Mohammed & 23 Ors. v. The Minister, Federal Ministry of Environment & 5 Ors. (2018) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1644) 179. Therefore, ground 3 (three) in the appellant's grounds of appeal is incompetent and it is liable to be struck out." Per ADUMEIN, J.C.A. (P. 14, Paras. B-E) ( in context) 2. APPEAL - ISSUE(S) FOR DETERMINATION: Effect of issue(s) for determination framed from an incompetent/invalid ground(s) of appeal "The appellant has distilled his Issue 1 from ground three, which I have held to be incompetent. Issue 1 formulated from ground three is incompetent and it is liable to be struck out. The law is that an issue framed from an incompetent ground of appeal should be struck out. See Idika v. Erisi (1988) 2 NWLR (Pt. 78) 563 and Ime Umanah Jnr. V. Nigerian Deposit Insurance Corporation (2016) 14 NWLR (Pt.1533) 458. This issue is accordingly struck out for being incompetent." Per ADUMEIN, J.C.A. (Pp. 14-15, Paras. F-B) ( in context) 3. CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE - MANDATORY SENTENCE(S): Whether the courts can impose anything less than the mandatory sentence prescribed by a statute "Section 218 of the Criminal Code Law, Cap. C21, Laws of Delta State, 2006 provides thus: "218. Any person who has unlawful carnal knowledge of a girl under the age of eleven years is guilty of a felony, and is liable to imprisonment for life." Under Section 218 of the Criminal Code law of Delta State, it is mandatory that a person found guilty of the offence of unlawful carnal knowledge be sentenced to imprisonment for life. The Court has no discretion to impose a lesser sentence. See Joseph Amoshima v. The State (2011) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1268) 530 at 553, per Onnoghen, JSC (as he then was, now CJN) where the Supreme Court stated as follows: "It is settled law also that where a statute prescribes a mandatory sentence in clear terms as in the instant case, the Courts are without jurisdiction to impose anything less than the mandatory sentence as no discretion exists to be exercised in the matter. It is a duty imposed by law." In page 561 of the said case, His Lordship, Fabiyi, JSC, held as follows: "The appellant's counsel should be reminded of the doctrine of separation of powers as enshrined in the 1999 Constitution. The legislature is to enact laws while it is the duty of the judiciary to interpret the laws as enacted. And where a mandatory sentence is provided as in this matter, same must be pronounced without any reservation. There is no escape route." Per ADUMEIN, J.C.A. (Pp. 30-31, Paras. E-F) ( in context)

اختر الفقرة المستهدفة3