DOMINIC PRINCENT & ORS VS THE STATE - Legalpedia | The Complete Lawyer - Research | Productivity | Health

DOMINIC PRINCENT & ORS VS THE STATE

NATIONAL ELECTRIC POWER AUTHORITY APPELLANT VS MR. B. EDEGBERO & ORS
June 18, 2025
NIGERIA AIR FORCE V. EX-WING COMMANDER L. D. JAMES
June 18, 2025
NATIONAL ELECTRIC POWER AUTHORITY APPELLANT VS MR. B. EDEGBERO & ORS
June 18, 2025
NIGERIA AIR FORCE V. EX-WING COMMANDER L. D. JAMES
June 18, 2025
Show all

DOMINIC PRINCENT & ORS VS THE STATE

Legalpedia Citation: (2002) Legalpedia (SC) 99910

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

HOLDEN AT ABUJA

Thu Dec 12, 2002

Suit Number: SC. 158/2001

CORAM


ABIMBOLA OSARUGUE OBASEKI – ADEJUMO FHC

O. ACHIKE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

ABUBAKAR BASHIR WALL JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

U.A. KALGO


PARTIES


DOMINIC PRINCENT,MICHAEL UDOH APPELLANTS


THE STATE RESPONDENTS


AREA(S) OF LAW



SUMMARY OF FACTS

SUMMARY OF FACTS
In the course of the trial of the appellants for culpable homicide for the death of the deceased, the trial judge directed amendment of the charge under section 208 Criminal Procedure Code.


HELD


The court held that the amendment of the charge against the accused persons was not in conflict with S.33 of the 1979 Constitution and that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.


ISSUES


1. Whether or not in the circumstances of this case the appellants were not denied fair hearing in their trial, conviction and sentence when the court of first instance suo motu after addresses of the parties directed the prosecution to amend the charge against the Appellants to include an offence of Joint Act so as to ground basis for their conviction and sentence to death. 2. Where or not the provision of section 208 of the Criminal procedure code, Cap 30, Laws of Northern Nigeria in the circumstances and application in this case is not in conflict with section 33 of the 1979 Constitution of Nigeria as amended. 3. Whether or not the material contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in this case relating to the charges against the Appellants did not create enough doubt on the guilt of the Appellants and whether the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the Appellants


RATIONES DECIDENDI


CASES CITED


R. v. Sunday Ijoma and others (1947) 12 W.A.C.A. 220 at 222|Ayub-Khan v. The State (1991) 2 N.W.L.R. (Part 172) 127|Echeazu v. C. of P. (1974) 2.S.C. 55 at 69|Nasamu v. The State (1979) 6-9 S.C. 153,|Onubogu v. The State (1974) 1 All NLR (Part 2) 5,|Ibe v. The State (1992) 5 N.W.LR. (Part 244) 642 at 649,


STATUTES REFERRED TO


The 1979 Constitution|The criminal procedure code|The criminal procedure Act|


CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT

Comments are closed.