Just Decided - Latest Judgement - Dec 30th, 2014 - Legalpedia | The Complete Lawyer - Research | Productivity | Health

Just Decided – Latest Judgement – Dec 30th, 2014

How to create a walk-away law practice and have more time for yourself.
November 6, 2014
Just Decided – Latest Judgement – Jan 12th, 2015
January 12, 2015
Show all

Just Decided – Latest Judgement – Dec 30th, 2014

LAWAN ABDULAHI BABU WASSAH  & 2 ORS v. TUKSHAHE KARA & 2 ORS
 [Supreme Court]Legalpedia Electronic Citation: LER[2014]SC.308/2001

Areas Of Law:
LAW OF EVIDENCE, APPEAL, JUDGMENT AND ORDERS, COURT, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

Summary of Facts:
The Plaintiffs instituted an action for themselves and on behalf of Ville Clan against the Defendant who defended the matter for himself and representing the people of Kurana Bassa in the High Court of Borno State, in the Gwoza Judicial Division. The plaintiffs later died and they were substituted on appeal. In their writ of summons they prayed for a declaration that going by the Gwoza Resettlement Scheme, Kurana Bassa and 1st Defendant have been resettled at Kwatara Area, along Gwoza-Mubi Road, declaration that by deliberately changing the name of the Ville Primary School and Health Centre to Kurana Bassa Primary School and Health Centre respectively is illegal null and void and is capable of causing breakdown of law and order and should be changed to their former name bearing Ville among other reliefs. The trial Court dismissed the Plaintiffs’ claims. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial court they appealed to the Court of Appeal, and the lower Court allowed the appeal. The Defendants being dissatisfied with the decision of the Court of Appeal so they appealed to the Apex Court.

Held:
Appeal Allowed

Issue For Determination:
Whether the learned justices of the Court of Appeal were right on the law and on the facts in holding that facts relating to documents not in evidence ought to be discountenanced in evaluating evidence proffered at trial

Rationes:

FILING OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTION- PROCEDURE FOR FILING OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTION UNDER ORDER 2 RULE 9 OF THE SUPREME COURT RULES
“Order 2 Rule 9 of the Supreme Court Rules provides for the filing of Preliminary Objections. It enjoins a respondent who intends to rely on a Preliminary Objection to give the appellant three clear days notice before the hearing setting out in clear terms the grounds of objection.” PER B. RHODES-VIVOUR, JSC

GROUND OF APPEAL – GROUND OF APPEAL MUST ARISE OR RELATE TO THE JUDGMENT AGAINST WHICH THE APPEAL IS FILED
“It is long settled that a ground of appeal must arise or relate to the judgment against which the appeal is filed. That is to say the ground of appeal should be a direct challenge to the decision of the lower court. Where this is not the case, the ground of appeal should be struck out. See Kolawole v. Alberto H989) 1NWLR pt.98 p.382 Alubankudi v. A.G. Federation (2002) 17NWLR pt.796 p.360.”PER BODE RHODES-VIVOUR, JSC

PLEADINGS – PARTIES ARE BOUND BY THEIR PLEADINGS
“If pleadings are to be of any use parties must be held bound by them. See Akande v. Adisa &anor. (2012) 5SC (pt.1) p.1 Ohochukwu v. A.G. Rivers State & 2 ors.(2012) 2SC (pt.11) p.103.” PER B.RHODES-VIVOUR, JSC

ADMISSION OF DOCUMENTS – PROCEDURE FOR ADMITTING DOCUMENTS IN EVIDENCE BY A TRIAL JUDGE
“The well laid down procedure for admitting documents in evidence is for the trial judge to hear arguments for and against the admissibility of the document, then render a Ruling. If the ruling is favourable to the document being admitted in evidence the document is admitted in evidence and marked as an exhibit. If on the other hand the Ruling is unfavourable the document is marked rejected. A document marked as an exhibit is good evidence that the judge is expected to rely on when preparing his judgment”. PER B. RHODES-VIVOUR, JSC

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE – EFFECT OF A DOCUMENT TENDERED AND MARKED REJECTED
“A document tendered and marked rejected cannot be tendered again. Once a document is marked rejected it stays rejected for the purposes of the trial in which it was marked rejected and the defect cannot be cured during the said trial. See Agbaje v. Adigun & ors (993) 1NWLR pt.269 p.271.” PER B. RHODES-VIVOUR, JSC

