CHIEF S. N. MUOMAH V ENTERPRISE BANK LTD
April 30, 2025HARRISON OWHORUKE V. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
April 30, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2015-06) Legalpedia (SC) 51133
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Jun 26, 2015
Suit Number: SC. 36/2013
CORAM
BODE RHODES-VIVOUR JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
NWALI SYLVESTA NGWUTA JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
BODE RHODES-VIVOUR JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
BODE RHODES-VIVOUR JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
BODE RHODES-VIVOUR JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
BODE RHODES-VIVOUR JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
BODE RHODES-VIVOUR JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
BODE RHODES-VIVOUR JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
NWALI SYLVESTA NGWUTA JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
BRETT, CHIEF JUSTICE, SUPREME
BODE RHODES-VIVOUR JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
NWALI SYLVESTA NGWUTA JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
BODE RHODES-VIVOUR JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
BODE RHODES-VIVOUR JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
BODE RHODES-VIVOUR JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
ALHAJI MUSA SANI APPELLANTS
THE STATE
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellant together with one Ifanye Amah were prosecuted for the offence of Armed Robbery contrary to and punishable under the provisions ofthe Armed Robbery and Fire Arms(Special Provision) Act, Cap R11, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 at the Katsina High Court . The Appellant puts up the defence of Alibi claiming to have been in a hotel when the alleged Robbery took place. At the trial, the Prosecution tendered voluntary statements made by the Appellant and the other accused person. At the conclusion of the trial, the court found the Appellant and the other accused person guilty and sentenced them to death. The Appellant thereafter filed an appeal before the Court of Appeal but his appeal was unsuccessful, hence, a further appeal to the Supreme Court.
HELD
Appeal Allowed
ISSUES
None
RATIONES DECIDENDI
ALIBI – MEANING OF ALIBI
“Alibi is a Latin word meaning “Elsewhere”. Where an accused person claims he was somewhere else and could not have been at the scene of crime and could therefore not have committed the crime with which he is charged and gives particulars of his whereabouts at the material time to the Police at the earliest opportunity, the Police has a duty to investigate that claim no matter how unreasonable or stupid the claim or plea may seem.” PER N. S. NGWUTA, J.S.C
PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT -MEANING OF PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
“In Miller v Minister of Pensions (1947)2 ALL EL p.372. Lord Denning explained proof beyond reasonable doubt when the said that it:
“does not mean proof beyond the shadow of doubt. The law would fail to protect the community if it admitted of fanciful possibilities to deflect the course of justice. If the evidence is so strong against a man as to leave only a remote possibility in his favour which can be dismissed with the sentence of course it is possible but not in the least probable the case is proved beyond reasonable doubt but nothing short of that will suffice.”PER. O. RHODES-VIVOUR J.S.C
ALIBI -DUTY OF THE ACCUSED PERSON TO ESTABLISH THE DEFENCE OF ALIBI –WAY OF ESTABLISHING THE DEFENCE OF ALIBI
“Alibi is within the personal knowledge of the accused person and so it is his duty to establish it. This is done by providing the Police with details of Lis Alibi (whereabouts) at the earliest opportunity after his arrest, and it is the duty of the police to investigate it.”PER. O. RHODES-VIVOUR J.S.C
DEFENCE OF ALIBI – THE DEFENCE OF ALIBI MUST BE RAISED TIMEOUSLY AND SPECIFICALLY
