JULIANA ODE V. THE STATE
August 9, 2025TAIWO BUCNOR SMART V. THE STATE
August 9, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1974) Legalpedia (SC) 61915
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Nov 29, 1974
Suit Number: SC. 139/1974
CORAM
TASLIM O. ELIAS, CHIEF JUSTICE OF NIGERIA
DANIEL O. IBEKWE, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
DANIEL O. IBEKWE, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT br/>
PARTIES
JOSEPH GWAWOH PETITIONER(S)
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellant used to work for the complainant as an accountant but was accused and convicted of stealing money belonging to the complainant. He appealed against his conviction but his appeal was dismissed.
HELD
The Supreme Court held that there was clearly enough evidence to see that the charge was motivated by malice. The conviction of the appellant was set aside for a verdict of acquittal and discharge.
ISSUES
The learned Judge on appeal erred in law in dismissing the appellants appeal when the learned acting Chief Magistrate convicted the appellant without:
(a) considering and/or considering adequately the contradictions and other matters which are capable of casting doubt on the case for the prosecution;
(b) first considering and/or considering adequately the defence and making specific findings on the defence.”
RATIONES DECIDENDI
WHEN AN APPELLANT COURT MAY INTERFERE WITH FINDINGS OF A FACT MADE BY A COURT OF TRIAL
“While it is true that an appellate court will be extremely reluctant to interfere with findings of fact made by a court of trial, inasmuch as matters of credibility and reliability are matters falling within its especial competence, it will do so in certain cases on clearly settled legal principles.” – Per A.G IRIKEFE, JSC
CASES CITED
Benmax v. Austin Motor Co. Ltd. 1955 Appeal Cases p. 370
Watt or Thomas v. Thomas (1947) Appeal Cases p. 484
Okipiri v. Jonah – 1961 – 1 All NLR p. 102
STATUTES REFERRED TO