LAW AND JUSTICE – DISTINCTION BETWEEN LAW AND JUSTICE
“Law is blind. It has no eyes. It cannot see. That explains why a statue of a woman with her eyes covered can be found in front of some High Courts. On the contrary justice is not blind. It has many eyes, it sees, and sees very well.” PER B. RHODES-VIVOUR, JSC

COURT – THE AIM OF COURT IS TO DO JUSTICE BETWEEN PARTIES – DUTY OF COURT TO IGNORE TECHNICALITY THAT CAN DEFEAT THE CAUSE OF JUSTICE
“The aim of courts is to do substantial justice between the parties and any technicality that rears its ugly head to defeat the cause of justice will be rebuffed by the court. See Bello v. A.G. Oyo State (1986) 12SC p.1 Bello v. Ringim (1991) 7NWLR pt.206 p.675.When justice is done it brings joy to the Righteous. See Proverbs 21:15.”PER B. RHODES-VIVOUR, JSC

ORDER OF RETRIAL – IMPROPRIETY OF MAKING AN ORDER OF RETRIAL TO GIVE THE PARTY THAT LOST AN OPPORTUNITY TO PROVE WHAT HE FAILED TO PROVE
“It would be wrong to make an order of retrial if such an order would give the party that lost an opportunity a second time to prove what he failed to prove. A retrial should not be made where the plaintiff fails to prove his case and there is no substantial irregularity apparent on the record. SeeThompson v. Arowolo (2003) 7NWLR pt.818 p.163, Solomon v. Mogaji (1982)11 SC. P.1.” PER B. RHODES-VIVOUR, JSC

POWERS OF THE SUPREME COURT – POWERS OF THE SUPREME UNDER SECTION 22 OF THE SUPREME COURT ACT
“This court can put itself in the shoes of the trial court and do what the trial court ought to have done. This is done by invoking section 22 of the Supreme Court Act. Under the section, supra, this court is empowered to make any order necessary for the determination of the real question in controversy in an appeal as if the matter is prosecuted in the Supreme Court as a court of first instance. See Inakoju v. Adeleke (2007) ISC (pt.1)p.128, Imonike v. A.G. Bendel State (1992) 7SCNJ (pt.1) p.197. Ucha v. Elechi (2012) ALL FWLR pt.625 p.237.” PER B. RHODES-VIVOUR, JSC

ORDER OF RETRIAL – CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE AN APPELLATE COURT WILL ORDER A RETRIAL
“The law is trite that an appellate Court will order a retrial where there has been such an error in law or an irregularity in procedure which neither renders the trial a nullity nor makes it possible for the appellate Court to determine whether there has been no miscarriage of justice. See Duru v Nwosu (1989)7 SCNJ 154 at 159,(1989) 4NWLR (pt.113) and Okaduwa v. The State (1988) 2NWLR (pt 76) 333”. PER M. MOHAMMED, JSC

APPEALS – APPEALS SHALL BE BY WAY OF REHEARING – ORDER 8 RULE 2(1) OF THE SUPREME COURT RULES
“Order 8 Rule 2(1) of the Rules of this Court which provides among others that all appeals shall be by way of rehearing and the provisions of Section 22 of the Supreme court Act, 1960, which provide among others that this court shall have jurisdiction over the whole proceedings before it as if the proceedings had been instituted and prosecuted in the Supreme court as a court of first instance, to see if that prayer deserves the indulgence of this court. This is because it is the constitutional duties of this court that it should only order a retrial of a case on ground of irregularity in the conduct of proceedings when that irregularity or the lapse complained of by an Appellant on the part of the lower court, cannot be corrected in this court consistent with a decision in the case of the merits in favour of either of the parties to it. see Onifade v. Olayiwola (1990) 7 N.W.L.R. (pt. 161) 130 at 167.” PER M. MOHAMMED, JSC

DOCUMENT – A DOCUMENT TENDERED BUT NOT ADMITTED AS EXHIBIT IS NOT EVIDENCE WHICH A COURT CAN RELY
“A document tendered but not admitted as exhibit is not evidence upon which the Court can rely in its judgment. See Hausa v. State (1994) 6 NWLR (Pt. 350) 281.”PER N. S. NGWUTA, JSC

