LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — Objection to Irregularity — Failure to Object at Appropriate Time Cures Irregularity by Virtue of Section 168 of Criminal Procedure Act
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
No judgment shall be reversed on any objection which, if stated after charge was read or during trial, might have been amended by the court. The appellant could have objected to joint trial of separate indictments but did not. Section 168 prevents reversal for that reason alone.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Uwaifo, JSC, in State v. Onyeukwu (2004) NLC-772001(SC) at pp. 14–15; Paras E–B.
"No judgment shall be stayed or reversed on the ground of any objection which if stated after the charge was read over to the accused or during the progress of the trial might have been amended by the court. It can be seen that objection could have been taken to the separate indictments being tried jointly (a) soon after the charge had been read over to the accused or (b) during the progress of the trial. The appellant in this case had the option to object to the joint trial of the separate indictments. He did not. Section 168 of the CPA, as I understand it, expected him to do so. The said section says that if he failed to do so at the appropriate time, the judgment given against him cannot be reversed merely because the separate indictments were jointly tried."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Failure to object to procedural irregularity at trial when it could have been cured waives the right to appeal on that ground. Section 168 CPA prevents reversal for such unobjected irregularities. The principle applies to criminal procedure. The rule encourages timely objections to enable trial court correction. A party cannot remain silent and later complain. The court will not reverse for harmless procedural defects not raised below.
