UNITY BANK PLC V. RHOUR AND LUE NIG.LTD & ANOR
April 20, 2025ALI MOHAMMED V. THE STATE
April 20, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2025-02) Legalpedia 70886 (SC)
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Feb 14, 2025
Suit Number: SC.105/2018
CORAM
Uwani Musa Abba Aji Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Adamu Jauro Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Chioma Egondu Nwosu-Iheme Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Obande Festus Ogbuinya Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Habeeb Adewale Olumuyiwa Abiru Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
PARTIES
JIBRIN UMAR
APPELLANTS
THE STATE
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE LAW, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, JUDICIAL PROCEDURE, APPELLATE JURISDICTION, CONFESSION, ARMED ROBBERY, CONSPIRACY, WITNESS TESTIMONY, BURDEN OF PROOF
SUMMARY OF FACTS
This case concerns the appellant, Jibrin Umar, who was arraigned alongside two others before the High Court of Nasarawa State for the offences of conspiracy to commit armed robbery and armed robbery. The defendants were alleged to have, on March 9, 2012, while armed with sticks, robbed one Luka Agbawu of his motorcycle valued at N93,000.00. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges.
At trial, the prosecution called two witnesses – the victim (Luka Agbawu) and one of the investigating police officers. The prosecution also tendered the extrajudicial confessional statement of the appellant, while the appellant testified as the sole witness in his defense. The trial Court found that the prosecution led cogent and credible evidence to prove the offences beyond reasonable doubt and consequently convicted and sentenced the appellant accordingly.
Dissatisfied, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, which affirmed the trial Court’s judgment. Still aggrieved, the appellant further appealed to the Supreme Court, filing an amended notice of appeal containing eight grounds of appeal.
HELD
1. The appeal was dismissed.
2. The Supreme Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the High Court and Court of Appeal that the prosecution led credible evidence to prove the offences of conspiracy to commit armed robbery and armed robbery against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
3. The Court held that the appellant failed to provide any exceptional circumstance to warrant disturbing the concurrent findings of the two lower courts.
4. The Court found that both the eye-witness testimony of the victim and the appellant’s confessional statement were properly admitted and relied upon by the lower courts.
5. The Court held that the first issue for determination regarding the plea of non est factum had no place in the appeal as it was not raised before the Court of Appeal.
ISSUES
1. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in affirming the conviction and sentence of the appellant when the plea of non est factum raised by the appellant was not considered, thereby breaching the appellant’s fundamental right to fair trial.
2. Whether the Court of Appeal was right when they affirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant based on the allegedly unreliable evidence of the first prosecution witness, Luka Agbawu.
3. Whether the Court of Appeal was right when they affirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant when the respondent allegedly failed to prove the offences of conspiracy and armed robbery beyond reasonable doubt.
4. Whether the Court of Appeal was right when they attached probative value to Exhibit C as a confessional statement of the appellant without recourse to Section 29(3) of the Evidence Act, 2011 in affirming the conviction of the appellant.
5. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in reaching their decision in affirming the conviction of the appellant by concentrating on the case of the respondent which allegedly led to miscarriage of justice.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
APPELLATE PROCEDURE – LIMITATION ON RAISING NEW ISSUES ON APPEAL
It is elementary that an appellate Court determines the disputes of parties and arrives at the conclusion basically on the printed record of what transpired at the lower Court. An appellant therefore is only entitled to contest the judgment of a trial Court on the issues properly raised before the lower Court and pronounced upon by that Court – V S Steel (Nig) Ltd Vs Government of Anambra State (2001) 8 NWLR (Pt 715) 454, Akinyanju Vs University of llorin (2005) 7 NWLR (Pt 923) 87 and Netufo Vs Omoolorun (2005) 12 NWLR (Pt 938) 1. This is because an appeal is a continuation of the matter begun from the trial Court, and so, new issues cannot be raised on appeal – Oredoyin Vs Arowolo (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt 114) 172, Federal Republic of Nigeria Vs Nwosu (2016) 17 NWLR (Pt 1541) 226. Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.
