Legalpedia Citation: (2023-05) Legalpedia 49371 (SC)

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Holden at Abuja

Fri Mar 24, 2023

Suit Number: SC.875/2017

CORAM

OLUKAYODE ARIWOOLA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

JOHN INYANG OKOROR JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

AMINA ADAMU AUGIE

MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

PARTIES

KAZEEM AYINDE

APPELLANTS

THE STATE

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

APPEAL, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

SUMMARY OF FACTS

At the trial court, the accused who is the Appellant before the supreme court was accused of committing murder by inflicting matchet wounds on his victim (Ayuba Karim) which led to his death. Before his demise, the victim told three people that the accused was responsible for his death.

The Appellant was convicted for the offence of murder of Ayuba Karim, punishable under Section 319 (1) of the Criminal Code, Cap. 30, Vol. 11, Laws of Oyo State, by the High Court of Oyo State, Ibadan (trial Court) and sentenced to death by hanging.

The Appellant’s appeal to the Court of Appeal, Ibadan Division, was dismissed and being dissatisfied with that decision, he brought the instant appeal before the Supreme Court.

HELD

Appeal dismissed

ISSUES

Ø Whether the lower Court was right to have affirmed the findings of the trial Court which discountenanced the alibi raised by the Appellant and held that the Appellant failed to discharge the burden placed on him to prove his alibi, even though the Prosecution did not investigate or impeach the alibi timeously raised by the Appellant?

Ø Whether the lower Court was right when it held that the dying declaration of the deceased and the circumstantial evidence in the case was unequivocal and irresistibly pointed to the Appellant as the person that inflicted matchet cuts on the deceased?”

RATIONES DECIDENDI

PLEA OF ALIBI – REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PLEA OR DEFENCE OF ALIBI

In the case of Aiguoreghian v. State (2004) 3 NWLR (pt. 860) 367 at 401, Onu, JSC, speaking for this Court in the lead judgment, restated that:-

“It is a well-established principle that an alibi means that the accused was somewhere other than where the prosecution alleges he was at the time of the commission of the offence. The defence of alibi, as it were, implies that the accused person was elsewhere at the time when the offence charged was alleged to have been committed in a particular place,”

The Court referred to the earlier decisions in Gachi v. The State (1965) NMLR, 333, Okosun v. A. G., Bendel State (1985) 3 NWLR (pt. 12) 283 and Ikemson v. The State (1989) 3 NWLR (pt. 110)455.

The law on the essential requirements for the plea or defence of alibi by an accused person charged with the commission of a criminal offence before a Court of law, is firmly settled in our criminal procedure jurisprudence, some of the requirements are that:

1. The defence/plea of alibi is primarily based and predicated on and within the personal knowledge of the accused person which he must raise timeously and provide adequate particulars of his where-about and with whom he was at the material time by dint of Section 140 of the Evidence Act, 2011, (Section 141 (1) and 142 of the 1990 Act). It is therefore a requirement of the law that an accused person who relies on a plea or defence of alibi, bears and has the initial evidential, burden of providing the essential particulars and evidence of such a plea or defence on the balance of probabilities in order for the duty of the police or prosecution to investigate it for the purpose of disproving same at the trial Court to arise. See Ifejirika v. State (1999) 3 NWLR (pt. 593) 59 at 78, Eyisi v. The State (2000) 15 NWLR (pt. 691) 555, Tanko v. The State (2009) All FWLR (pt. 456) 1977 at 1999, Gachi v. The State (supra), Galidika v. The State (1972) 2 SC, 21, Peter v. The State (1997) 3 SCNJ, 28, Ndukwe v. The State (2009) 2 – 3 SC 48, Sowemimo v. State (2004) 11 NWLR (pt. 885) 515, Ani v. The State (2003) 11 NWLR (pt. 830) 143.