COURT – DUTY OF COURT NOT TO GO OUTSIDE THE GAMUT OF EVIDENCE BEFORE IT TO SHOP FOR MATERIALS TO DECIDE A CASE
“No court is allowed to go outside the gamut of evidence before it to shop for materials upon which to use to decide a case before it. See Skye Bank Plc V. Chief Moses B. Akinpelu (2010) 9 NWLR (pt. 1198)) 179, Oparaji V. Ohanu (1999) 9 NWLR (pt.618)290,(pt. 736) 37 at 63, Sommer & Ors V. Federal Housing Authority (7992) 1 NWLR (pt. 219) 548 at 557 – 558.” PER J.I.OKORO,,JSC

MISTAKE OF COURT – COURT SHOULD ALWAYS ACCEPT ITS MISTAKE AND AMEND SAME – MISTAKE OF COUNSEL OR COURT SHOULD NOT BE VISITED ON THE PARTY
“Where there is an obvious mistake by the court which has led to a miscarriage of justice, I think the court should be humble enough to accept its mistake and make amends appropriately. This court has held severally that the mistake of counsel or the court should not be visited on the party. See Ikenta Best Nig. Ltd. V. A-G. Rivers State (2008) 6 NWLR (pt. 1084) 612; Iroegbu V. Okwordu () 61990 NWLR (pt 159) 643, Ibrahim V. JSC (1998) 14 NWLR (pt 584) 1,Onajobi V. Olanipekun (1985) 4 SC (pt 2) 156, Anyanwu V. Mbara (1992) 5 NWLR (pt 242) 386 at 400.” PER J.I.OKORO,,JSC

TECHNICALITIES – CASES SHOULD NOT BE DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF TECHNICALITIES
“The attitude of this court has always been that cases should not be decided on the basis of technicalities. See Henry Odeh V. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2008) 3 – 4 SC 1147, Chief ofAir Staff V. Iyen (2005) 1 NSCQR 645 at 653, Lagga V.Sarhuna (2008) 16 NWLR (pt 1114) 427, Adereonmu V.Olowo (2000) 4 NWLR (pt 652) 253.”PER J.I.OKORO,,JSC

Statues Referred To:
Supreme Court Act, 1960
Supreme Court Rules

To Have Access To Over 12,000 Case Summaries on any of your device Click Here

 

DR. CHIGBO SAM ELIGWE v. OKPOKIRI NWANAKA OKPOKIRI & 2 ORS[Supreme Court]

Legalpedia Electronic Citation: LER[2014]SC/475/2011

Areas Of Law:
ELECTORAL LAW, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, LAW OF EVIDENCE, JURISDICTION, STATUTES, APPEAL, JUDGMENT AND ORDER, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

Summary Of Facts
The Appellant and the 1st Respondent contested the primary election of the 2nd Respondent (PDP) with seven others for the Ahoada West Constituency seat in the Rivers State House of Assembly. The 1st Respondent was declared the winner of the said election and submitted his name to the 3rd Respondent (INEC). The Appellant wrote two petitions to the Chairman of the 2nd Respondent’s “Panel of Appeal”contesting the validity of the election on the grounds, inter alia, that that the said election was marred with irregularities; that the 1st Respondent was not a registered member of the 2nd Respondent at the time of the primary election in addition to the fact the 1st Respondent had not attained the age of 35 years at the time of the primary election amongst others. Not satisfied with the steps taken by the 2nd Respondent, the Appellant filed an originating summons at the Federal High Court where the trial Court upturned the election of the 1st Respondent and ordered that the name of the Appellant be forwarded to the 3rd Respondent as the candidate of the 2nd Respondent for the main election slated on the 26th April, 2011 and also ordered the 3rd Respondent to accept the Appellant as the 2nd Respondent’s candidate. Dissatisfied with the ruling of the trial Court, the 1st Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal Port Harcourt and also filed a motion for a stay of the execution of the judgment of the trial Court pending the determination of the appeal. Notwithstanding the service of the motion for a stay of execution of the judgment of the trial Court on the parties, the 3rd Respondent conducted the said election as scheduled and declared the Appellant as the winner. The Appellant was duly sworn in as a member representing Ahoada West in the Rivers State House of Assembly. While the appeal was pending, the 1st Respondent filed a motion before the Court of Appeal seeking leave to file additional grounds of appeal. The Appellant filed a notice of preliminary objection on the grounds that the 1st Respondent’s appeal had become academic as in consequence of which the Appellate Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the 1st Respondent’s application to file additional grounds of appeal. The Court of Appeal struck out the Appellant’s notice of preliminary objection and granted leave to the 1st Respondent to file additional grounds of appeal. Piqued by the ruling of the Appellate Court, the Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

Held
Appeal Dismissed

Issue For Determination
Whether or not the Court below had jurisdiction to hear the appeal arising from a pre-election matter after the election had been held and the winner sworn-in as a member of the Legislative House for which the election was held.

