A CRITICAL ANALYSIS ON THE EFFECT OF NO CASE SUBMISSION

A submission of no case to answer by a defendant means that even if the court believes the evidence adduced so far by the prosecution , there is no sufficient material on which the court can convict.


No case submission, as the word implies means, a motion made by the defence counsel in a criminal trial, arguing that the prosecution has failed to present enough evidence to prove its case. If the judge agrees with the defence counsel, the case will be dismissed in its entirety and if the judge denies the motion, the proceeding continues.


Generally, at the stage where a no case submission is made,particularly where counsel indicates an intention to rely on same, what is to be considered by the court is not whether the evidence produced by the prosecution against the accused is sufficient to justify a conviction, but whether the prosecution has made out a prima facie case requiring at least some explanation from the accused person as regards his conduct or otherwise.


This has been the point of view in the recently decided case of UBAZI V. F.R.N. (2025) 10 NWLR (PT. 1995) 89, where the Court postulated:


“ At the stage where a no case submission is made,particularly where counsel indicates an intention to rely on same, what is to be considered by the court is not whether the evidence produced by the prosecution against the accused is sufficient to justify a conviction, but whether the prosecution has made out a prima facie case requiring at least some explanation from the accused person as regards his conduct or otherwise. ‘Prima facie’literally means ‘at first sight’, or ‘based on first impression’. It, therefore, would not require any in-depth examination of the evidence presented in order to determine whether a case has been made out. At that stage, the guilt or innocence of the accused is not in issue. It is whether there is enough evidence before the court to enable it to call upon the accused person to give some explanation”. 


For the sake of clarity, the simple fact of the case is as follows:
The appellant who was charged at the trial court with offences bordering on violation of sections 13, 19 and 25(1)(a) punishable under section 25(1)(b) of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000. At the close of the prosecution’s case, the respondent made a no case submission. The trial court, after considering the no case submission, sustained it and discharged and acquitted the appellant.


The respondent appealed the ruling of the trial court to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal dismissed an objection raised by the appellant to ground 1 of the respondent’s Notice of Appeal for non-compliance with Order 10 rule 1 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2007 and thus incompetent. Thereafter, it overturned the ruling of the trial court, and remitted the case to the trial court for retrial. Dissatisfied with the decision of the Court of Appeal, the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.


The Supreme Court in its wisdom, gave its verdict on this issue. The court Unanimously made its decision on the Implication of no case submission and duty on court when made . The court states;


“A submission of no case to answer by a defendant means that even if the court believes the evidence adduced so far by the prosecution , there is no sufficient material on which the court can convict. Ordinarily, at the stage when a no case submissions made by a defendant on trial, what the court is to consider is not whether the evidence adduced by the prosecution against the defendant is sufficient to justify conviction but whether the prosecution has indeed made out a prima facie case requiring at least some explanation from the defendant as regards his conduct or otherwise. [Queen v.Ojuwa (1959) 4 FSC 64; Duru v. Nwosu (1989) 4NWLR (Pt. 113) 24 ; Ikomi v. State (1986) 3 NWLR(Pt. 28) 340; Onagoruwa v. State (1993) 7 NWLR(Pt. 303) 49 referred to.] (P. 109, paras. A-D)”


The Court went further to decide on the effect and duty on court where no case submission is sustained. The court reiterates;


“After the closure of the prosecution’s case, it behoves the court to find out whether there is evidence against the defendant to require him to lead evidence in explanation of some facts. It is certainly not whether the evidence available is sufficient to secure a conviction.However,pursuant to section 286 of the Criminal Procedure Law a Judge is duty bound to discharge a defendant if it appears to the court that a case is not made out. Against the defendant sufficient to require him to make a defence. It is not a sufficient case made up if there is only a casual reference to the defendant. There must indeed be some materials warranting the defendant to give explanation or deny the charge.
In the instant case ,the record of proceedings shows that the trial court wrote what could be termed a full judgment on the no case submission made by the appellant. That did not conform with criminal procedural jurisprudence. The evidence adduced by the prosecution shows at least a prima facie case against the appellant to warrant curiosity regarding his innocence and the court calling on him to put up a defence to the charges levied against him. The trial court did not stop at merely stating that the evidence before it was insufficient to ground a prima facie case or that evidence of the prosecution witnesses were discredited during cross examination and could not ground a prima facie case, the court went further to evaluate the evidence of the prosecution and to determine the innocence of the defendant. In the circumstances, the trial court could no longer adjudicate on the matter, having made conclusions already.[Ohwovoriole v. F.R.N. (2003) 2 NWLR (Pt. 803)176; Fagoriola v. F.R.N. (2013) 17 NWLR (Pt.1383) 322 ; Ekwunugo v. F.R.N. (2008) 15 NWLR(Pt. 1111) 630 referred to.] (Pp. 109, paras. D-G;110, paras. C-D; 111, paras. A-C)”.


Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.


It can inferred from the above that no case submission can by exercised where the defendant counsel believes that the prosecution does not have substantive evidence to prove the suit at hand. The court, if convinced, has the power to close the case in its entirety and if not, will proceed with the substantive suit. 
This action facilitates the fairness of the courts and the right to obtain justice through a fair process. 



About the Authors:
Yunus Anas Ismail and Muhammad Olohuntobi Adekoya are members of the Research and Litigation Directorate, Solace Chambers, Bayero University, Kano. They can be reached via: 08167034933 and 08141543337, respectively.