MRS. O. ADEKOYA V FEDERAL HOUSING AUTHORITY
May 30, 2025RAPHAEL EJEZIE & ANOR V CHRISTOPHER ANUWU & ORS
May 30, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2008) Legalpedia (SC) 11130
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Apr 18, 2008
Suit Number: SC.123/2005
CORAM
SULEIMAN GALADIMA JUSTICE. SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
THE STATE. APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The respondents were charged for the murder of the deceased when their family attacked the family of the deceased over a land dispute. The prosecution did not call independent evidence to prove its case. The court of appeal upheld the respondents’ appeal against conviction. ?
HELD
The court dismissed the appeal. ?
ISSUES
1. Whether the Court of Appeal was right to have held that the Non calling of two independent witness by the prosecution, created doubt on the case of the prosecution sufficient to discharge and acquit the Respondents on the three count charge against them.2. Whether having regard to the evidence led by the prosecution, the Court of Appeal was right to have held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.3. Whether the Court of Appeal was right to have refused and or neglected to give considerations to the issues formulated by the parties before in this case.4. Whether the Court of Appeal was right to have refused and or neglected to adequately consider and properly examine the defence of Alibi raised by all the Respondents herein by contaminating same or mixing up same with the issue of non calling of two witnesses?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
WHEN THE PROSECUTION IS BOUND TO CALL A PARTICULAR WITNESS OR WITNESSES
Although the prosecution is not bound to call a particular witness in order to discharge the burden of proof placed on him by the law before securing conviction, yet the law is very emphatic that where there exists a vital point in issue and there are witnesses whose evidence would settle that issue one way or the other, these witnesses ought to be called- Muhammad J.S.C.
PROOF OF COMMON INTENTION MUST BE ESTABLISHED BY THE PROSECUTION IN A JOINT TRIAL
Where there is a joint criminal act, an accused has nothing to rebut until the prosecution has established criminal intention or knowledge on the part of each and every accused person – Muhammad J.S.C.
DOUBT SHOULD BE RESOLVED IN FAVOUR OF ACCUSED
Where there is doubt in a criminal trial, such doubt is resolved in favour of the accused person- Muhammad J.S.C.
CASES CITED
1. Oluwatoba v. The State (1985) 1 NSCC 306; 2. Adamu v. State (1991) 4 NWLR (Pt.187) 530; 3. Amuneke v. State (1992) 6 NWLR (Pt.217) 338. 4. State v. Nnolim (1994) 5 NWLR (Pt.345) 394 at 406 5. Omogodo v. The State (1981) 5 SC 5; 6. Onah v. The State (1985) 3 NWLR (Pt.12) 236.4. Alarape v. The State (2001) 2 SCNJ 162, (2001) 3 SCM, 1; 5. Ahmed v. The State (1998) 7 SCNS 560 6. Chukwu v. The State (1996) 7 NWLR (Pt.463) 686 at 701?
STATUTES REFERRED TO
NONE?
