Ekiti court nullifies judgement of ex-council chair

Priscilla Ediare, Ado-Ekiti

A High Court sitting in Ado-Ekiti, on Tuesday, annulled a judgement by the lower court that sentenced former chairman, Ado Local Government, Hon.Taye Fasuba to 12 months in prison for lack of merit.

A chief magistrate’s court had last year jailed Fasuba for allegedly involving in land scam.

Delivering the judgement, Justice Ayo Daramola, who doubles as the chief judge of the state, set aside the 12 months conviction of the appellant and the N40,000 imposed in lieu of imprisonment.

The court further ordered that the fines should be refunded forthwith if it had already been paid by the appellant.

The court ruled that the appeal filed by Taye Fasuba against the Ekiti State of with appeal No HAD/5CA/ 2019 had merit and was thereby allowed.

Earlier, the appellant, Fasuba, was arraigned before the lower court on three counts charge bordering on malicious damage, unlawfully entry and conduct likely to cause a breach of peace in a public place, all contrary to Sections 451, 81 and 249 (d) of the Criminal Code, Cap

C 16, Vol. 1, Laws of Ekiti State, Nigeria, 2012.

Fasuba was found guilty of two of the three counts charge against him, being dissatisfied with the judgment of trial court, the appellant filed a notice of appeal to the Ekiti State High Court stating seven grounds of a complaint challenging the judgment of the lower court that convicted the appellant.

The appellant counsel, Mr Adedeji Emmanuel submitted that the charges against the appellant before the lower court was unwarranted, unreasonable and could not stand, describing it as a miscarriage of justice.

He alleged that the trial magistrate erred in law when she refused to consider the evidence of the appellant.

The Solicitor General of Ekiti State, Mr Lade Ojo, who appeared for the case, submitted that there was merit in the appeal filed by the appellant’s counsel; Adedeji who said that the judgment of the lower court was wrong and should not stand.

He added that he had nothing to argue in support of the judgment of the lower court.