AKANBI ENITAN VS. THE STATE

CORAM

NNAMANI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

PARTIES

AKANBI ENITAN

JIMOH ADEBAYO

JIMOH KASALI

APPELLANTS

THE STATE

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

OFFENCE OF ARMED ROBBERY

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellants were in the court of first instance charged with Armed Robbery punishable by death. The learned trial Judge, found each guilty as charged, convicted each accordingly and sentenced each to death by hanging. The Appellants then appealed to the Court of Appeal. The court of appeal dismissed the appeals of the Appellants. Dissatisfied with the decision of the court of appeal, the appellants further appealed to the Supreme Court.

HELD

The appeal was dismissed.

ISSUES

1. That the decision of the lower court is , altogether unreasonable, unwarranted and cannot be supported having regard to the weight of evidence.

2. That the conviction of the 1st accused/appellant is wrong in law and on the facts and the same ought to be quashed in that the Court of Appeal in affirming the conviction failed to observe that the learned trial Judge did not direct himself as to what evidence on record was admissible against each accused and in particular that in so far as the 1st accused is concerned the Statements of the 2nd and 3rd accused (who did not give evidence) is not evidence against the 1st accused.

3. The decision of the Court of Appeal is wrong in law and on the facts in that, it not only failed to consider the case of each accused separately but fell into the same error as did the trial court of condemning the 1st appellant on inadmissible evidence.

RATIONES DECIDENDI

CONFLICTS BETWEEN STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE ON OAT

“It is trite law that if a witness is proved to have made a Statement, though unsworn, in direct conflict with his evidence on oath, then it is proper for the court to hold that his evidence in court is negligible and the case must otherwise and by other witnesses, be proved.” Per OPUTA, J.S.C.

weight of evidence

“The weight of evidence will become material where the evidence on one side weighed against the evidence on the other side and the case is decided on the balance of probability as happens in civil cases.” Per OPUTA, J.S.C.