PRINCE OIL LIMITED V GUARANTY TRUST BANK PLC
April 24, 2025PETER ADEWUNMI V THE STATE
April 24, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2016) Legalpedia (SC) 13619
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Mar 18, 2016
Suit Number: SC. 159/2012
CORAM
KUMAI BAYANG AKAAHS JUSTICE. SUPREME COURT
MARY UKAE&O PETER-ODILI JUSTICE. SUPREME COURT
MARY UKAE&O PETER-ODILI JUSTICE. SUPREME COURT
ABUBAKAR BASH1R WALL, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
MARY UKAE&O PETER-ODILI JUSTICE. SUPREME COURT
KUMAI BAYANG AKAAHS JUSTICE. SUPREME COURT
BELLO – CHIEF JUSTICE, NIGERIA
SOWEMIMO, JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT
KUMAI BAYANG AKAAHS JUSTICE. SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
OLUWATOYIN ABOKOKUYANRO APPELLANTS
THE STATE
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellant and two other persons were arraigned at the trial court on a 3 count charges of conspiracy to commit murder, murder and attempted murder of one Falade Ojo. The accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges. The prosecution’s case was that the deceased Mayowa Adeleke was sent by his mother to deliver food to his father who was working as a security guard in a school but the deceased never returned home as expected. His parents raised alarm and upon the order of the King, a search party was organized by the town. Giving evidence as PW2,one member of the search party named Falade Ojo said he went into the bush in search of the boy the night he was declared missing and was confronted by the accused persons who prevented him from searching the building which they were in. He also stated that the Appellant made attempt to slay him with a sword but he managed to escape and he reported to the King. Consequently, the headless body of the missing boy was found the next day in a bush close to the house of Sunday Jegede who happened to be one of the accused persons and covered with his curtain. The trial Court after evaluating the evidence found the accusation against the accused persons proved beyond reasonable doubt, hence he convicted and sentenced them to death and life imprisonment for murder and attempted murder respectively. On appeal to the Court of Appeal, the decision of the trial court was unanimously affirmed. Further dissatisfied, the Appellant has appealed to this court.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed
ISSUES
1. Whether the prosecution proved the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubts and whether the court below was right in upholding that decision?
2. Whether the contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution as to the date of the arrest of the appellant is not fatal to the prosecution’s case and whether the court below was not wrong to have held otherwise?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE – ATTRIBUTES OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE REQUIRED TO GROUND A CONVICTION
“In Archibong Vs The State (supra) at 376 B – E it was held that the circumstantial evidence required to ground a conviction apart from being reliable and credible must be consistent with no other rational hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. It must be clear that no other co-existing circumstances arise which would weaken the inference, See also Ikomi Vs The State (1986) 5 SC 313 @359; Abieke Vs The State (1975) 9 – 11 SC.97 @104” PER K. M. O. KEKERE – EKUN ,J.S.C.
EVIDENCE OF A SINGLE WITNESS – WHETHER EVIDENCE OF A SINGLE WITNESS CAN SECURE A CONVICTION
“The law is trite on evidence of a single witness when found credible is sufficient without more to secure conviction of the accused. See Okoro V. State (1998) 14 NWLR (Part 584) 181 at 216 where this court per Wali, JSC said:-
“No law says that an accused person cannot be convicted on the clear and unimpeachable evidence of a single witness. Such evidence does not require any corroboration.”
See also the cases of Onyegbu V. State (1998) 1 ACLR Page 386 at 393 and Afolalu V. State (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt 1220) P.584 at 613,” PER C. B. OGUNBIYI, J.S.C.
CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT BY TWO LOWER COURTS – INSTANCES WHEN AN APPELLATE COURT WOULD INTERFERE WITH CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT BY LOWER COURTS
“It is not the practice of this court to interfere with concurrent findings of fact by two lower courts unless the findings are perverse, not supported by the evidence on record or where there is an error of law or facts on the face of the record, which has occasioned a miscarriage of justice. See Archibong Vs The State(2006)14 NWLR (Pt.1000) 349 @ 380 -381 F-D; Ogundiyan Vs The State (1991)3 NWLR(Pt. 181) 519@ 528 -529 H-A; Ogoala Vs. The State (1991) 2NWLR (Pt.175) 509 @ 528 C-D; Olokotinin Vs. Sarumi (2002)13 NWLR(Pt. 784) 307.” PER K. M. O. KEKERE – EKUN ,J.S.C.
