NIGERIAN NATIONAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION VS LUTIN INVESTMENTS LTD
June 6, 2025SURAJUDEEN M. JIMOH V. SAMSON TUNDE OYINLOYE
June 6, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2006-01) Legalpedia 83109 (SC)
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Abuja
Fri Jan 6, 2006
Suit Number: SC.48/1985
CORAM
S. M. A. BELGORE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
A. O. EJIWUNMI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
I. P. ACHOLONU JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
A. M. MUKHTAR JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
I. F. OGBUAGU JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
JOHN AGBO
APPELLANTS
THE STATE
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
CRIMINAL LAW- INCONSISTENCY IN THE PROSECUTION CASE -WHAT AMOUNTS TO? TYPE OF INCONSISTENCY IN PROSECUTION’S CASE THAT WILL VITIATE THE CONVICTION OF AN ACCUSED PERSON.
CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF TWO LOWER COURTS- WHEN THE SUPREME COURT WILL INTERFERE WITH.
SUMMARY OF FACTS
This is an appeal against the conviction of death on the charge of murder passed on the appellant by the trial and affirmed by the Court of Appeal. It was the case of the appellant (a police constable) that the death of the deceased was caused by an “accidental discharge” from the gun he was carrying. His contention was rejected by the trial court and was affirmed by the Court of Appeal. This is a further appeal to the Supreme Court.
HELD
Appeal dismissed.
ISSUES
1. Whether the inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence were material enough to entitle the Appellant to an acquittal under S.24 of the Criminal Code.
2. Whether failure of the learned Justice to pronounce on one of the issues for determination formulated from the Appellant’s ground of appeal led to a miscarriage of justice.
3. Whether the trial and conviction of the Appellant was valid in law having regard to the information upon which he was arraigned.
4. Whether the learned Justice of the Court of Appeal were right in affirming the conviction and sentence of the Appellant in the circumstance.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
WHEN CONTRADICTIONS WILL BE FATAL TO THE PROSECUTIONS’ CASE
“It is now firmly established that contradictions, to be fatal, the prosecution’s case must go to the substance of the case and not to be of a minor nature. It is settled, that if every contradiction however trivial to the overwhelming evidence before the court, will vitiate a trial, nearly all prosecutions, will fail. That human faculty may miss some details due to lapse of time and error in narration in order of sequence”. {I.F Oguagbu JSC.}
WHEN COURT WILL INTERFERE WITH DECISION OF LOWER COURT
“It is now settled, that the Court will not normally interfere, unless they are perverse or erroneous in substance or procedural law”.{ I.F Oguagbu JSC.,}
CASES CITED
1. Queen V. Ekanem (1960) 5 FSC 14; Nasumu V. The State (1979) 6-10 SC 153
2. Kalu V. The State (1998) 4 NWLR (Pt.90) 503, 524; (1988) 10-11 SCNJ 1
3. Ogoala V. The State (1991) 2 NWLR (Pt. 175) at 316; (1991) 3 SCNJ, 61
4. Sele V. The State (1993) 1 SCNJ 15 at 22-23
5. Okonji V. The State (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt. 52) 659
6. The State V. Aibangbe (1988) 3 NWLR (pt.84) 548
7. Wankey V. The State (1993) 5 NWLR (Pt.295) 542
8. Azu V. The State (1993) 6 NWLR (Pt.299) 303
9. Theophilus V. The State (1996) NWLR (Pt.423) 139
10. Queen V. Abdullahi Isa (1961) ANLR (Pt.4) 668.
11. Enahoro V. The Queen (1965) 1 ANLR. 121 .
12. Akinsule V. The State (1972) 5 SC. 72 .
13. Eugene Ibe V. The State (1992) 6 SCNJ; (Pt.11) 172.
14. Okasi & Anor. V. The State (1989) 2 SCNJ 183; (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt.100) 642.
15. Asuquo William V. The State (1975) 9 – 11 S.C. 139.
16. Adere V. State (1975) 9 – 11 S.C 115
17. Stephen V. The State (1986) 5 NWLR (pt….) 975.
18. Oladejo V. The State (1987) 3 NWLR (pt….) 419
19. Sanyaolu V. The State (1976) SC 37.
20. Dominic Princent & Anor. V. The State (2002) 12 SCNJ 280 at 300, (2003)
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Criminal Procedure Law) Cap. 31, Laws of Eastern Nigeria, 1963 applicable in Imo/Abia State.
