COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, MID-WESTERN NIGERIA VS LAYINKA AKPATA
August 29, 2025OGIAMIEN VS OGIAMIEN
August 29, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1967-06) Legalpedia 84016 (SC)
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Holden at Abuja
Fri Jun 9, 1967
Suit Number: SC 582/1966
CORAM
BRETT JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
COKER JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
LEWIS JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
LAYONU AND OTHERS
APPELLANTS
THE STATE
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE- EVIDENCE-DEFENCE-WITNESS STATEMENT TO THE POLICE- MURDER
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellants were charged with murder, the trial court refused application for the statements of the prosecution witnesses to be availed to the defence for the purpose of cross- examination on the ground that no discrepancies has been alleged. The witnesses did not identify two of the accused persons at the time of the incident.
HELD
The court held that the lower court was in error in refusing to allow the defence to see the statements and that there was doubt as to whether the two appellants took part in the act of killing the deceased.
ISSUES
Whether the appellants were in the circumstances of the case rightly convicted of murder.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
WITNESS STATEMENT TO THE POLICE
1. ‘The defence is entitled to be given any statement made to the police by a witness to for the purpose of cross-examining the witness on it and then, if it is Intended to impeach his credit, to put the statement in evidence for that sole purpose.’ Per Brett J.S.C
RESOLUTION OF DOUBTS IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGSRESOLUTION OF DOUBTS IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
2. ‘Any doubt in a criminal proceedings should be resolved in favour of the accused.’ Per Brett J.S.C
CASES CITED
1. R. v. Clarke 22 Cr. App. R. 58 R. v. Adebanjo (1935) 2 W.A.C.A. 315
2. R. v. Bryant and Dixon 31 Cr. App. R. 146
STATUTES REFERRED TO
The Evidence Act
