SHELL PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT COMPANY OF NIGERIA LIMITED V SAM ROYAL HOTEL NIGERIA LIMITED
April 25, 2025ZAKI MAMMAN & ORS V MALL. DAN HAJO
April 25, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2016) Legalpedia (SC) 63952
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Jan 29, 2016
Suit Number: SC 834 /2014
CORAM
KUDIRAT MOTONM0RI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
DANIEL OKAFOR
APPELLANTS
THE STATE
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
APPEAL, ACTION, COURT, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellant and one Sunday Okolie Emenika were arraigned before the High Court of Delta State on a three count charge of conspiracy to kidnap, attempted kidnapping and attempted murder respectively under section 516,509 and 320 of the Criminal Code Cap.21 vol.1 Laws of Delta State 2006 which they pleaded not guilty. At the trial, the prosecution called four witnesses and tendered some exhibits before closing its case. The Appellant made a No-Case Submission on all the counts against him. The Court upheld the Appellant’s no-case submission on the third count of attempted murder but overruled the submission in respect of counts 1 and 2 for conspiracy to kidnap and attempted kidnapping. The Court held that a prima facie case had been made out against him in respect of the two counts and called upon him to enter his defence. Dissatisfied with the decision, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal which also affirmed the decision of the Trial Court. Still aggrieved, the Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed
ISSUES
Whether the Court of Appeal was right in overruling the no-case submission made by the appellant and in holding that a prima facie case was established against the appellant in counts I and II of the Information, particularly when there is no legally admissible evidence that linked the appellant to the said offences charged, when the prosecution witnesses even exculpated the appellant of the offences in the said counts I and II of the Information and when appellants’ co-accused was totally discharged of the offences
RATIONES DECIDENDI
ATTEMPT TO COMMIT AN OFFENCE- WHAT CONSTITUTE ATTEMPT TO COMMIT AN OFFENCE
“It is also trite that in order to constitute an attempt to commit an offence, the act must be immediately connected with the commission of the particular offence charged and must be something more than preparation for the commission of the offence. See: Shurumo VS The State (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.12261 )73: Ojigbo VS C.O.P. (1976)1 ANLR 109 @ 115.” PER . KUDIRAT M. O KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C. <foo
CONSPIRACY-HOW TO ESTABLISH THE OFFENCE OF CONSPIRACY
“For the offence of conspiracy to be established, the evidence must disclose a meeting of the minds to do an unlawful act or to do a lawful act in an unlawful way, while to prove the attempt to commit the offence the act must be immediately connected with the commission of the offence. PW3 and PW4 have testified as to the investigation they conducted and how they were able to link the Appellant with both offences.” PER KUDIRAT M. O KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C. <foo
CONSPIRACY- ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE OF CONSPIRACY
“With regard to the offence of conspiracy, the law is settled that the essential ingredient of the offence lies in the bare agreement and association to do an unlawful thing, which is contrary to or forbidden by law, whether that thing be criminal or not and whether or not the accused persons had knowledge of its unlawfulness. Evidence of conspiracy is usually a matter of inference from surrounding facts and circumstances. The trial court may infer conspiracy from the fact of doing things towards a common purpose. See. Clark VS The State (19861 4 NWLR (Pt.351 381: Gbapamosi VS The State (1991)1 6 NWLR (Pt.1961 )182; Aje VS The State (2006) 8 NWLR (Pt.9821 345 @ 363 A – C.” PER. KUDIRAT M. O KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C. <foo
NO-CASE SUBMISSION- LENGTH OF RULING IN NO CASE-SUBMISSION
“A court is also enjoined to be brief in a ruling on a no case submission and not to make any remarks or observations on the facts in order not to fetter its discretion. See: Ubanatu VS C.O.P. (suoral: Omisore VS The State (2005) VOL. 1 Q.C.C.R. 148 @ 143: Odofin Bello VS The State (19671) 1 NMLR 1. All that is required of the court at this stage is to ascertain whether there is any evidence at all, no matter how slight, linking the accused with the offence charged”. PER KUDIRAT M. O KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C. <foo
NO-CASE SUBMISSION- ISSUES TO BE CONSIDERED IN A NO-CASE SUBMISSION
“Thus, at the stage of a no case submission, the question as to whether or not the evidence is believed is immaterial and does not arise. The credibility of the witnesses is also not in issue. See: Adeyemi VS The State (1991)1 6 NWLR (Pt,1951 )1.” PER KUDIRAT M. O KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C. <foo
NO-CASE SUBMISSION-CONDITIONS TO BE FULFILLED FOR A NO CASE SUBMISSION TO BE UPHELD BY THE COURT
“In the well-known case of Ibeziako VS C.O.P. (19631 1 ALL NLR 60 @ 63 – 64, this court stated the guidelines for upholding a no-case submission. The court held thus: “A submission that there is no case to answer maybe properly made and upheld: (a) Where there has been no evidence to prove an essential element of the offence charged; (b) When the evidence adduced by the prosecution has been so discredited as a result of cross-examination or is so manifestly unreliable that no reasonable tribunal could safely convict upon it. Apart from these two situations, a tribunal should not in general be called upon to reach a decision as to conviction or acquittal until the whole of the evidence, which either side wishes to tender has been placed before it. If, however, a submission is made that there is no case to answer, the decision should depend, not so much on whether the adjudicating tribunal (if compelled to do so) would at that stage convict or acquit, but on whether the evidence is such that a reasonable tribunal might convict. If a reasonable tribunal might convict on the evidence so far before it, there is a case to answer.” See also: A31 DAG B A VS LG.P. (1958) SCNLR 60: Ohuka VS The State (1988)1 7 SC (Pt. IHl ) 25 @ 26 – 27: Ubanatu VS C.O.P. (2001 01 SC 31 & 38 – 39: Akpan VS The State (1986) 2 SC (Reprintl 365: TONGO VS C.O.P. (2007)1 12 NWLR (Pt.1049) 525: Suberu VS The State (2010)1 8 NWLR (Pt.11971 )586”. PER KUDIRAT M. O KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C. <foo
CASES CITED
NONE
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria1999 (As Amended)Criminal Code Cap.21 Vol.1 Laws of Delta State 2006Criminal Procedure Act.
