DOMINIC OKOLO & 3 ORS V. THE STATE

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