EZE LAMBERT OKOYE AKUNEZIRI VS CHIEF P.D.C OKENWA & ORS
June 25, 2025THEOPHILUS EYISI & ORS VS THE STATE
June 25, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2000) Legalpedia (SC) 68117
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Dec 8, 2000
Suit Number: SC. 22/2000
CORAM
ADOLPHUS G. KARIBI-WHYTE, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
FEDEDO FRANCIS TABAI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
UMARU ATU KALGO , JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
MITCHELL CHRISTOPHER CHUKWUMA-ENEH JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
FRANCIS DURWODE APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellant was convicted sentenced of the offence of murder punishable under Section 319(1) of the Criminal Code by Odita J of Warri High Court. Per Uthman Mohammed, JSC ?
HELD
That the evidence adduced before the trial court is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the appellant.
ISSUES
Whether the trial of Appellant is not a nullity for breach of the mandatory provisions of Sec. 215 of the Criminal Procedure Law, Laws of Bendel State 1976 and Sec. 33(6) A & E of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1979 and which occasioned a miscarriage of justiceWhether the circumstantial evidence against the Appellant was positive, cogent and conclusive
RATIONES DECIDENDI
RIGHT TO INFORM THE ACCUSED PERSON OF THE OFFENCE COMMITTED
where a charge is of one count and the appellant had earlier made a statement to the police on the allegation of the crime which he has been arraigned for trial the failure of the trial judge to record that the charge has been read and explained to the accused will not amount to a miscarriage of justice once the trial court is satisfied that the accused understood the nature of charge framed against him- Per Uthman Mohammed, JSC
ADMISSIBILTY OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
It is accepted as good law that where direct evidence of a fact in issue is not available, evidence of facts surrounding the establishment of the fact is acceptable and is very often the best evidence.- Per Adolphus Godwin Karibi-Whyte, JSC
ADMISSIBILTY OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
A conviction on circumstantial evidence cannot be based unless and until all the inference to be drawn from the whole history of the case point strongly to the commission of the crime by the accused. -Per Uthman Mohammed, JSC
CASES CITED
1. Effiom v. The State (1995) I NWLR (Pt. 373) 5072. Lori v. State (1980) 8-11 SC 81
STATUTES REFERRED TO
NONE
