ELIZABETH OGUNDIYAN VS THE STATE
July 11, 2025LAWAN SANDA VS KUKAWA LOCAL GOVERNMENT & ANOR
July 11, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1991-03) Legalpedia 93225 (SC)
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Holden at Lagos
Fri Mar 15, 1991
Suit Number: SC 216/1989
CORAM
A.O. OBASEKI, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
A.G. KARIBI-WHYTE, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
KAWU, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
BELGORE, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
P.NNAEMEKA-AGU, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
KENNETH OGOALA
APPELLANTS
THE STATE
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
ALIBI – WHEN RAISED – DUTY ON ACCUSED TO SHOW HE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN AT THE CRIME SCENE AT THE TIME OF OFFENCE.
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellant was sentenced to death in a charge of armed robbery against him. He unsuccessfully appealed against the conviction at the court of appeal and now at the Supreme Court.
HELD
The appeal was dismissed.
ISSUES
1. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right in upholding the conviction and sentence of death of the appellant when they failed to properly consider the defence of alibi set up by the appellant as laid down in Yanor v. State (1965) 1 ANLR 193; (1965) NMLR. 337.
2. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right in confirming the conviction and sentence of death passed on the appellant in the face of irreconciliable and contradictory testimonies of the prosecution witnesses in disregard to the principle of law enunciated by the Supreme Court in Arueyee v. State (1967) NMLR. 209 at 211.
3. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right in upholding the conviction and sentence of death passed on the appellant when the prosecution had failed to produce necessary and vital Witnesses for the proof of its case at the trial.
4. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right in upholding the conviction and sentence of death on the appellant when in fact the accused/appellant was not linked with the crime as no proper identification parade was ever conducted.
5. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right in confirming the conviction and sentence of death passed on the appellant when only a part of the alleged confessional statement Exhibit B was relied upon without the other statement of the appellant obtained on the 6th of October, 1980 being tendered at the same time by the prosecution.
6. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right in confirming the conviction and sentence of death passed on the appellant when the evidence at the, trial was not properly evaluated and the purported conviction and sentence were based on same
RATIONES DECIDENDI
DEFENCE OF ALIBI- HOW RAISED
“It is no proper way of raising a defence of alibi for an accused person to show that he was elsewhere at a time antecedent to the time the crime was proved to have been committed unless he can show that, because he was at that place at that time, it was impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime when it was shown to have been committed” ( Per Nnaemeka Agu JSC).
WHEN IDENTIFICATION PARADE WILL BECOME NECESSARY
“A formal identification parade becomes necessary only when the identity of the accused person in relation to the offence charged is in dispute”.
WHEN IDENTIFICATION PARADE WILL BECOME NECESSARY
“An identification parade is not required where a suspect is caught at the scene of crime or at a place so closely connected with the scene of crime, as in this case. An identification parade should never be conducted for purely cosmetic reasons. It should be limited to cases of real doubt or dispute as to the identity of an accused person or his connection with the offence charged”. ( Per Nnaemeka Agu JSC).
CONTRADICTIONS IN EVIDENCE
“Hence in the law of evidence, a piece of evidence is contradictory to another when it asserts or affirms the opposite of what the other asserts, and not necessarily when there are some minor discrepancies in, say, details between them. As I see it, contradiction between two pieces of evidence goes rather to the essentiality of something being or not being at the same time whereas minor discrepancies depend rather on the person’s astuteness and capacity for observing meticulous details”.
CONTRADICTIONS IN EVIDENCE
“For the law is that for contradictions in the evidence of witnesses for the prosecution to affect a conviction, they must be sufficient to raise doubt as to the guilt of the accused.” ( Per Nnaemeka Agu JSC).
CASES CITED
1. Gachi & Ors. v. The State (1965) NMLR. 333.
2. Phillip Kanu & Anor. v. R. (1952) 14 WACA. 30, at p.32.
3. R. v. Abraham Erumesi (1959) NRNLR 258
4. R. v. Obiasa (1962) WRNLR. 354
5. Paul Onochie & Ors. v. The Republic(1906) NMLR. 307.
6. Abudu v. The State (1985) 1 NWLR. (Pt.1) 55.
STATUTES REFERRED TO
None.
