THE STATE VS JAMES GWANGWAN
April 30, 2025TAJUDEEN FABIYI V THE STATE
April 30, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2015-07) Legalpedia (SC) 74103
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Jul 3, 2015
Suit Number: SC. 202/2012
CORAM
ALOYSIOUS IYORGYER KATSINA-ALU JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
HAPPY KINGSLEY IDEMUDIA APPELLANTS
THE STATE
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The facts leading to this appeal was that the Appellant in this case was arraigned before the High Court, Delta State, Isiokolo Judicial Division on a two count charge of conspiracy to commit armed robbery and attempted armed robbery punishable under section 1(2)(a) and section 2(2)of the Robbery and fire arms (Special Provisions) Act Cap. 398 Vol. 221, LFN 1990. The Appellant pleaded not guilty to both charges and raised the defence of Alibi in the extra-judicial statement made to the police, the police however failed to investigate the alibi raised and at the end of the trial, he was found guilty on both counts and accordingly sentenced to 14 years imprisonment. Against this judgment, the Appellant lodged an unsuccessful appeal to the Court of Appeal, Benin Judicial Division where the judgment of the trial court was affirmed. Further aggrieved, the Appellant lodged this appeal at the Supreme Court.
HELD
Appeal Allowed
ISSUES
1. Whether from the totality of the evidence on record, especially the evidence of P. W. 2 and the alibi raised by the appellant, the lower court was right in affirming the conviction of the appellant by the trial court for the offences of conspiracy to rob and attempted armed robbery?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
EVIDENCE OF A WITNESS – DUTY OF A COURT TO BE CAUTIOUS WHEN CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCE OF AN EYE WITNESS WHO OMITS TO MENTION AT THE EARLIEST OPPORTUNITY THE NAME(S) OF THE PERSON(S) SEEN COMMITING AN OFFENCE
“The principle of law as laid down and which must guide a court faced with the evidence of a witness fixing an accused person at the scene of crime is settled that, such a witness must have mentioned the name of the accused person or given a description to the police at the earliest opportunity time, especially where the witness claims to have known the accused person prior to the occurrence of the incident. In other words, where an eye witness omits to mention at the earliest opportunity the name or names of the person or persons seen committing an offence, a court must be cautious in accepting his evidence later and implicating the person or persons charged, unless a satisfactory explanation is given. The reason is obvious because such delay is likely to expose to question the evidence of identity and thereby raising uncertainty as to its acceptability and probative value. See the cases of Abudu V. State (1995) 1 NWLR page 55, also Abdullahi V. State (2008) All FWLR (Pt. 432) p. 1047 at 1057.”PER C.B.OGUNBIYI, J.S.C
DEFENCE OF ALIBI- BASIS OF THE DEFENCE OF ALIBI
“After all, the defence of alibi rest on the jurisprudential postulate of the physical impossibility of an accused persons involvement in a crime when he was elsewhere, other than the scene of the crime, at the relevant time, that is, when the alleged offence took place, Attah v The State (2010) LPELR -597 (SC) 33, A-C.” PER C. C. NWEZE, J.S.C.
CRIMINAL TRIAL – FACTOR A COURT MUST TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION WHERE THE EVIDENCE AGAINST THE ACCUSED PERSON IS BASED PRIMARILY ON RECOGNITION BY ONE OF THE VICTIMS
“It is trite law that one of the major factors that a court must take into consideration in a trial of this nature where the evidence against the accused person is based primarily on recognition by one of the victims who claimed to have known the accused person is, whether the victim mentioned the name of the accused person to the police at the earliest opportunity. See the case of Bozin V. State (1998) A.C.L.R page 1 at page 18where Aniagolu, JSC said:-
“If the appellant whom those witnesses knew very well before the incident took part in the robbery of those witnesses that night, would the witnesses not have mentioned him by name, or by description, immediately the police came in a van that night in answer to their telephone call? Would the course of human conduct not impel the witnesses to tell the police that night of the involvement of the appellant, who was said to be unmasked, in the robbery? I am firmly of the view that the failure of those witnesses to mention the appellant to the police that night at the first opportunity, cast a grave doubt on their evidence that they saw the appellant that night in the act of robbery”.
The same principle was also adopted in the later case of Ani V. State (2009) All FWLR (Pt. 482) 1044 at 1062 -1063.” PER C.B.OGUNBIYI, J.S.C
DEFENCE OF ALIBI – EFFECT OF FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO INVESTIGATE THE DEFENCE OF ALIBI AS SET UP BY AN ACCUSED PERSON
“Ordinarily and this has long been settled that the Police are not expected to go on a wild goose chase, in order to investigate an alibi. It behoves on the accused person setting up alibi as a defence to give to the Police at the earliest opportunity some tangible and useful information relating to the place and the person with whom he was. But failure of the Prosecution to investigate an alibi set up by the accused is tantamount to an admission of the story. See; Yanor Vs. The State (1965) NMLR 387; Ozulonye Vs. State (1981) 1 NCR 381; Bozin Vs State (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt.8) 465.” PER O. ARIWOOLA, J.S.C.
