Legalpedia Citation: (2013-04) Legalpedia (SC) 98834
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Mon Apr 22, 2013
Suit Number: SC. 453/2010
CORAM
PARTIES
EMMANUEL EGWUMI APPELLANTS
THE STATE
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellant/defendant was charged along with eight others who absconded for criminal conspiracy, culpable homicide, voluntarily causing grievous hurt (which was abandoned) and mischief of which the appellant pleaded not guilty but was found guilty by the trial court and sentenced to death by hanging. Dissatisfied the appellant lodged an appeal to the Court of Appeal which affirmed the decision of the trial court. Thus a further appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal.
HELD
Appeal dismissed
ISSUES
1. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in relying on the precis of the statement of the appellant tendered and admitted as exhibit YY to hold that the appellant did not give the kind of details of the alibi which could have demolished the accusations on him of having committed the crimes for which he was charged, convicted and sentenced. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in upholding the rejection of the defence of Alibi put forward by the appellant. Whether the learned justices of the Court of Appeal were not in error when they held that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt notwithstanding the materia contradictious in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses?
2. Whether PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW6 were not tainted witnesses with their own interest to serve. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in holding that the appellant was sufficiently identified having regard to the evidence of identification before the court ?
3. Whether the learned trial judge did not err in law in assuming jurisdiction and entertaining the charge of criminal conspiracy culpable homicide punishable with death and mischief against the appellant?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT OF LOWER COURTS
“The Supreme Court will not upset concurrent findings of fact of the two lower courts except in exceptional cases such as:
(a) Where the findings of fact are erroneous or perverse and not based on the evidence led.
(b) Where violation of some principle of law or procedure exists.
(c) Where there is miscarriage of justice.” PER BODE RHODES-VIVOUR JSC
TAINTED WITNESS – EVIDENCE OF A TAINTED WITNESS
“A tainted witness may be an accomplice, but he is a witness who obviously has some purpose of his own to serve by given evidence. A judge should scrupulously examine such evidence and be slow in convicting without corroboration, although he may convict without corroboration depending on the circumstances” PER BODE RHODES-VIVOUR JSC
BIAS – MEANING OF BIAS
“Bias means anything which tends or may be regarded as tending to cause a judge to decide a case otherwise than on the evidence.” PER BODE RHODES-VIVOUR JSC
INTERPRETER – WHEN PARTY IS REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL
“An accused person who does not understand the language of the court, and is not represented by counsel must be provided with an interpreter. Failure to provide an interpreter would amount to a clear breach of his right to fair hearing and may render the trial a nullity. Where accused person is represented by counsel and there was no objection on the issue it would amount to a futile exercise to raise it on appeal.” PER BODE RHODES-VIVOUR JSC
CONTRADICTORY TESTIMONY – EFFECT OF CONTRADICTORY TESTIMONY
“A piece of evidence contradicts another when it affirms the opposite of what that other evidence has slated, not when there is just a minor discrepancy between them. Two pieces of evidence contradicts one another when they are by themselves in-consistent. A discrepancy may occur when a piece of evidence stops short of or contains a little more than, what the other evidence says or contains some differences in details.” PER BODE RHODES-VIVOUR JSC
TAINTED WITNESS – IDENTIFYING A TAINTED WITNESS IDENTIFICATION OF DEFENDANT
“It must be elementary now that when a witness testifies on a material fact in controversy (in this case whether the appellant is also called Nnaloka) the appellant who denies it should cross-examine the witness to show the contrary. Where this is not done the court would be at liberty to take his silence as acceptance that he does not dispute the fact in the absence of cross-examination.” PER BODE RHODES-VIVOUR JSC
CONSPIRACY – COMMON INTENTION
“The facts of this case brings into focus the long settled position of the Law that where two or more persons form a common intention to kill another person and in furtherance of that intention one or more of them struck the victim with a matchet from which death results, each one of them is guilty of murder punishable with death and its does not matter who actually struck the deadly blow.” PER BODE RHODES-VIVOUR JSC
COMPETENCY OF COURT – WHEN IS A COURT COMPETENT
“A court is competent when-
1. It is properly constituted as regards members and qualifications of the members of the bench, and no member is disqualified for one reason or another; and
2. The subject matter of the case is within its jurisdiction and there is no feature in the case which prevents the court from exercising its jurisdiction; and
3. The case comes before the court initiated by due process of law, and upon fulfillment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction.” PER BODE RHODES-VIVOUR JSC
CONSPIRACY – COMMON INTENTION
“The facts of this case brings into focus the long settled position of the Law that where two or more persons form a common intention to kill another person and in furtherance of that intention one or more of them struck the victim with a matchet from which death results, each one of them is guilty of murder punishable with death and its does not matter who actually struck the deadly blow.” PER BODE RHODES-VIVOUR JSC
CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT OF LOWER COURTS
“The Supreme Court will not upset concurrent findings of fact of the two lower courts except in exceptional cases such as:
(a) Where the findings of fact are erroneous or perverse and not based on the evidence led.
