CORAM
BELGORE. JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
WALI, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
I.L. KUTIGI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
Y.O. ADIO JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
A.I. IGUH JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
GRACE ABRAHAM AKPABIO & ORS
APPELLANTS
THE STATE
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
CONVICTION ON MURDER
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellants were arraigned before the High Court, charged with the offence of murder. Each of the three appellants pleaded not guilty to the charge and the trial proceeded. The learned trial Judge held that the prosecution failed to prove the charge against each of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. He therefore acquitted and discharged them. Dissatisfied with this judgment of the trial court, the respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the appeal and all three appellants were found guilty of murder as charged and were sentenced to death. The appellants further appealed to the Supreme Court.
HELD
The appeal partially succeeded. The verdicts of murder and sentences of death passed on the appellants were set aside and a verdict of guilty of manslaughter was entered for the appellants.
ISSUES
Whether The Court of Appeal was not in error when it held upon the totality of the evidence adduced at the court of trial that the charge of murder had been established against each of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
CONSEQUENCES OF PROCURING ANOTHER TO COMMIT AN OFFENCE
“A conviction of counseling or procuring the commission of an offence entails the same consequences in all respects as a conviction of committing the offence.” Per IGUH, JSC.
WHERE AN ACCUSED IS ENTITLED TO BENEFIT
“It is only when the discrepancies or contradictions are on a material issue or issues in the prosecution’s case which create some doubt in the mind of the trial Judge that the accused is entitled to benefit there from.” Per IGUH, JSC.
EXPECTATIONS FOR CONFLICT IN THE EVIDENCE OF A PROSECUTION WITNESS TO BE FATAL
A court can act on the evidence of one single witness if the witness can be believed given all the surrounding circumstances of the case. A single credible witness can establish a case beyond reasonable doubt unless where the law requires corroboration.” Per IGUH, JSC.
DUTY OF THE COURT CONCERNING CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE
“Where a witness is shown to have made a previous statement, though unsworn, in distinct conflict with his evidence on oath at the trial, the jury should not merely be directed that his evidence at the trial should be disregarded as unreliable, but also that the previous statement, whether swum or unsworn, do not constitute evidence upon which they can act; and, in a non-jury case, the court should direct itself accordingly.” Per IGUH, JSC.
CASES CITED
Okonji v. State (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt. 52) 659
State v. Aibangbese & anor (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt.84) 548
Onubogu v. State (1974) 9 S.C. 1
Wankey v. State (1993) 5 NWLR (Pt.295) 542 at 552
Nasamu v. State (1979) 6-9 SC. 153
Enahoro v. Queen (1965) 1 All NLR 125
Ibe v. State (1992) 5 NWLR (Pt.244) 642 at 649
Azu v. State (1993)6 NWLR (Pt.299) 303 at 316
Kalu v. State (1988) 4 NWLR (Pt.90) 503
Ogoala v. State (1991) 2 NWLR (Pt.175) at 509
Onafowokan v. State (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt.61) 538
Ugwumba v. State (1993)5 NWLR (Pt.296) 660 at 679
Alli and anor v. State (1988) I SCNJ. 18 at 30; (1988)1 NWLR (Pt.68) 1
Igbo v. State (I 975) 9-11 S.C. 129 at 136; (1975) 1 All NLR (Pt.2) 70
Regina v. Golder (1960) 1 WLR 1169 at 1172
Queen v. Asuyuo Akpan Ukpong (1961) 1 All NLR 25; (1961) 1 SCNLR 53
R v. Hariss 20 Cr. Ap. R. at 147
STATUTES REFERRED TO