CYPRAIN CHUKWUKA ANIKPE V THE DIRECTOR GEN. B.C. & E & ORS
July 16, 2025BENSON UKWUNNENYI & ANOR VS THE STATE
July 16, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1989-07) Legalpedia (SC) 71161
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Jul 7, 1989
Suit Number: SC. 61/1988
CORAM
NNAMANI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
KARIBI-WHYTE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN, JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
AKPATA JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
BENSON ESANGBEDO
APPELLANTS
THE STATE
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
CRIMINAL LAW – ALIBI/EVIDENCE- BURDEN OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL CASES/ CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellant was identified with his albinism and the fact that he was wearing earrings as one of the persons who robbed some persons with arms. He raised the defence of alibi which was not proved.
HELD
The court allowed the appeal, quashing the convictions of the two appellants and entering a judgment of acquittal.
ISSUES
1. Whether the prosecution proved its case against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts in the rebuttal of the defence of alibi set up by appellant. (Ground 1 of the Grounds of Appeal)
2. Whether the conflicts in the evidence of prosecution witnesses were material contradictions as would occasion miscarriage of justice if ignored
RATIONES DECIDENDI
DEFENCE OF ALIBI :DUTY OF ACCUSSED.
By the defence of alibi the accused person seeks to raise a doubt to what might have been a foolproof case of the prosecution by saying that he was somewhere else at the time the crime was alleged to have been committed. at the scene of crime. As where he was at the material time is a matter especially within his knowledge, the law requires that for his defence of alibi to succeed in raising the doubt in his favour he ought to do certain things. He ought to raise that defence at the earliest possible opportunity. In that defence, he ought to give such details and particulars of his whereabouts that the police can investigate. This is the evidential burden on him in his defence of alibi – Nnaemeka-Agu J.S.C.
ATTITUDE OF APEX COURT TO CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF LOWER COURTS.
The court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless the findings are shown to be perverse or illegal or made as a result of an improper use of the opportunity of the court having heard and watched the witnesses testify- Nnaemeka-Agu J.S.C
CASES CITED
1. Akile Gachi & Ors v The State (1965) N.M.L.R. 333 at p.335;
2. Abudu v The State (1985) 1 N.W.L.R. (Pt.l) 55;
3. Nwabueze v The State (1988) 4 N. W. L. R. (Pt. 86) 16, at p.34
4. Asariyu v The State (1987) 4 N. W.L.R. (Part 67) 709
5. Yanor & Anor v The State (1965) N.M.L.R. 337, p.342;
6. Christian Nwosisi v The State (1976) 6 S.C. 109, p.112-113;
7. Joseph Okosun v A.G. of Bendel State (1985) 11 S.C. 194; (1985) 3 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 12) 283
8. Sobakin v The State (1981) 5 S.C. 75;
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Not Available
