“The Court below conceded the fact of this failure on the part of the learned trial judge, a situation provided for under Section 308 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act which stipulates as follows:- 308(1) “The Judge or magistrate shall record his judgment in writing and every judgment shall contain the point or points for determination, the decision and the reasons for the decision and shall be dated and signed by the judge or Magistrate at the time of pronouncing it. 308(2) “The Magistrate instead of writing the judgment may record briefly in the book his decision or finding and his reasons for the decision and then deliver an oral judgment” Indeed, from page 919 to 945 of the record, the learned trial judge narrated the evidence and the argument of the parties, but did not frame the point or issues for determination. Commenting on the provisions of Section 245 of the CPA which is in pari materia with the provisions of Section 308 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015, the Supreme Court of Nigeria, per Ademola CJN, in Willie John V The State (1966) All NLR 204 at 205 observed: “The Section clearly lays it down that a judgment, at any rate of the High Court must contain the point or points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision. It is not enough to say as the learned trial judge put it in this case, that the facts is overwhelming. In view of the fact that we have had before us a later judgment somewhat similar to the present one, we feel bound to say that we think the learned trial Judge’s judgment is far too meagre and does not satisfy the requirement of the section. As we said in another connection in R v Fadina (1958) 3 FSC 11 at 12:- ‘an accused is entitled to have his case fully considered on point or points for determination, also to the decision thereon and the reasons for such decisions.” The observance of the provisions of Section 308 is mandatory and the breach of the section renders the judgment a nullity. Akwa V Commissioner of Police (2003) 4 NWLR Pt. 811 461. Anyankpele V Nigerian Army (2000) 12 NWLR Pt 684 209 at 226e – 227e; Yakubu V Chief of Naval Staff (2004) 1 NWLR Pt 853, 94; in Samson Aigbe V The State (1976) 9-10 SC 46 at 53. The Supreme Court held thus:- “It is transparently clear that apart from the brief reference to the evidence relating to the conspiracy charge, as we have quoted earlier on, the learned judged failed to consider the evidence adduced by the prosecution in their case against the 2nd Appellant. He also failed to consider the defence of the 2nd Appellant. He did not state the point for determination, his decision thereon and his reasons for the decision in convicting the 2nd Appellant on the conspiracy charge and the charges relating to the cluttering and stealing as he is mandated to do by the provisions of Section 245 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which provides – It has been stated in a number of cases since The Queen V Timothy Fadina (1958) 3 FSC 11 that the observance of the provisions of Section 245 of the Act is mandatory and that failure to do so constitutes miscarriage of justice which vitiates any conviction arising therefrom.” In affirming the decision of the trial Court, the Court below at page 1122 to 1124 stated: “The argument of Learned Counsel for the appellant that the judgment of the trial Court did not state the point or points for determination is correct, even though the judgment considered the written addresses of the parties which contained the points for determination. But it states the decision and the reason therefor, even though tersely. It is signed and dated by the trial Judge. So it substantially complies with S. 308(1) and (2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 which provides that – “308(1) The Judge or magistrate shall record his judgment in writing and every judgment shall contain the point or points for determination, the decision and the reasons for the decision and shall be dated and signed by the judge or Magistrate at the time of pronouncing it. 308(2) The Magistrate instead of writing the judgment may record briefly in the book, his decision or finding and his reason for the decision and then deliver an oral judgment.” It is clear from the express terms of the judgment that the reason stated therein for the conviction of the appellant is his admission of commission of the crimes in his confessional statements, exhibits B1 and B2, and the corroboration of the confessional statement by the evidence of PW6 and PW8. There is no doubt that the reasons are not elaborate. As terse as they are, they show the basis for the decision of the trial Court. “The decisions in Aigbe v. The State (1976) 9-10 SC 46 at 53, Yakubu V. Chief of Naval State (2004) 1 NWLR (Pt 853) 94, Anyankpele V Nigerian Army (2000) 12 NWLR (Pt 684) 209 at 226 and Akwa v. COP (2003) 4 NWLR (Pt. 811) 461 are distinguishable from our present case as the relevant facts are different. In those cases, the compliance with provisions similar to S. 308 of the ACJA was not substantial. Example, in Aigbe v. The State (supra), the judgment, in addition to the failure to show a consideration of the evidence of both sides, failed to state the point for determination, the decision and the reasons for the decision.” The plank of the appellant’s case at this point is the trial Court failed to consider the protest and defence of the appellant arising from the confessional statements tendered by the prosecution and thereby breached the appellant’s constitutional right to fair hearing which infraction occasioned a serious miscarriage of justice. The stance of the appellant is not the full story in the light of what the Court below stated in its judgment. That Court agreed that the trial judge did not state the point or points for determination but that it did consider the written addresses of the parties which contained the points for determination. The Court of Appeal found as a fact that the trial Court stated the decision and the reason even if tersely and the judgment of the trial Court signed and dated by the trial judge. The Court of Appeal concluded that there was substantial compliance with Section 308 (1) and (2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015. For a fact, it is not true that the defence of the appellant was not considered by the trial Court. The learned trial judge clearly considered all that was before him, that he did not go into an elaborate lucidation of the protest of the appellant did not change the situation that fair hearing was administered in favour of the appellant and his side of the narration was considered. It did not matter that a formal stating of the point or points for determination did not detract from the fact that consideration of the totality of the evidence, issues arising in context with the relevant law were substantially met.” Per PETER-ODILI, in BERENDE v. FRN (2021-LCER-40453-SC) (Pp 57 – 63 Paras B – A)