CHIEF JOSEPH OZOEMENA & ANOR V CHIEF JOSEPH NWOKORO & ORS
April 11, 2025MUHAMMADU LIKITA JABI V THE STATE
April 11, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2018-05) Legalpedia (SC) 49960
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
HOLDEN AT ABUJA
Thu May 10, 2018
Suit Number: SC. 773/2014
CORAM
PARTIES
ISA BELLO APPELLANTS
FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
APPEAL, COURT, CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, LAW OF EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellant herein and fourteen others herdsmen were arraigned before the Federal High Court, Jos on a three count charge of conspiracy, possession of firearms and acts of terrorism. The Appellant with other accused persons were said to have intimidated and put fear in the citizens of Kadunu village and environs in Mangu Local Government Area of Plateau State, while armed with dangerous weapons such as matchetes, knives, bow, and arrows, slings, and axes thereby put in danger the residents of these villages causing the death of several persons, serious injuries to several others, damage to public and private properties and natural resources and thereby committed an offence contrary to and punishable under Section 15 (2) of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission Act, 2004. The Prosecution called five witnesses and tendered exhibits including statements of the Appellant and other accused persons to the police wherein they had confessed to committing some of the offences they were charged with. None of the accused persons, including the Appellant, testified in their defence but they called one witness, Mohammed Hassan, the leader of his community, called Hardo, Head of Fulani, and he testified that he was informed of an attack by Berom people, and when they were surrounded by some people, who started burning their houses, he advised the Accused persons to escape to a secured place but they were arrested. He explained that they were herdsmen, and had the guns for the protection of their cattle, and that none of them used the guns. The trial Court found the Appellant and other Accused persons guilty and convicted them. The Appellant was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment without an option of fine in count 1, and ten years imprisonment without option of fine in court 3. Dissatisfied with the trial court’s decision, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal where his appeal was dismissed hence, a further appeal to the Supreme Court.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed
ISSUES
1. Whether the Court of Appeal was right to affirm the decision of the trial Court?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
SUPREME COURT – PRINCIPLE ON APPEALS TO THE SUPREME COURT
“To lay down some ground rules for determining this Appeal, I must point out that it is an elementary principle that this Court does not entertain appeals directly from the trial Court. Its role is limited to seeing whether or not the decision of the Court of Appeal that affirmed the Judgment of the trial Court is correct – Ibator Vs Barakuro & Ors. (2007) 9 NWLR (Pt.1040) 475 SC.
See also Ibori Vs Agbi (2004) 6 NWLR (Pt.868) 78 at 143, wherein this Court per Uwaifo, JSC, also observed as follows:-
“The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to usurp the function of the Court of Appeal either by hearing an appeal directly from a High Court or by hearing an appeal, which though lying before the Court of Appeal is yet to be decided by that Court because to do so will amount to a violation of the Constitution has no jurisdiction to hear a Suit or an issue in a Suit fit for the High Court.”
EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE- POWER OF THE COURT OF APPEAL TO RE-EVALUATE EVIDENCE
“As I pointed out earlier, the issue in this Appeal boils down to whether the Court below should have re-evaluated evidence. This law is that it is only where and when a Court fails to evaluate evidence at all or properly that a Court of Appeal can intervene, and evaluate or re-evaluate such evidence. As a general rule, therefore, when the question of evaluation of evidence does not involve credibility of witnesses but against the non-evaluation or improper evaluation of the evidence, the appellate Court is in as good a position as the trial Court to do its own evaluation – See Fatai Vs The State (2013) 10 NWLR (Pt.1361) 1 at 21 SC”.
EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE – WHETHER AN APPELLATE COURT CAN DETERMINE THE QUESTION OF EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE WHEN IT INVOLVES THE CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES
“So, when the question of evaluation of evidence involves credibility of witnesses, and appellate Court cannot do much since it is the trial Court that saw them, heard them and watched their demeanour that is in the vantage position to believe or disbelieve witnesses, and this can never be captured by an appellate Court, which only has the “cold printed record to contend with” – See Sogunro & Ors Vs Yeku & Ors (2017 LPELR-41905(SC).”