2. The prosecution/police has the duty, where the plea or defence of alibi is properly and timeously raised by an accused person, in the course of the investigation of the offence he was charged with, to fully investigate it in order to be able to disprove same at the trial Court. See Sowemimo v. State (supra), Aiguoreghian v. State (supra), Nsofor v. The State (2002) 10 NWLR (pt. 775) 274, lortim v. State (1997) 2 NWLR (pt. 490) 711.

3. The accused person has no duty to prove the plea or defence of alibi after properly and timeously raising it in a case. See Arebamen v. State (1972) 7 NSCC, 174, Ikono v. State (1973) 8 NSCC, 352, Okolo v. S. O. P. (1977) NNLR, 1, Ikono v. The State (1973) SC (reprint) 167, (1973) LPELR – 1483 (SC), Nwabueze v. State (1988) 4 NWLR (pt. 86) 18, Aliyu v. State (2007) All FWLR (pt. 388) 1133 at 1144.

4. That failure to investigate an alibi plea or defence properly raised by an accused person may be fatal to the case of the prosecution for a doubt would be created and the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt not attained which entitles the accused person to be discharged. See Aiguoreghian v. State (supra), Sowemimo v. State (supra), Nsofor v. State (supra) Dogo v. The State (2001) 2 SCM, 39 at 53, Amodu v. The State (2010) 2 NWLR (pt. 1177) 97 at 81, Ozaki v. The State (1990) 1 NWLR (pt. 124) 92.

5. That failure to investigate the plea or defence of alibi raised by an accused person may and is not fatal to the case of the prosecution if and where there was strong, credible and compelling evidence fixing him at the scene of the commission of the offence he was charged with, at the material time. Tobi, JSC, in the case of Ebri v. The State (2004) All FWLR (pt. 216) 420 at 435, restated the law that:-

“Where the evidence of the prosecution witnesses specifically and unequivocally pins down an accused person to the scene of crime and says that he committed the offence, failure to investigate the alibi by the police will not result in an acquittal of the accused. In such a situation, the failure to investigate the alibi is not only superfluous, but also otiose. ”

See also Nwosisi v. State (1976) 6 SC, 109, Okosun v. A. G., Bendel State (1985) 3 NWLR (pt. 12) 283, Odu v. State (2001) 1 SC (pt. II) 30, Eyisi v. State (2000) 12 SC (pt. 1) 24, (2001) 15 NWLR (pt. 691) 555, Archibong v. The State (2006) All FWLR (pt. 323) 1147 at 1184.

6. That a successful plea or defence of alibi completely exculpates the accused person from criminal responsibility or liability as it is proof that he was not at the scene of the crime he was charged with at the material time and, so, ipso, facto, did not commit the crime in question, and is entitled in law, to be acquitted and discharged. See Amodu v. The State (supra). – Per M. L. Garba, JSC

PLEA OF ALIBI – FOR THE PLEA OF ALIBI TO AVAIL AN ACCUSED PERSON, THE PERSON MUST PROVIDE RELEVANT AND MATERIAL PARTICULARS

As stated earlier, the law is settled that for the plea or defence of alibi to avail an accused person, he must not only raise it at the earliest opportunity, but also provide the relevant and material particulars of the specifically identified or identifiable place he was, the date and time as well as the name/s of people he was with at the material time in order for proper investigation to be carried or conducted on it by the police or prosecution before the trial of the offence he was charged with. It is not sufficient for an accused person to merely raise or make the plea or defence of alibi at large without providing adequate particulars of his where about at the time of the commission of the offence in question to enable the police to embark on meaningful investigation. See Balogun v. A G., Ogun State (supra), Onyegbu v. State (1995) 4 NWLR (pt. 391) 510 (SC), Eyisi v. State (2000) 12 SC (pt. 1) 24, Sowemimo v. State (supra), Nsofor v. State (supra). – Per M. L. Garba, JSC

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

1. Criminal Code, Cap. 30, Vol. 11, Laws of Oyo State
2. Evidence Act CAP E14 Volume 6 LFN 2004
3. Evidence Act, 2011.
4. 1999 Constitution

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT