E. SAPARA VS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE HOSPITAL BOARD OF MANAGEMENT
July 17, 2025NATHANIEL MBENU & ANOR VS THE STATE
July 17, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1988-07) Legalpedia (SC) 71111
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Jul 8, 1988
Suit Number: 172/1987
CORAM
OBASEKI
UWAIS
G KARIBI-WHYTE – JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
KAWU
PARTIES
GRACE AKINFE
APPELLANTS
THE STATE
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
CRIMINAL LAW – MURDER – CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – TRIAL BY ORDEAL
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellant was charged and convicted of the murder of her senior mate, the deceased was pregnant. Her husband, caused to be prepared for her two types of native medicines one in a schnapps’ bottle and the other in form of a soup. The latter was consumed by the deceased within two days, whereas she continued to consume the one in the schnapps bottle for about 30 days. after taking part of the medicine in the schnapps’ bottle she started to vomit, the deceased was taken to hospital and was transferred to the State Hospital, where she died the following day. The appellant and in her statement to the police denied the charge but later at the house of a traditional healer confessed to her being the murderer She told them that she mixed a weed-killer, Gammalin 20, with the medicine in the schnapps’ bottle. Appellant and her witness however said they had been tortured for 7 days.
HELD
That where, as in this case against an appellant is so studded with such fundamental lapses and inadequacies that to order a retrial is to aid the prosecution correct their serious mistakes, then an essential precondition in the principle in the Case of Abodundu is lacking. To order a retrial in such a case will result in injustice to the successful appellant.
ISSUES
1. Could a trial Judge in a criminal case rightly go as far as the learned trial Judge did in this case, and if the answer is “no”, what is the effect on the proceedings.?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
SUBSTANTIVE JUSTICE.
‘The decisive question becomes what image of justice has been created. Does justice really seem to have been done? For the only satisfactory standard of justice acceptable in our system is one in which justice is not only done but also manifestly and undoubtedly seems to have been done.’ Per. P. NNAEMEKA-AGU, JSC
CASES CITED
The State v. John Babatunde Lopez (1968) 1 All N.L.R. 356.
Jamani Olasoji & Anor. v. The Attorney-General of Western Nigeria (1965) N.M.L.R. 111, at p.112.
Efe v The State (1976) 11 S.C.75.
Sule Iyanda Salawu v The State (1971) N.M.L.R. 249
R. V. Itule (1961) All N.L.R 462, .p. 465.
R. V. Woodcock (1789)168 E.R. 353;
Orshior Kuse v The State (1969) N.M. L.R. 153.
Sunmola Ishola v. The State (1969) N.M.L.R. 259,
Kato Dan Adamu v. Kano N.A. (1956) 1 F.S.C. 25;
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Not Available