“CREDIBILITY” – MEANING OF “CREDIBILITY”
“Credibility” is the quality of being convincing or believable, and since the trial Court has the liberty and privilege to believe one witness or disbelieve another witness, its findings predicated on the belief or the disbelief of witnesses, is almost sacrosanct, as this can only be questioned on appeal if it is against the drift of the evidence before a trial Court, when considered as a whole -See Adelumola Vs The State (1988) 1 NWLR (Pt.73) 683 SC.”
CRIMINAL TRIAL- LIMITATION ON THE POWER OF THE SUPREME COURT TO RETRY A CRIMINAL CASE ON APPEAL
“This Court is also not in a position to intervene because as Ademola, CJN, observed in the case of Omisade Vs The Queen (1964) NSCC (Vol. 3) 170, it is not the function of this Court to retry a criminal case on appeal. He further stated as follows;-
“If there was evidence before the trial Judge from which he could reasonably have come to the conclusion to which he did, the verdict must stand. The law was aptly put by Lord Tucker in the case of R. Vs Aladesuru & Ors 39 C.A.R. 184, which was an appeal from Nigeria. The learned Lord at p. 185 of the Report said:-
“It will be observed that the language of the WACA ordinance follows the English Criminal Act, 1907, under which it has long been established that the appeal is not by way of rehearing as in civil appeals from a Judge sitting alone, but is a limited appeal, which precludes the Court from previewing the evidence and making its own valuation.”
CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACTS BY COURTS- INSTANCES WHERE AN APPELLATE COURT CAN INTERFERE WITH THE CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACTS BY LOWER COURTS
“More importantly, the law says that where there is sufficient evidence to support concurrent findings of fact by the trial Court and the Court below, they will not be disturbed unless there is significant error apparent on the Record; that is, the findings are shown to be perverse, or some miscarriage of justice or some violation of the principles of law or procedure is shown thereon – See Ogoala V The State (1991) 2 NWLR (Pt. 175) 506 SC.”
PROOF – STANDARD OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL TRIALS
“The requirement and the standard of proof expected to be produced by the prosecution are as provided in Section 135 of the Evidence Act, 2011 which Section and subsections (1) and (2) I shall recast hereunder thus:-
“1. If the commission of a crime by a party to any proceeding is directly in issue in any proceeding civil or criminal it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
2. The burden of proving that any person has been guilty of a crime or wrongful act is, subject to the provisions of Section 139 of this Act, on the person who asserts it, whether the commission of such act is or is not directly in issue in the action.”
This is the standard of proof required in a criminal trial as this Honourable Court has ruled in a myriad of cases.
DEFENCES – DUTY ON COURTS TO CONSIDER ALL DEFENCES RAISED BY A DEFENDANT
“It is indeed trite that a court must consider all the defence open to the accused including even that which accused has not raised or proffered. That principle however cannot be applied in a vacuum as the defence or defences must align with facts available to the court. It cannot be said that once an accused asserts that a particular defence avails him the court is obligated to granting that wish without a backing by evidence acceptable, cogent and showing to demolish the version of the transaction as proffered by the prosecution. I place reliance on the cases of Ahmed v The State (1999) 7 NWLR (Pt.612) 641 at 681; Akpabio v The State (1994) 7 NWLR (Pt.359) 635 at 671.”
CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF LOWER COURTS – ATTITUDE OF THE SUPREME COURT TO CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF LOWER COURTS
“It is also clear that there exist concurrent findings of the two lower court confirming the culpability of the appellant in the commission of the offences charged. Since such concurrent findings are far from being perverse or have not been shown to contain any misapprehension of facts or misapplication of procedural or substantive law, this court has no business interfering with or disturbing such finding. See Arowolo vs Olowookere &Ors (2011)11-12 SC (pt 11) 98;Ochiba v State (20011) 12 SC (pt ll) 79.
CASES CITED
