LUKE C. N.ECHEAZU V. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
August 12, 2025PAULINE CHINELO OKWUOSA VS EMMANUEL AZUBUOBI OKWUOSA
August 12, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1974-02) Legalpedia (SC) 13351
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Feb 22, 1974
Suit Number: SC. 60/1973
CORAM
SOWEMIMO, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
EMANUEL OBIOMA OGWUEGBU, JSC. JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT (Read the Leading Judgment)
DANIEL O. IBEKWE, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT br/>
PARTIES
DOMINIC OKOLO & 3 ORS
APPELLANTS
THE STATE
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
CRIMINAL LAW/ EVIDENCE OF AN ACCOMPLICE OR A PERSON HAVING PURPOSE TO SERVE-COROBORATION
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellants were convicted for robbery on the evidence of witness who drove the vehicle the appellants were alleged to have used for the robbery. The only corroborative evidence was that of the victim who gave contradictory evidence as to the identity of the appellants.
HELD
The court held that it was not safe to have convicted the appellants on the uncorroborated evidence of a person interested in the proceedings.
ISSUES
Whether the trial court was right when it convicted the appellants on the uncorroborated evidence of P.W.5.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
EVIDENCE OF A CO-PRISONER/ CROWN WITNESS
Where it appears that a witness, whether a co-prisoner or a Crown Witness, may have some purpose of his own to serve in giving evidence, it is desirable in practice that a warning should be given to the jury with regard to the danger of acting on his uncorroborated evidence similar to that which is given in the case of accomplices, whether the witness can properly be classed as an accomplice or not act. Per Irikefe J.S.C
STATUS OF INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS BY A WITNESS
Where a witness such as P.W.7 is shown to have made a previous statement inconsistent with her evidence at the trial, the correct approach in law is that the jury (or court) should not merely be directed that the evidence given at the trial should be regarded as unreliable, but should also be directed that the previous statement, whether sworn or unsworn, does not constitute evidence on which they can act. Per Irikefe J.S.C
CASES CITED
1. R. v. Prater – 44 CAR p.83
2. The State v. Akpan Udo Ukut & Ors. reported in (1965) 1 – All NLR at page 306
3. R. v. Golder & Ors. – 45 CAR p.5
4. The Queen v. Joshua (1964) 1 All NLR page 1 at page 3
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Not Available
