SUPREME COURT & COURT OF APPEAL DECISIONS (13665)
Children categories
HELD:
"The Appellant's counsel, in urging this Court to allow this appeal, made reference to "cause of action", which is applicable to civil causes.
HELD:
"Under criminal law and jurisprudence, there is a presumption of vigilance and alertness on the part of the State (Crown), in this case, the military authority.
HELD:
"Section 169(1) of the Armed Forces Act specifically provides that:
HELD:
"The guiding principle in the interpretation of statutes is well settled - see Amaechi V. INEC (2008) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1080) 227, wherein this Court observed:
HELD:
"Section 169(1) of the Armed Forces Act is a special provision not found in the Criminal Code or the Penal Code.
HELD:
"The Criminal Code and the Penal Code, applicable in various jurisdictions in Nigeria, have specific provisions for the commission of particular offences or conspiracy or attempt to commit such offences. Section112(c) of the Armed Forces Act provides:
HELD:
"I would want to conclude by bringing up the fact that the issue raised by the appellant in this appeal is outside the lone ground of appeal and even on that, the appeal should fail.
HELD:
"On the second reason why this appeal should fail; a careful examination of the Appellant's arguments and contention in its Brief will show that the Appellant is actually seeking this Court to interfere with the findings of fact made by the Court of Appeal (i.e: that the offence of forgery was committed in 1999) without such ground of appeal.