Rationes:
REPLY BRIEF – PURPOSE OF A REPLY BRIEF
“A reply brief is not meant to repeat or emphasise the arguments in the appellant’s brief. After all, repetition of an argument does not improve its efficacy. See Ogbu& Anor v.The State (2007) 2 SC 273. The respondent’s brief has joined issues with the appellant’s brief and the respondent need not reopen argument on the issues so joined, either by way of emphasis or expatiation. See Ochemaje v.The State (2008) 6-7 SC (Pt. 11) page 1”. PER N.S. NGWUTA, JSC

REPLY BRIEF – WHETHER A REPLY TO THE RESPONDENT’S BRIEF PARAGRAPH BY PARAGRAPH IS THE ESSENCE OF A REPLY
“A reply to the respondent’s brief, paragraph by paragraph, is not the essence of a reply brief.” PER N.S. NGWUTA, JSC

CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER – MEANING OF A CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER
“A consequential order in its ordinary meaning is an order following from the judgment. See Obayegbona v. Obazee (1972) 5 SC 247; Mimah v. VAB Petroleum Inc (2000) FWLR 810. It is essentially one which makes the principal order effective and effectual or which follows necessarily as being incidental to the principal order in the matter”. PER N.S. NGWUTA, JSC

PRINCIPAL ORDER – WHERE THE PRINCIPAL ORDER SOUGHT IS REFUSED, AN INCIDENTAL ORDER CANNOT BE GRANTED
“Where the principal order sought is refused an incidental order cannot be rightly made as there would be no principal order on which such incidental order can stand or lean. See Ofondu v. Niweigha (1993) 2 KLR 1; Olurofemi v. lge (1993) 12 KLR 80; Registered Trustees of Apostolic Church v. Okoro Lemi (1990) 6 NWLR (Pt. 158) 514.”PER N.S. NGWUTA, JSC

ELECTION – WHETHER AN ASPIRANT WHO CONTESTED AND WON THE PRIMARY ELECTION BUT WAS DENIED THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONTEST THE MAIN ELECTION HAS A CLAIM IN DAMAGES
“An aspirant for elective office, who contested and won the primary election but was denied the opportunity to contest in the main election for which the primaries were conducted, has a claim in damages against the person or authority that prevented him from contesting the election.” PER N.S. NGWUTA, JSC

ELECTION – DENIAL OF A PERSON WHO CONTESTED AND WON THE PRIMARY ELECTION THE RIGHT TO CONTEST THE MAIN ELECTION, IS AN INFRINGMENT OF THE RIGHT HE ACQUIRED BY WINNING THE PRIMARY ELECTION
“To deny a person who contested and won the primary election the right to contest the main election is an infringement of the right he acquired by winning the primary election for which he can sue the person or authority concerned for damages”. PER N.S. NGWUTA, JSC

SECTION 87 (9) OF THE ELECTORAL ACT, 2010 – IMPORT OF SECTION 87 (9) OF THE ELECTORAL ACT, 2010 (AS AMENDED)
“Section 87 (9) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) provides:
“S.87(9): Notwithstanding the provisions of this Act or rules of a political party an aspirant who complained that any of the provisions of this Act and the guidelines of a political party has not been complied with in the selection or nomination of a candidate of a political party for election may apply to the Federal High Court or the High Court of a State or FCT for redress.” – PER N.S. NGWUTA, JSC

JURISDICTION OF COURT – IMPROPRIETY OF COURT CONFERRING JURISDICTION ON ITSELF
“Court being a creation of the Constitution, cannot therefore for the sake of doing Justice, confer on itself a jurisdiction that is not given to it by the Constitution or by any statute. See Alao v. African Continental Bank (2000) 9 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 672) 264.”PER M. MOHAMMED, JSC

INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL – INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL WOULD ONLY BE NECESSARY IF ITS SUCCESS WOULD BRING AN END TO THE SUBSTANTIVE APPEAL
“An interlocutory appeal would only be necessary if its success would bring the hearing of the substantive appeal to an end. The better course would be to proceed with the hearing of the substantive appeal after the Ruling dismissing the Preliminary Objection on jurisdiction, since the jurisdiction issue could be made or included as one of the grounds of appeal after judgment. This approach can only ensure that pre-election matters are dealt with speedily. Filing an interlocutory appeal on these fact amounts to playing for time, a waste of judicial time and litigants resources, I said so in Society Bic S.A. & 2 ors v. Charzin Industries Ltd 2014 2SC (pt II) P.57.”PER RHODES-VIVOUR, JSC

PRE-ELECTION MATTERS – PRE-ELECTION MATTERS WHICH WERE FILED IN THE COURT BEFORE THE HOLDING OF THE ELECTIONS CAN BE HEARD UP TO THE SUPREME COURT NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT THE SAID ELECTION WAS HELD AND THE WINNER WAS SWORN IN
“There is no controversy that pre-election matters which are filed in the High Court before the holding of the elections can be heard up to the Supreme Court notwithstanding the holding of the election and declaration of results. See Amaechi V INEC (2008) 5 NWLR (pt 1080) 227. Even where the winner of the election has been sworn into office, that does not make the pre-election matter to abate or become an academic exercise.” PER J.I. OKORO, J.S.C

SECTION 87 (9) OF THE ELECTORAL ACT, 2010 (AS AMENDED) – PURPOSE OF SECTION 87 (9) OF THE ELECTORAL ACT, 2010 (AS AMENDED)
“Section 87 (9) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) provides a window of opportunity for aggrieved persons who participated in the primary election of parties to ventilate their grievances before the Federal High Court, High Court of a State or of the Federal Capital Territory.” PER J.I. OKORO, J.S.C

RIGHT TO APPEAL – NO COURT OF LAW HAS THE JURISDICTION TO DENY THE APPELLANT HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO APPEAL
“No court of law has the jurisdiction to take away from or deny an appellant his constitutional right to appeal. See Abubakar V Yar’adua (2008) All FWLR (pt 404) 1409 at 1436 Para E – G.”PER J.I. OKORO, J.S.C

ELECTION – AN ELECTION TRIBUNAL OR COURT CANNOT DECLARE A PERSON THE WINNER OF AN ELECTION WHERE SUCH PERSON HAS NOT FULLY PARTICIPATED IN ALL STAGES OF THE ELECTION
“Although by reason of the new Section 141 of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) an election tribunal or court shall not under any circumstance declare any person a winner at an election in which such a person has not fully participated in all the stages of the said election, that provision does not operate to oust the jurisdiction of the court”. PER J.I. OKORO, J.S.C.

ELECTION – A PARTY WHO IS ADJUDGED A CANDIDATE OF HIS PARTY CAN BE ORDERED TO PARTICIPATE IN A RE-RUN ELECTION
“An appellant who wins his appeal and is adjudged as the candidate of his party can be ordered to participate in a re-run or by-election and he being the candidate of his party.” PER J.I. OKORO, J.S.C

Statues Referred To:
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended)
Court of Appeal Rules, 2011
Electoral Act, 2010(as amended)
Evidence Act 2011

To Have Access To Over 12,000 Case Summaries on any of your device Click Here

MUKAILA SALAWU V. THE STATE[Supreme Court]

Legalpedia Electronic Citation LER[2014]SC. 250/2012

Areas Of Law:
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, LAW OF EVIDENCE

Summary Of Facts:
The Accused/Appellant was charged along with three others at the Oyo State High Court, Ogbomosho Judicial Division for the offences of conspiracy to commit felony and murder of one Raji Tiamiyu, a traffic warden contrary to Section 324 and 319 of the Criminal Code Cap. 30 Vol. II Laws of Oyo State (now Cap. 38 Vol II Laws of Oyo State 2000). The Accused persons kidnapped the deceased, killed him and set him on fire. They pleaded not guilty to the charge. At the end of the trial the 4th accused was discharged and acquitted, while the Accused/Appellant and two others were sentenced to 10 years imprisonment with hard labour on the count of conspiracy to murder and also sentenced to death for murder. Dissatisfied with the decision of the trial court, the Accused/Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, and the lower court dismissed his appeal. He has further lodged an appeal to the Supreme Court.

