ANANABA OHUKA VS THE STATE PA - Legalpedia | The Complete Lawyer - Research | Productivity | Health

ANANABA OHUKA VS THE STATE PA

E. O. FASORO AND ANOTHER VS OLALERE BEYIOKU AND OTHERS
July 17, 2025
BUSARI AKANDE (IN RE) VS THE STATE
July 17, 2025
E. O. FASORO AND ANOTHER VS OLALERE BEYIOKU AND OTHERS
July 17, 2025
BUSARI AKANDE (IN RE) VS THE STATE
July 17, 2025
Show all

ANANABA OHUKA VS THE STATE PA

Legalpedia Citation: (1988) Legalpedia (SC) 80119

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Fri Jul 8, 1988

Suit Number: SC.31/1986

CORAM


ESO JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

KARIBI-WHYTE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

AGBAJE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

ALEXANDER, JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL


PARTIES


ANANABA OHUKA

APPELLANTS 


THE STATE

RESPONDENTS 


AREA(S) OF LAW


CRIMINAL LAW-MURDER

 


SUMMARY OF FACTS

The appellants sought an order of court discharging and acquitting them of the offence of murder.

 


HELD


The Court held that the conviction and sentence of the 2nd,3rd,6th and 7th appellants is allowed and they are accordingly discharged and acquitted while that of the 1st, 4th and 5th appellants respectively is dismissed and their convictions and sentences by the trial court which were confirmed by the court of appeal are also confirmed.  ?

 


ISSUES


Whether the appeal of each of the accused persons to this court was within time or not Was there sufficient evidence before the learned trial Judge to hold that there was a prima facie case against the appellants at the time the prosecution closed its case?If there was none is the subsequent evidence of the 1st appellant admissible against the appellants particularly after they have rested their case on the prosecution case by not further participating (in) the trial?Was there sufficient warning in respect of all matters likely to affect the verdict of the court having regard to the fact that the 1st appellant was in any case an accomplice?

 


RATIONES DECIDENDI


SUSPICION


‘Evidence that an accused person had the opportunity to commit the offence with which the accused persons were charged without anything more will not suffice in my view to ground a ruling that that accused has a case to answer’- A.G.O. AGBAJE, JSC

 


CASES CITED


1.    Gafari Ajidagba and 4 Ors. v. Inspector-General of Police 3 FSC. 5

2.    Ohuka & Ors. v. The State (1988) 1 NWLR. Part 72 p.539

3.    R. v. Ajani 3 WACA. 3

4.    Wahabi Mummuney & Ors. v. The State (1975) 6 SC. 79

5.    Rex v. Baskerville (1916) K. B. page 667

6.    Djan and Another vs. The Queen 14 WACA. page 558

7.     Queen v. Omisade & 17 others (1964) NMLR. 67

 


STATUTES REFERRED TO


1.    Supreme Court Act 1960

2.    Evidence Act,

3.    Constitution Of The Federal Republic Of Nigeria, 1979?

 


CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT 

Comments are closed.