CONSISTENT CASE PRESENTATION – LITIGANTS’ OBLIGATION TO MAINTAIN CONSISTENCY IN THEIR CASE THROUGHOUT ALL COURTS
Litigation is not a game of chance. A party in litigation must be consistent in proving his case. He will not be allowed to be shifty in proving his case. The case a party presents in a proceeding must be consistent and remain the same at all stages of the proceedings. His case on appeal must be in support of the case he presented at the trial proceedings. A party’s case or position on appeal that is inconsistent with or contrary to his case at the trial Court is invalid. Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.
ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL – DISTINCTION BETWEEN APPLICATION FOR ADDITIONAL GROUNDS AND FRESH ISSUES
Unlike the two learned counsel in the Court below, Chief Akinrele, SAN, for the Appellants in this Court had a lot to argue that is very commendable but to argue in this Court issues and matters which were not argued in the Court below, one has to apply specifically for leave to do so. The application for leave to argue additional grounds is not quite the same as an application for leave to argue issues not raised in the Court below. There was no specific application in that respect. The general rule adopted by this Court is that an Appellant will not be allowed to raise on appeal, a question which was not raised or argued in the Court below. Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION – CRITERIA FOR PROPER FORMULATION OF APPELLATE ISSUES
An issue for determination in an appeal is said to be a combination of facts and circumstances including the law applicable thereto which is so crucial that if it is decided one way or the other will affect the fate of the appeal. It is a point which is so critical that if it is decided in favour of a party, such a party is entitled to win the appeal – Okoye Vs Nigerian Construction and Furniture Co Ltd (1991) 6 NWLR (Pt 199) 501, G. Chitex Industries Ltd Vs Oceanic Bank International (Nig) Ltd (2005) 14 NWLR (Pt 945) 392, Ali Vs Osakwe (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt 1245) 68, Nadabo Vs Dabai (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt 1245) 155. Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.
CONCURRENT FINDINGS – APPELLATE COURT’S APPROACH TO CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF LOWER COURTS
With the acceptance of the findings of fact of the trial Court by the Justices of the Court below, there is in existence two concurrent findings of facts of the two lower Courts which, in the absence of a substantial error shown, the Court will not make it a policy to disturb them unless there is a substantial error apparent on the record of proceedings or where there is some miscarriage of justice or a violation of some principle of law or procedure or the findings shown to be perverse. Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.
SCOPE OF APPELLATE POWER – LIMITS OF SUPREME COURT’S POWER TO REVIEW CONCURRENT FINDINGS
The scope of the appellate power of this Court to determine appeals against concurrent findings of facts is limited to complains that a finding of fact is perverse has violated the law and caused in justice. This Court lacks the power to interfere with concurrent findings of facts except when they are perverse or contrary to law. Therefore, it cannot determine the general question of whether the Court of Appeal correctly affirmed the trial Court’s conviction of the appellant. This Court has restated this law on the narrow scope of the appellate power of this Court in appeals against concurrent decisions on facts in a long line of decisions over several decades. Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.
PROOF OF CRIMINAL CHARGES – METHODS OF ESTABLISHING CRIMINAL GUILT
It is trite law that in criminal trials, the guilt of an accused person or the fact of his participation in the commission of the offence charged can be established in any or all the following ways (a) the confessional statement of the accused person wherein he or she admits the commission of the offence and which has been duly tested, proved and is unequivocal and admitted in evidence; (b) circumstantial evidence which is complete, cogent and unequivocal and which leads to the irresistible conclusion that the accused committed the offence; and (c) evidence of an eye witness who saw the accused person committing the offence charged. Any one of the methods is sufficient – Hamza Vs State (2019) 16 NWLR (Pt 1699) 418, Alao Vs State (2019) 17 NWLR (Pt 1702) 501, Itodo Vs State (2020) 1 NWLR (Pt 1704) 1, Iorapuu Vs State (2020) 1 NWLR (Pt 1706) 391, Mohammed Vs State (2024) 8 NWLR (Pt 1941) 385. Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.