Held:
Appeal Dismissed

Issue For Determination:
Whether the prosecution proved the offence of murder beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant

Rationes:
PROOF OF CONSPIRACY – CONSPIRACY IS PROVED BY CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND INFERENCE FROM PROVED ACT
“Because of the nature of conspiracy, it is rarely or seldom proved by direct evidence but by circumstantial evidence and inference from certain proved acts. See: Obiakor v State (2002) 10 NWLR (pt’ 776) 612.” PER K.B. AKA’AHS, JSC

CHARGE OF CONSPIRACY – ACTUAL COMMISSION OF THE OFFENCE IS UNNECESSARY TO GROUND A CONVICTION IN A CHARGE OF CONSPIRACY
“In a charge of conspiracy the actual commission of the offence is not necessary to ground a conviction for the offence. All that is necessary is a meeting of the minds to commit an offence and this meeting of the mind need not be physical. Once the Court arrives at a conclusion that the prosecution has established some community effort on the part of the accused persons aimed at committing a crime, it will be safe to convict them for conspiracy. The accused can be guilty of conspiracy even where the meeting of the minds is to carry out a lawful purpose in an unlawful way. See: Shodiya v State (1992) 3 NWLR (pt. 230) 457 at 471.” PER K.B. AKA’AHS, JSC

PARTICIPATION IN AN OFFENCE – WHAT AMOUNTS TO PARTICIPATION IN AN OFFENCE
“In a charge for an offence which is linked with conspiracy the actual presence of the accused where the offence is committed together with prior abetment means participation in the offence. See Buje v State (1991) 4 NWLR (pt. 185) 287 at 298.” PER K. B. AKA’AHS, JSC

COMMISSION OF AN OFFENCE – A PERSON WHO WAS PRESENT AT THE SCENE OF A CRIME AND AIDED OTHERS IN COMMITTING AN OFFENCE IS GUILTY OF COMMITTING THE OFFENCE AS A PRINCIPAL
“When any person aids the commission of an offence by being present at the scene not as a mere onlooker but with the purpose of aiding and assisting any other person or persons committing the offence, he is equally guilty of committing the offence as a principal. See Nyam v State (1964) 1 All NLR 361.” PER K.B. AKA’AHS, JSC

CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – WHETHER AN ACCUSED PERSON CAN BE DAMNIFIED BY HIS OWN CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT
“Section 27 of the Evidence Act provides that each accused person can be damnified on the basis of his own confessional statement and not on the basis of what other accused persons had confessed to (as was decided in Enitan v State (1986) 3 NWLR (pt. 30) 604.” PER K. B. AKA’AHS, JSC

CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT – THE SUPREME COURT WILL NOT READILY SET ASIDE THE CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT BY THE LOWER COURT
“If there are concurrent findings of fact made by the High Court and Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court will not readily set them aside and substitute its own views unless there is no evidence to support the findings. See In re: Mogaji (1986) 1 NWLR (pt. 19) 759; Salami v State (1988) 3 NWLR (pt. 85) 670; Mbenu v State (1988) 3 NWLR (pt. 84) 615.” PER K. B. AKA’AHS, JSC

CONVICTION FOR THE OFFENCE OF MURDER – INGREDIENTS THE PROSECUTION MUST ESTABLISH TO GROUND A VALID CONVICTION IN AN OFFENCE OF MURDER
“It is settled law that for there to be a valid conviction of an accused person for the offence of murder under Section 319(1) of the Criminal Code, it is imperative on the prosecution to establish or indeed prove the following ingredients beyond reasonable doubt;
a. That the deceased actually died;
b. That the death of the deceased resulted from the act of the accused person(s) and;
c. That the action of the accused that led to the deceased death was intentional with knowledge that death was its probable consequence.
See; Inyang Akpan VsThe State(1994) 9 NWLR (Pt.368) 347, Akinfe Vs The State(1988) 3 NWLR (Pt.85) 729; Ogha Vs The State(1992) 2 NWLR (Pt.222) 164;Frank Uwagboe Vs The State(2008) 12 NWLR (Pt.1102) 621, (2008) 34 NSCQR (Pt.11) 664.” PER O. ARIWOOLA, JSC

Statues Referred To:
Evidence Act 2011 (as amended)

To Have Access To Over 12,000 Case Summaries on any of your device Click Here

  • verbrennen says:

    We are a bunch of volunteers and starting a new scheme in our community.
    Your website provided us with useful information to work on. You have done a formidable job and our
    entire community will likely be grateful to you.

  • >