YAKUBU V. F.R.N. (2025) 3 NWLR (PT. 1980) 501
ON WHAT TRIAL COURT SHOULD CONFINE ITSELF TO WHEN RULING ON NO-CASE SUBMISSION
At the stage of a ruling on a submission of a no case to answer, otherwise known as a no-case submission, which is made by an accused person charged with crime at the close of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the court is not called upon to embark on a detailed assessment, evaluation and belief or disbelief of the evidence placed before it with a view to making a finding of guilt or not guilty of the accused person. At that stage, a trial court is not required to look for proof of the offences charged beyond reasonable doubt, or to concern its self with the credibility of witnesses and weight to be ascribed to the evidence which would only arise after the entirety of the evidence in the case from both the prosecution and the accused are placed before it. Thus, a ruling on a no-case submission should be as brief as possible, containing an overview of the evidence adduced by the prosecution in order to see whether an offence was disclosed on the facts thereof and that the accused person is directly linked to the commission of such an offence to reasonably justify proceeding with the trial. Once the facts and the evidence adduced disclose, on their face, the offence with which the accused person is charged and which shows direct link to the accused person such that, if believed and no other evidence was adduced to rebut same, it can ground the finding of guilt and conviction of the accused person for the offence, then a prima facie case against the accused would have been made out to warrant him to enter into his defence. In such a situation, there would be reasonable grounds for proceeding with the trial for the offences charged. In the instant case, the Court of Appeal was right that from the evidence adduced by the respondent, a prima facie case was made out to justify the order for the appellant to enter into his defence of the offences charged in counts 3 and 4.[Aituma v.State (2006) 10 NWLR (Pt. 989) 452; Nyame v. F.R.N.(2010) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1193) 344; Ekwunugo v. F.R.N.(2008) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1111) 630; Uzoagba v. COP(2014) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1401) 441; Ehindero v. F.R.N.(2018) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1612) 301; Ajidagba v. I.G.P.(1958) SCNLR 60; Ibeziako v. C.O.P. (1963) 1 SCNLR99; lkomi v. State (1986) 3 NWLR (Pt. 28) 340; C.O.P. v. Ebikake (1966) NMLR 132; Agbo v. State (2013) 11NWLR (Pt. 1365) 377; Kalu v. F.R.N. (2016) 9 NWLR(Pt. 1516) 1; Abacha v. State (2022) 11 NWLR (Pt.1810) 11; Duru v. Nwosu (1989) I NWLR (Pt. 113)24; Atoyebi v. F.R.N. (2018) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1612) 350;Ehindero v. F.R.N. (2018) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1612) 301;Onagoruwa v. State (1993) 7 NWLR (Pt. 303) 49referred to.](Pp. 527-528, paras. D-F)