LAWANI ADESOKAN VS SUNDAY ADETUNJI
July 9, 2025JOSEPH NNOLIM VS THE STATE
July 9, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1994) Legalpedia (SC) 06115
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Jun 3, 1994
Suit Number: SC. 212/1993
CORAM
I.L. KUTIGI, – JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
M. L. UWAIS, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
E.O. OGWUEGBU, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
O. OLATAWURA, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
Y.O. ADIO, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
MUSA UMARU KASA APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellant together with another accused person were convicted of culpable homicide punishable with death by the High Court. They appealed from the decision to the Court of Appeal. The appellate court came to the conclusion that the circumstantial evidence against the 2nd accused was unsatisfactory. It set aside his conviction and he was acquitted and discharged. The appellant on the other hand, was found by the Court to have been rightly convicted by the trial court on his confession. His appeal was dismissed and the conviction and sentence confirmed. He appealed against his conviction to the Supreme Court.
HELD
The appeal failed and was dismissed.
ISSUES
1. Whether the extra judicial statements Exhibits A1-C1 upon which the appellants conviction and its affirmation were based by the High Court and Court of Appeal can be regarded as confessional in nature in the light of Section 27 of the Evidence Act and if answered negatively, whether the appellants conviction based as it were on these statements could possibly stand, in the fact of clear omission and or inadvertence to ensure that the necessary legal safeguards were applied to the said statement.2. Whether it is proper in law to employ the same discredited evidence (in this instance, weak circumstantial evidence of blood stained shirts) upon which the acquittal of the 2nd appellant in the Court of Appeal was based, to affirm in another breath, the conviction of the appellant herein, by using that discredited piece of evidence as corroboration for the purported confessional statements?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
NOT ALL CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT CAN BE RELIED UPON
“It is not, however, every confessional statement which has been admitted in evidence that can be relied upon by the court to convict the maker of the statement.” Per UWAIS, JSC.
CASES CITED
R. v. Willis (1960) 1 WLR 55 at p. 58Mawaz Khan & Anon v. R (1967) 1 All ER 80 at p. 81R. v. Chapman (1969) 2 WLR 1004Sanusi v. State (1984) 10 SC. 166
STATUTES REFERRED TO
