KAYODE V J.A. ODUTOLA
June 24, 2025CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA VS SAIDU H. AHMED & ORS
June 24, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2001) Legalpedia (SC) 31115
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri May 25, 2001
Suit Number: SC. 210/1999
CORAM
ASEME, JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL
ALOYSIUS IYORGER KATSINA-ALU, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
AKINTOLA OLUFEMI EJIWUNMI, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT.
PARTIES
LATEEF ADENIJI APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
Lateef Adeniji, the Appellant, was charged with the murder of one Regina Alozie. Although there was no direct evidence, the Trial Court convicted the Appellant on the strength of irresistible circumstantial evidence and sentenced him to death. Same was affirmed by the Court of Appeal.
HELD
The Supreme Court held that the trial Court in the circumstances was justified in inferring the existence of a guilty intent, in his finding that the appellant killed the deceased. The Court below was also justified in affirming the guilt of the appellant. The appeal is dismissed conviction and sentence of the appellant is affirmed.
ISSUES
1. Whether the plea was properly taken and recorded 2. Whether the circumstantial evidence sustained by the Court of Appeal was conclusive, compelling or irresistible ?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
ADMISSIBILITY OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
In the absence of any satisfactory explanation, the Court will be justified in inferring the existence of the requisite guilty intent. Although there was no direct evidence, the circumstantial evidence presented leads to only one conclusion that the appellant killed the deceased. It proved beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the appellant per KATSINA-ALU, JSC
PLEA TAKING
Once the record of the Court shows that the charge has been read over and explained to the accented, and the accused pleads to it before the case proceeded to trial, it is to be presented that everything was regularly done; that the Judge was satisfied. Secondly, the requirement that the charge must be read and explained to the accused in the language he understands, in my opinion, presented that the accused does not understand English which is the language of the Court. If he does not, the Court has a duty to put on record the language spoken by the accused. However, if the accused understands English, then it is not necessary to record this fact per KATSINA-ALU, JSC
CASES CITED
R. v. Ann Nash (1911) 6 CAR. 225 at page 228 PETER IGHO V. THE STATE (1978) 3 SC. 87ADEPETU V. STATE (1998) 9 NWLR (PT. 565) 185 AT 207
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Criminal Procedure Act, Cap. 80, Laws of the Federation. Section 215 thereof. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Section 33(b) (a)