EXTRAJUDICIAL STATEMENTS – ADMISSIBILITY OF WITNESSES’ EXTRAJUDICIAL STATEMENTS
It is a well settled principle of the administration of justice in our Courts that only evidence properly authenticated, either by the oral testimony of a party or the written statement tendered and admitted during proceedings can be evidence in a trial. Extra-judicial statements which remain in that category however credible they may appear, cannot be used as evidence in a trial. Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.
IMPEACHING A WITNESS – PROCEDURE FOR USING EXTRAJUDICIAL STATEMENTS TO CONTRADICT WITNESSES
The only use to which the defence can put the extra judicial statement of a witness is to cross-examine the witness on it and then if it is intended to impeach his credit, to tender the statement in evidence for that sole purpose – Akpabio Vs State (1994) LPELR 369(SC), Attah Vs State (2010) LPELR597(SC). In other words, the only time when an extra judicial statement of a witness is admissible is where a party seeks to use it to contradict the evidence of a witness already given on oath. The procedure is that the defence Counsel will request for the extra-judicial statement and give reasons to the Court for doing so and on production by the prosecution Counsel, the defence counsel will seek to tender it and refer to specific passages which contradict the evidence of the witness. Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.
UNCHALLENGED EVIDENCE – TREATMENT OF UNCHALLENGED WITNESS TESTIMONY
It is settled law that where evidence of a witness is not dented, confronted, challenged, discredited or disparaged under cross-examination, it can be believed and relied upon by a trial Court in making findings – Olude Vs State (2018) LPELR 44070(SC), Lanre Vs State (2018) LPELR 45156(SC), State Vs Oray (2020) 7 NWLR (Pt 1722) 130, Dondos Vs State (2021) 9 NWLR (Pt 1780) 24, Timothy Vs The People of Lagos State (2021) 11 NWLR (Pt 1787) 251. Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.
CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS – PROPER TIME TO CHALLENGE ADMISSIBILITY OF CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS
During trial, an accused defendant who desires to impeach his confessional statement is duty bound to show either (i) that he did not make the confessional statement at all; that it was make-believe or (ii) that he made the confessional statement, but that its making was involuntary – Hassan Vs State (2001) 15 NWLR (Pt 735) 184, Kazeem Vs State (2009) WRN 43 and Osetola Vs State (2012) 17 NWLR (Pt 1329) 251. The proper time for an accused person to raise either of these grounds of objection is at the point of the confessional statement being tendered in evidence by the prosecution. Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.
EFFECT OF CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS – SUFFICIENCY OF CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS FOR CONVICTION
It is an accepted and settled principle of law that an accused person can be validly convicted on his confessional statement alone. Thus, once the Court is satisfied with the voluntariness of the statement, and it unequivocally admits the commission of the crime charged, it can freely convict. This is more so when, as in the instant case, the statement was admitted without objection. The fact that the accused person retracted the statement at the trial will not deter the Court from convicting him on his admission, so long as the Court is satisfied that the confession is true. Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.
RECORDING OF STATEMENTS – LANGUAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR RECORDING CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS
The law is that though it is desirable that confessional statements should be first be recorded in the language in which the maker volunteered it before translating it into English language, it is not an invariable practice and the fact that it was not done does not render the confessional statement inadmissible. This is particularly more so where it is shown that the confessional statement was interpreted and read over to the maker after the recording in the language he understood and he confirmed it to be his statement- Olalekan Vs State (2001) 18 NWLR (Pt 746) 793, Federal Republic of Nigeria Vs Usman (2012) 8 NWLR (Pt 1301) 141, Jimoh Vs The State (2014) 3 SCNJ 27, Asuquo Vs State (2016) LPELR 40597(SC), Popoola Vs State (2018) 10 NWLR (Pt 1628) 485, State Vs Aliyu (2022) LPELR 59477(SC). Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
2. Penal Code
3. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended)
