Just Decided Cases

MICHAEL ADEDAPO OMISADE & ORS VS THE QUEEN

Legalpedia Citation: (1964-06) Legalpedia 56536 (SC)

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Holden At Abuja

Wed Jun 17, 1964

Suit Number: SC 404/1963

CORAM


ADEMOLA, CHIEF JUSTICE, NIGERIA

BRETT, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

BAIRAMIAN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

MBANEFO, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

ADEMOLA CHIEF JUSTICE, NIGERIA

BRETT JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

TAYLOR JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

BAIRAMIAN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

MBANEFO JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT


PARTIES


MICHAEL ADEDAPO OMISADE & ORS APPELLANTS


THE QUEEN

RESPONDENTS 


AREA(S) OF LAW


CRIMINAL LAW-TREASONABLE FELONY-CONSPIRACY

 


SUMMARY OF FACTS

The appellants and some other persons were charged with the offence of treasonable felony in the court below, some were discharged, some became crown witness, one died in prison, while the remaining eighteen appealed against their conviction.

 


HELD


The court held that the conviction should be sustained.

 


ISSUES


To what extent was it safe for the trial judge to have relied on the evidence of the accomplice witness and how far the evidence of each was corroborated

Whether the 3rd count was vague and bad for duplicity

 


RATIONES DECIDENDI


NUMBER OF WITNESSES REQUIRED TO PROVE THE OFFENCE OF TREASONABLE FELONY


The only interpretation which, in our view, can be ascribed to subsection (2)(a) is that if a defendant does not plead guilty to a charge of treason or treasonable felony, there must be two witnesses testifying in open court to the overt act alleged, or one witness to one overt act and one other witness to another overt act of the same kind of treason or felony. In effect, two different witnesses at least are needed to prove a count of treasonable felony. This however must not be taken to mean that a witness must be able to testify to an overt act in its entirety


EXTENT OF CORROBORATION NEEDED


The position, to our mind, is this-the Judge must ask himself whether or not he believes the evidence of the accomplice and, if he believes the evidence, then he must warn himself that it is unsafe to convict on it alone: he then looks for some additional evidence (not that of another accomplice) rendering it probable that the story of the accomplice is true and that it is safe to act upon it


COMPETENCE OF A WITNESS WHOSE INDICTED OF SAME OFFENCE


The relevant point in the case is that where two persons are indicted, when an order is made that they be separately tried, the evidence of one of them may be given against the other, although the witness has not been tried, nor acquitted, nor has pleaded guilty to the indictment.


NUMBER OF WITNESSES REQUIRED TO PROVE THE OFFENCE OF TREASONABLE FELONY


The only interpretation which, in our view, can be ascribed to subsection (2)(a) is that if a defendant does not plead guilty to a charge of treason or treasonable felony, there must be two witnesses testifying in open court to the overt act alleged, or one witness to one overt act and one other witness to another overt act of the same kind of treason or felony. In effect, two different witnesses at least are needed to prove a count of treasonable felony. This however must not be taken to mean that a witness must be able to testify to an overt act in its entirety

 


COMPETENCE OF A WITNESS WHOSE INDICTED OF SAME OFFENCE


The relevant point in the case is that where two persons are indicted, when an order is made that they be separately tried, the evidence of one of them may be given against the other, although the witness has not been tried, nor acquitted, nor has pleaded guilty to the indictment.

 


EXTENT OF CORROBORATION NEEDED


The position, to our mind, is this-the Judge must ask himself whether or not he believes the evidence of the accomplice and, if he believes the evidence, then he must warn himself that it is unsafe to convict on it alone: he then looks for some additional evidence (not that of another accomplice) rendering it probable that the story of the accomplice is true and that it is safe to act upon it

 


CASES CITED


R. v. McCafferty 10 Cox C.C. 603 at p. 611

R. v. Gallagher 15 Cox C.C. 291 at p. 318

R. v. Charlotte Winsor, 10 Cox 276

R. v. Baskerville [1916] 2 K.B.D. 658 at p. 665.

R. v. Arthur Fred Hancox 8 CAR. 193 at p. 197

R. v. Aladesuru & Others 39 C.A.R. 184

R. v. Meyrick & Anor. 21 CAR. 94

R. v. Ijoma 12 W.A.C.A. 220.

R. V. MeCafferty 10 Cox C.C. 603

R. V. Meyrick & Anor. 21 C.A.R. 94

 


STATUTES REFERRED TO


Criminal Code

Firearms Act (Cap. 69)

Treason and Felony Act, 1848

Evidence Act

Constitution of the Federation of 1960

1963 Constitution

 


CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT

Esther ORIAH

Recent Posts

JAMES OGUNTIMEYIN VS KPEKPE GUBERE & ANOR

Legalpedia Citation: (1964-04) Legalpedia 86080 (SC) In the Supreme Court of Nigeria Holden At Abuja…

3 hours ago

IBOJE ITAMBONG & ORS VS MICHAEL AKONYE

Legalpedia Citation: (1964-04) Legalpedia 83180 (SC) In the Supreme Court of Nigeria Holden At Abuja…

3 hours ago

SAMSON AYOOLA & ORS VS DAVID OGUNJIMI

Legalpedia Citation: (1964-05) Legalpedia 43330 (SC) In the Supreme Court of Nigeria Holden At Abuja…

3 hours ago

MOMODU ADISA VS THE STATE

Legalpedia Citation: (1964-06) Legalpedia 21072 (SC) In the Supreme Court of Nigeria Holden At Abuja…

3 hours ago

TAMBARI MAIJAMAA VS THE STATE

Legalpedia Citation: (1964-06) Legalpedia 16533 (SC) In the Supreme Court of Nigeria Holden At Abuja…

3 hours ago

AGOLO IBOLUKWU & ORS VS JAMES ONOHARIGHO

Legalpedia Citation: (1964-06) Legalpedia 32299 (SC) In the Supreme Court of Nigeria Holden at Lagos…

4 hours ago