132) 336.
The Doctrine of Precedence is to ensure stability, consistency, predictability, certainty and continuity
and the cardinal importance of this Doctrine has been severally re-echoed by the Apex Court in the
cases of OSAKUE VS F.C.E. ASABA (2010) 10 NWLR (PT 1201) 1 @PG 35 PARAS B-D, ROSSEK
AND 2ORS VS A.C.B. LTD AND 2ORS (1993) 8 NWLR (PT 312) 382, (1993) 10 SCNJ 20 @54,
NEPA AND 6ORS VS MRS P.O. ONAH (1997) 1 SCNJ 220 @ 226, (1997) 1 NWLR (PT 484) 680,
FARREL VA ALEXANDER (1977) A.C 59, DALHATU VS TURAKI AND 5ORS (2003) 7 SCNJ 1@ 12,
(2003) 15 NWLR (PT 843) 310, HABILA TIMOTHY AND ERINFUN VS HON. IRATSI YOHANNA
ADAKI AND 3ORS.
In response Learned Silk, representing the Prosecution submitted that Section 315 of the Penal
Code, and the cases of ONUOHA VS STATE as well as AKWULE VS QUEEN(BOTH CITED SUPRA) do
not support the Defendant’s contention. It is clear that the ingredients under Section 315 of the
Penal Code were captured in the Charge in AKWULE’s case. The Defendant cannot set a new
31