(b) Where violation of some principle of law or procedure exists.
(c) Where there is miscarriage of justice.” PER BODE RHODES-VIVOUR JSC
TAINTED WITNESS – EVIDENCE OF A TAINTED WITNESS
“A tainted witness may be an accomplice, but he is a witness who obviously has some purpose of his own to serve by given evidence. A judge should scrupulously examine such evidence and be slow in convicting without corroboration, although he may convict without corroboration depending on the circumstances” PER BODE RHODES-VIVOUR JSC
INTERPRETER – WHEN PARTY IS REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL
“An accused person who does not understand the language of the court, and is not represented by counsel must be provided with an interpreter. Failure to provide an interpreter would amount to a clear breach of his right to fair hearing and may render the trial a nullity. Where accused person is represented by counsel and there was no objection on the issue it would amount to a futile exercise to raise it on appeal.” PER BODE RHODES-VIVOUR JSC
BIAS – MEANING OF BIAS
“Bias means anything which tends or may be regarded as tending to cause a judge to decide a case otherwise than on the evidence.” PER BODE RHODES-VIVOUR JSC
COMPETENCY OF COURT – WHEN IS A COURT COMPETENT
“A court is competent when-
1. It is properly constituted as regards members and qualifications of the members of the bench, and no member is disqualified for one reason or another; and
2. The subject matter of the case is within its jurisdiction and there is no feature in the case which prevents the court from exercising its jurisdiction; and
3. The case comes before the court initiated by due process of law, and upon fulfillment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction.” PER BODE RHODES-VIVOUR JSC
TAINTED WITNESS – IDENTIFYING A TAINTED WITNESS IDENTIFICATION OF DEFENDANT
“It must be elementary now that when a witness testifies on a material fact in controversy (in this case whether the appellant is also called Nnaloka) the appellant who denies it should cross-examine the witness to show the contrary. Where this is not done the court would be at liberty to take his silence as acceptance that he does not dispute the fact in the absence of cross-examination.” PER BODE RHODES-VIVOUR JSC
CONTRADICTORY TESTIMONY – EFFECT OF CONTRADICTORY TESTIMONY
“A piece of evidence contradicts another when it affirms the opposite of what that other evidence has slated, not when there is just a minor discrepancy between them. Two pieces of evidence contradicts one another when they are by themselves in-consistent. A discrepancy may occur when a piece of evidence stops short of or contains a little more than, what the other evidence says or contains some differences in details.” PER BODE RHODES-VIVOUR JSC
CASES CITED
Lockman v. State 1972 ALL NLR p.498 State v. Gwonto 1983 1 SCNLR p.142 Madu v. State 1997 1 NWLR pt.483 p.386 Adedeii v. State 1 ALL NLR p.75 Ikonov. State 1973 5SC p.231 Niovens v. State 1973 SC p.11 Onyeqbu v. State 1995 4 NWLR pt.391 p.510 Ishola v. State 1978 11 NSCC p.499 Ogunlana v. State 1995 5NWLR pt.395 p.26 Azeez Okoro v. State 1998 14 NWLR pt.584 p. 181 Orisakwe v. State 2004 12 NWLR pt.887 p.258 Nwokoro v. Onuma 1990 3NWLR pt.136 p.22 Azuokwu v. Nwokanma 2005 11 NWLR pt.937 p.537 Gabriel v. State 1989 5 NWLR pt.122 p.460. Ogbu v. State 1992 8 NWLR pt.259 0.255 Oqba v. State 1992 2 NWLR pt.222 p.164 Igago v. State 199 14 NWLR pt.637 p.1 Dakolo v. Dakolo 2011 46 NSCQR p.669
STATUTES REFERRED TO
BOOKS REFERRED TO: Jowitt’s Dictionary of English Law 2nd Edition
CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT