Rex V. Theophilus Adenuga Tunwashe (1935)

LawGlobal Hub Judgment Report – West African Court of Appeal

Application for Bail under Section 17 (2) of West African Court. of Appeal Ordinance (Ordinance 47 of 1933) to single Judge of Court of ,Appeal—Condition.y governing grantipg of bail.

This is an application for bail pending the hearing of an appeal and i, 1.^,.ade under section 17^, sub-section 2 of the West African Court c,f Appeal Ordinance.

Appellant was convicted in the High Court on the 18th day o⁴: February^–, 1915, and sentenced to four ears imprisonment under :-ection 324 of the Criminal Code, four years imprisonment under seetion 51:i of the Code, and one year’s imprisonment under section 515, all the sentences to run concurrently. From this conviction he has lodged art appeal.

From a careful examination of the reported eases it is clear :–

1. That bail will not be granted pending an appeal save in exceptional circumstances or where the hearing of the appeal is likely to be unduly delayed.
2. Tint in dealing with the latter class of case the Court will have regard not only to the length of time which 11i 114 elapse before the appeal can he heard but :lin to the length of the sentence to be appuzilesi from. and further that these two matters with be considered in relation !► one another.

To unt it in another way, in the a lisoliVe of special eircomstaileeQwill not he :ittowed,uutess ii_refusal WM;

• !he rt4Illt or ;4 ron^,:rdontillt! proportion Of the sente!p•f, ►en►g ser%ed oefore thecan he heard’ ‘the two local eases

been cited in support of the present :Ip►lieation are scarcely on all lours with it..

fn Th.r v. Lawrence the trial Judge stated a case for thc opiniop of the Full Court thus indicating sonic doubt its tn the correctness of his own decision in point of law and allowed hail pending the decision of the Full Court upon that case.

one of twelve months only ztile^–Val Judge refused to state a case an application
vitscly 1^–0 the Full Court to orderhim to du so ain bait was

3ranted on July tith 1932 in view of tho Nut that ttlE!eoutt,

Mdreisid ►if^,t be sittinz until lat^I tetober. Moreover the cli.se

•iu ^,,1 veil coniplicated questions of account for tl e. investigation of whi•h free VOMMUnicatimi between client and counsel was essential.In the present, ease. no special circumstances are alleged and I cannot consider a delay of two months iu relation to a sentence of four years to come within the principle I have et^,unciated above and the application must be dismissed. As Lord Trevethin L.C.J., said in ilex ‘v. Gott C.A. Reports ‘Vol. XVI ” if we grant this application we could never consistently refuse hail.”