DEFENCE OF ALIBI – DUTY OF A COURT TO CONDUCT IDENTIFICATION WITH GREAT CARE WHEN THE SOLE DEFENCE IS AN ALIBI
“In Ikono V. State (2007) 5 ACLR 319 this court held also that when the sole defence is an alibi, identification by a single witness must be conducted with great care.” PER C.B.OGUNBIYI, J.S.C
BURDEN OF PROOF- DUTY ON THE PROSECUTION TO DISPROVE THE DEFENCE OF ALIBI WHEN THE ACCUSED PERSON DISCHARGES THE EVIDENTIAL BURDEN OF PROOF
“As earlier stated, it is already established that once an accused person discharges the evidential burden on him of adducing evidence of his being somewhere else on the particular time of the commission of an alleged crime, the onus is on the prosecution to disprove it. It is however equally true and established that there is a duty on the trial Judge to test the alibi raised by the accused in defence against the evidence adduced by the prosecution. See; Sunday Okoduwa Vs. The State (1988) NWLR (Pt.1 6) 333.” PER O. ARIWOOLA, J.S.C.
PROOF OF ALIBI –DUTY OF A PARTY IN ESTABLISHING THE DEFENCE OF ALIBI
“The position of the law is again well settled that the appellant is not obliged to prove his alibi. It is enough if he supplies material facts sufficient for the police to investigate the defence raised. In order to establish the defence, all that the accused needs do is merely to put forward evidence accordingly; the onus is not on him to prove such defence but on the prosecution to disprove it. Again see Abudu V. State (supra) at 59 where this court in a similar situation found the evidence against the appellant equally unreliable and unsafe; it was held therefore that the case against him was not proved beyond all reasonable doubt, and he was therefore entitled to that benefit. Coker, JSC in delivering the lead judgment had this to say at page 59 of the report:-
“I agree with this statement of the law. He also stated the law as regards alibi, citing amongst other cases, Yanor& Anor. V. The State (1965) NMLR 337 and Christian Nwosisi V. The State (1976) 6 SC. 109, Akpan V. The State (1973) 5 SC 231.He concluded by stating page 55.
“From the foregoing, it is clear that the person who puts forward an alibias his answer to a charge does not undertake upon himself any burden of proving that answer, and it is a mis-statement of the law or in fact a misdirection to refer to any burden of proof resting on an accused in such a case. See R. V. Anthony Hugh Johnson (1962) 46 C.A.R. 45.” PER C.B.OGUNBIYI, J.S.C
PROOF – THE DUTY IS ON THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE THE CHARGE AGAINST AN ACCUSED PERSON BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
“It is basic, that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the charge against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. See Woolmington v. DPP (1935) AC 462, Akalezi vs. The state (1993) 2 NWLR (pt. 273) I at 13; Nasiru vs. The State (1999) 2 NWLR (Pt. 589) 87 at 98.” PER J. A. FABIYI, J.S.C.
DEFENCE OF ALIBI – DUTY ON THE PROSECUTION TO INVESTIGATE AND REBUT THE DEFENCE OF ALIBI WHEN RAISED BY AN ACCUSED PERSON
“It is already settled law, that the accused raises the defence of alibi when he introduces an evidence leading to that conclusion. Therefore, once an alibi is raised by an accused, the burden is on the prosecution to investigate and come up with a rebuttal of such evidence in order to prove the case, as required, beyond reasonable doubt. See; Adedeji Vs. The State(1971) 1 All NLR 75. However, it is the duty of the accused person who is relying on defence of alibi to give details of the alibi he sets up to enable the prosecution carry out investigation of his said whereabout. His said duty involves letting the police know at the earliest opportunity where and with whom he was at the material time. See; Udo Akpan Vs. The State (1986) 3 NWLR (Pt.27) 258 relied on in Mathew Obakpolor Vs. The State (1991) l NWLR (Pt.165) 113; (1991) 1 SCNJ 91; (1991) I SC (Pt.1) 35.” PER O. ARIWOOLA, J.S.C.
ALIBI – DUTY OF THE PROSECUTION AND ACCUSED PERSON IN A DEFENCE OF ALIBI
“Alibi means elsewhere. It is the duty of the prosecution to investigate same. It is the duty of the accused to furnish particulars of the alibi. He must furnish his whereabouts and those present with him at the material time of the incident. It is left for the prosecution to disprove same. Failure to investigate will lead to acquittal. See Yanor vs. The State (1965) NMLR 337; Gachi vs. The State (1973) I NMLR 331; Odu &Anr. vs. The State (2001) 5 SCNJ ll5 at 120; (2001) 10 NWLR (pt. 772) 668.” PER J. A. FABIYI, J.S.C.
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Robbery and fire arms (Special Provisions) Act Cap. 398 Vol. 221, LFN 1990.