“For a defence of alibito avail an accused person, it must be raised timeously and specifically; this is because by nature, the defence presupposes that the accused does not only claim that he never committed the offence alleged, but also that he was not at all at the scene of the crime or within the vicinity.”PER.C B. OGUNBIYI J.S.C
DEFENCE OF ALIBI- ONCE AN ALIBI HAS BEEN RAISED THE BURDEN IS ON THE PROSECUTION TO INVESTIGATE AND REBUT SUCH EVIDENCE
“In Ani v State (2009) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1168) 443 the Supreme Court held per Ogebe JSC at 457 that once an alibi has been raised the burden is on the prosecution to investigate and rebut such evidence. See Opayemi v State (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 5) 101; and Obakpolor v State (1991) 1 NWLR (Pt. 165) 113.” PER. K. B. AKAAHS,J.S.C
DEFENCE OF ALIBI-IMPROPRIETY OF THE TRIAL COURT TO DISPENSE WITH THE PLEA OF ALIBI TO CONVICT AN ACCUSED PERSON ON THE GROUND THATTHE DEFENCE OF ALIBI DOES NOT ARISE WHERE THERE IS AN EYE WITNESS
“It was wrong for the trial Court to dispense with the plea of alibi to convict the appellant on the ground that the defence of alibi does not arise where there is an eye witness. That “the defence of alibi does not arise where there is an eye witness” is not a correct statement of the law. The evidence of an eye witness is not conclusive. The evidence has to be considered in light of Police investigation of the plea of the accused, as the eye witness may be mistaken in his identification of the accused.”PER. N. S. NGWUTA, J.S.C
DEFENCE OF ALIBI- MEANING OF THE DEFENCE OF ALIBI
“Alibi is a defence raised by an accused person. It is a complete defence if found to be true. The defence simply means that when the offence was committed the accused person was somewhere else, so he certainly could not have committed the offence.”PER. O. RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C
CRIMINAL TRIAL – COURT AND PARTIES ARE BOUND BY THE CHARGE LAID AGAINST AN ACCUSED PERSON
“The Court and parties are bound by the charge laid against the appellant to which he pleaded. The Court cannot rely on any particular time of 28/5/2008 as the time the offence was committed as the charge to which the appellant pleaded contained no time of the alleged offence.”PER. N. S. NGWUTA, J.S.C
PROOF OF THE DEFENCE OF ALIBI- THE STANDARD OF PROOF REQUIRED TO SUSTAIN THE DEFENCE OF ALIBI IS BASED ON BALANCE OF PROBABILITY.
“The standard of proof required for the defence of alibi to be sustained is one based on balance of probabilities. That is to say an alibi is established if the judge is satisfied that it is probable that the accused person was somewhere else on the date/time the offence was committed, and not that the witnesses for the prosecution are liars. Defence of alibi crumbles if there is stronger evidence against it or if after it is investigated it is found to be untrue. See Obiode v The State 1970 1ALL NLR p35 Nwosisi v The State 19766SC p.109 Odidika v The State 19772 SC p.21.”PER. O. RHODES-VIVOUR J.S.C
EVIDENCE- AN EXISTENCE OF DOUBT IN THE CASE OF THE PROSECTION MUST BE RESOLVED IN FAVOUR OF THE ACCUSED PERSON.
“Where there is any doubt in the case of the prosecution, it must be resolved in favour of the accused person. This is mandatory and gives no option. See the cases of: Shehu V State (2010) All FWLR (Pt 523) 1844; Afolabi V State (2010) All FWLR (528) 812; Posu V State (2011) All FWLR (Pt 565) 234; Orji V State (2008) All FWLR (Pt422) 1093; Udosen V State (2007) All FWLR (Pt 356) 699 and Chukwu V State (1996) 7 NWLR (Pt 463) P.686.”PER. C. B. OGUNBIYI J.S.C
ALIBI- DUTY OF THE POLICE TO DISPROVE ALIBI IF THEY DO NOT ACCEPT IT
“Once the accused raises the plea that he was elsewhere and furnishes the Police with the particulars of the place and the names of the person or persons who was/were with him at that place, the Police has a duty to disprove the alibi if they do not accept it. See Ogdala v.The State (1991) 1 NSCC 336, Eze v.The State (1976) ISC 125.”PER. N. S. NGWUTA, J.S.C
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
The Armed Robbery and Fire Arms(Special Provision) Act, Cap R11, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004
