ISHMAEL AMAEFULE VS THE STATE
July 18, 2025OMO EBEKU VS SUNMOLA AMOLA
July 18, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1988-04) Legalpedia 43689 (SC)
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Holden At Lagos
Fri Apr 15, 1988
Suit Number: SC 37/1987
CORAM
NNAMANI, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
OPUTA, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
WALI, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
AGBAJE, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
NNAEMEKA-AGU, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
LAZARUS ATANO
EUGENE ODIACHI
APPELLANTS
ATTORNEY-GENERAL, BENDEL STATE
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
CRIMINAL LAW-CONSPIRACY-STEALING-ARSON
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellants sought an order of the court discharging and acquitting them of the offences of the conspiracy,stealing and arson.
HELD
The Court held that the convictions and sentences of the appellants are affirmed.
ISSUES
1. Whether the Court of Appeal, was right in refusing to hold that the appellants were not given a fair hearing in this case.
2. Was the Court of Appeal, right in not considering and/or not considering adequately the submissions made on behalf of the appellants, particularly those submissions based on the principle of natural justice, the provisions of Section 33(1) of the Constitution as well as the juridical authority of Sir B. Vahe Bairamian, JSC., of blessed memory?
3. Whether the Court of Appeal, was justified in affirming the conviction of the appellants in respect of the count of arson.
4. Whether it was right for the Court of Appeal to have dealt with, and to have upheld the decision of the trial Judge on count 1 relating to conspiracy to steal after that lower court had acquitted them in respect of the substantive offence of stealing.
5. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in setting aside the decision of the trial court convicting the appellants of stealing in one breath, and holding that they stole a large sum of money, in the other breath.”
RATIONES DECIDENDI
NO CASE SUBMISSION
‘Where a ruling rejects a no case submission:
(i) the observations of the court on the evidence at that stage should be confined to the ruling in the sense only that a reasonable tribunal might convict on it and there should be no observations at all on the facts of the case implying that they have been proved or established at that stage;
(ii) the ruling should not contain any feature or element suggesting that the court or tribunal has fettered any discretion it can only judicially exercise after the whole of the evidence which either side wishes to tender has been placed before it.’- A. O. AGBAJE, JSC
NATURE OF CONSPIRACY
‘Conspiracy to commit an offence is a separate and distinct offence by itself and it is independent of the offence of the actual commission of the offence to which the conspiracy relates’- A. O. AGBAJE, JSC
CASES CITED
1. Ariori & Ors. v. Elemo & Ors. (1983) 1 S.C. 13
2. Isiyaku Mohammed v. Kano Native Authority (1968) 1 All NLR 424
3. Regina v. Longham in The Times of April 25th, 1972
4. Lake District Special Planning Board v. Secretary of State for the Environment & Anor in the Times of February 18th, 1975
5. Akpan Ekanem v. The King 13 WACA 108
6. Odofin Bello v. The State (1966) 1 All NLR 233 at 227
7. Nsoedo v. Police (1972) 2 ESCLR 51
8. Edet Akpan v. The State (1986) 3 NWLR (Pt. 27) 225 at 227 and 235 to 236.
9. Tepper v. The Oueen (1952) AC 486;
STATUTES REFERRED TO
1. Criminal Code Law, Cap. 48, Volume II, Laws of Bendel State of Nigeria, 1976
2. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1979.
3. Criminal Procedure Law, Cap 49, Vol. II, Laws of Bendel State of Nigeria, 1976.
