CHIEF J.O. IYASE & ORS V. UGIAGBE OMORAGBON
August 7, 2025OBALUM ANEKWE V. THE STATE
August 7, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1976) Legalpedia (SC) 11311
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Oct 22, 1976
Suit Number: SC. 324/1975
CORAM
EMANUEL OBIOMA OGWUEGBU, JSC. JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT (Read the Leading Judgment)
IRIKEFE, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
JAMES OGENYI OGEBE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
BOY MUKA ONEKUMI APUAMAGA EBISIKWE ESEBOR APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The accused persons were jointly tried and convicted in the High Court for the murder of one Izevbigie Agbon and sentenced to death. Not satisfied with their conviction, they appealed against the conviction in the court of appeal and further to the Supreme Court.
HELD
The appeal of each of the accused persons was allowed and the conviction and sentence passed on each of them were set aside. Each accused was acquitted and discharged.
ISSUES
Of all the witnesses who testified for the prosecution, the only one who said he saw the accused persons attack the deceased is the 1st P.W. The evidence of this witness, coupled with that of the 11th P.W. and the contents of the Police Report (Exhibit “K”), show clearly that the testimony of the witness (P.W.1) is unreliable and the learned trial Judge should not have convicted the appellants upon it.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
WHAT THE COURT MUST DO IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE PROSECUTION HAVE PROVED THEIR CASE BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
“The court must evaluate the totality of the evidence called by the prosecution in order to determine whether they (the prosecution) have proved their case beyond reasonable doubt.” Per FATAYI-WILLIAMS, JSC.
DUTY OF COURT IN RESPECT OF EVIDENCE OF A WITNESS
“Where no explanation has been furnished by any witness for any inconsistency in the evidence of the witnesses called by the prosecution, it is not for the court to pick and choose which witness to believe and which not to believe among such witnesses.” Per FATAYI-WILLIAMS, JSC.
MATTERS TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION IN EVALUATING THE TESTIMONY OF ALL THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES
“The fact that a prosecution witness has been treated, with the leave of the court, as a hostile witness, or has been so totally discredited under cross-examination that his testimony is entirely valueless, are matters which should be taken into consideration in evaluating the testimony of all the prosecution witnesses.” Per FATAYI-WILLIAMS, JSC.
THE LYING OF AN ACCUSED PERSON IS NOT EVIDENCE OF GUILT
“Mere lying by an accused person is not evidence of guilt. The prosecution must still prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.” Per FATAYI-WILLIAMS, JSC.
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Onubogu v. The State (1974) 9 S.C. 1 at p. 20
Ateji v. The State (1976) 2 S.C. 79 at pp. 83-84)
R. v. Wattam (1952) 36 Cr. App. R. 72 at p. 76
Cohen v. Marsh (1951) 2 TLR 402
