AMUSA OPOOLA ADIO & ANOR VS THE STATE - Legalpedia | The Complete Lawyer - Research | Productivity | Health

AMUSA OPOOLA ADIO & ANOR VS THE STATE

OTUAHA AKPAPUNA & ORS VS OBI NZEKA II &ORS
July 22, 2025
SAMSON AWOYALE VS JOSHUA OLABAMIJI OGUNBIYI
July 22, 2025
OTUAHA AKPAPUNA & ORS VS OBI NZEKA II &ORS
July 22, 2025
SAMSON AWOYALE VS JOSHUA OLABAMIJI OGUNBIYI
July 22, 2025
Show all

AMUSA OPOOLA ADIO & ANOR VS THE STATE

Legalpedia Citation: (1986-04) Legalpedia 25480 (CA)

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Holden At Lagos

Fri Apr 18, 1986

Suit Number: SC 102/1985

CORAM


OPUTA , JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

ESO, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT


PARTIES


1. AMUSA OPOOLA ADIO

2. AMOS AFOLABI

APPELLANTS 


THE STATE

RESPONDENTS 


AREA(S) OF LAW


APPEAL – CONVICTION – CRIMINAL LAW – CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT

 


SUMMARY OF FACTS

The 2 appellants and Dejo Adeniji (the 3rd accused at the trial) descended upon the house where some Ghanaians lived, harried these Ghanaians out of their homes and had them brutally murdered on the pretext that they were thieves.

 


HELD


The Court held that the appeals of the two Appellants ought to be dismissed. They are hereby dismissed. The conviction and sentence of death passed on the Appellants by the trial judge as well as the appeal judgment of the Court of Appeal are all hereby affirmed.

 


ISSUES


1. Is there any finding of fact made by the learned trial Judge against each appellant?

2. Is there any evidence to support the learned trial Judge’s findings against each appellant?

 


RATIONES DECIDENDI


INSTANCES WHEN THE COURT ENTERTAINS QUESTION RAISED ON APPEAL


“The general rule adopted by this Court is that an appellant will not be allowed to raise, on appeal, a question which was not raised or argued in the court below. This however, is not an inflexible and rigid rule. It is subject to the demands of justice. Thus where the question involves substantial points of law – either substantive or procedural – the court may entertain the appeal all the same and prevent an obvious miscarriage of justice.” Oputa, JSC.

 


PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.


“A case can be proved by direct oral evidence. If the testimony or witnesses who saw and heard are believed, there will be proof beyond reasonable doubt. Circumstantial evidence can prove a case beyond reasonable doubt.” Oputa, JSC.

 


CASES CITED


1. Monday Enweliku v. The State (1970) 1 All N.L.R. 55

2. Babale v. Ibrahim (1956) 1 F.S.C. 37 at p.38

3. State v. Akpan Akpwee (1982) 6.SC.1

4. Samuel Aladesuru & ors. v. The Queen (1955) 3 W.L.R. 515: (1956) A.C. 49.

5. K. Akpene v. Barclay’s Bank of Nigeria Ltd & F. O. Osawaru (1977) 1 SC. 47

6. Shonekan v. Smith (1964) All NLR. 168 at p.173

7. Stool of Abinabina v. Chief Kojo Enyimadu (1953) 12 WACA. 171 at p.173 all

8. Peter Igbo v. The State (1978) 3 SC. 87 at p. 90

9. Ufuonye Enweonye & 2 Ors. v. The Queen (1955) 15 WACA. 1 at p. 3

 


STATUTES REFERRED TO


Supreme Court Act No. 12 of 1960

 


CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT

Comments are closed.