LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — Joint Trial — Separate Indictments Tried Jointly Without Objection Amounts to Mere Irregularity Not Nullity
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Joint trial of separate indictments without objection is an irregularity not a nullity. Section 168 of the CPA makes this conclusion inevitable so long as no miscarriage of justice is shown. Joint trial raises only a technicality not bordering on jurisdiction, permitting waiver or acquiescence.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Uwaifo, JSC, in State v. Onyeukwu (2004) NLC-772001(SC) at pp. 15–16; Paras D–A.
"When there has been a joint trial of separate indictments without objection, prima facie it is an irregularity not a nullity. Section 168 of the CPA makes that conclusion inevitable and defensible in this country, so long as no miscarriage of justice has been shown to have arisen merely because of such joint trial. After all, since joint trial is permitted by section 155 of the CPA, joint trial of separate indictments raises only a technicality which does not border on jurisdiction. If it had been a jurisdictional issue, it would have been a legal contradiction to permit a waiver or acquiescence of its violation."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Trying separate indictments jointly without objection is an irregularity, not a nullity. It does not affect jurisdiction and can be waived. The principle applies to criminal procedure. The rule prevents reversal where no miscarriage of justice occurred. Acquiescence cures the irregularity. The court will not void proceedings for mere technical non-compliance with indictment rules.