PROOF IN CRIMINAL MATTER- BURDEN OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL MATTERS
“In criminal proceedings, the burden is on the prosecution to prove its case against an accused person beyond reasonable doubt. The burden remains on the prosecution throughout the proceedings. However, where the prosecution proves the commission of a crime beyond reasonable doubt, the burden of proving reasonable doubt is shifted on to the accused person. See Section 135 (3) of the Evidence Act, 2011. Also: Esangbedo Vs The State (1989) 4 NWLR (pt.t13) 57 @ 69 – 70 H – Woolmington V D.C.C. (19351a – c 462, Udo V The State (2006) 15 NWLR (Pt.1001) 361.” PER C. B. OGUNBIYI, J.S.C.
CONTRADICTIONS AND INCONSISTENCIES IN EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION’S WITNESS – WHAT MAY CONSTITUTE FATAL CONTRADICTIONS AND INCONSISTENCIES IN EVIDENCE THE PROSECUTION’S WITNESS
“In order for contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence of prosecution witness to be fatal, they must relate to fundamental and core issues. See: Archibong vs The State (supra) @ 376 F – H; Ankwa Vs The State (1969) I ALL NLR `133; Queen Vs Iyanda (1960) 5 FSC 2630: Omisade vs Oueen (1964) I ALL NLR 233; Kalu Vs The State (1987) 4 NLWR (Pt.90) 503.” PER K. M. O. KEKERE – EKUN, ,J.S.C.
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE – WHETHER CONVICTION FOR MURDER CAN BE BASED ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE “It is settled law that a conviction for murder may be founded on circumstantial evidence. The circumstantial evidence to ground a conviction must be cogent, c
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE – WHETHER CONVICTION FOR MURDER CAN BE BASED ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
“It is settled law that a conviction for murder may be founded on circumstantial evidence. The circumstantial evidence to ground a conviction must be cogent, complete, unequivocal, compelling and must lead to the irresistible conclusion that the accused and no one else is the murderer. See: Archibong Vs The State (supra )@ 374 – 375 G – A; Ugwu Vs The State (1972) 1 SC 128; Ayinde Vs The State (1972) 3SC147. This court in Nweke Vs The State (2001) 4 NWLR (Pt.704)588 @ 600 A – C per Ogundare, JSC held:
“The law is as stated by Hewart Lord Chief Justice of England in R v. Taylor & Ors (1928) 21 CAR 20 at P.21:
“It has been said that the evidence against the applicants is circumstantial: So it is, but circumstantial evidence is very often the best. It is evidence of surrounding circumstances, which, by undersigned coincidence, is capable of proving a proposition with the accuracy of mathematics. It is no derogation of evidence to say that it is circumstantial”
This statement of the law was approved by this court in Fatoyinbo Vs A-G Western Nigeria (1966) WNLR 4; See also Adie Vs The State (1980) 1 – 2 SC116; Ukorah Vs The State (1977) 4 SC 167; Aigbadion Vs The State (2000) 7 NWLR (Pt.666) 686.” PER K. M. O, KEKERE – EKUN ,J.S.C.
CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF LOWER COURT – INSTANCES WHERE AN APPELLATE COURT CAN INTERFERE WITH THE CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF LOWER COURTS
“The law is well settled that the appellate court will not generally interfere with the concurrent finding of the lower courts unless it is perverse, not supported by evidence and has led to miscarriage of justice or where any principle of law or procedure have not been followed or complied with. See the cases of Enang V, Adu (1981) 11 – 12 SC 17 at 25; Igwe V. State (1982) 9 S C. 174; Osayeme V. State (1966) NMLR 388 and Jimoh Micheal V. State NCC3, Page 666; (2008) 5 – 6 SC (Part 11) Page 203.” PER C. B. OGUNBIYI, J.S.C.
CONTRADICTION IN PROSECUTION’S EVIDENCE – NATURE OF INCONSISTENCY OR CONTRADICTION IN THE PROSECUTION’S EVIDENCE THAT WOULD WARRANT A REVERSAL OF THE DECISION OF A COURT
“The law is trite that where two or more pieces of evidence seem to contradict each other or vary, and the discrepancy is minor, the difference cannot destroy the credibility of the witnesses. See the case of Ayo Gabriel V. The State (1989) 5 NWLR 457 and Uwagboe V, State NCC 3 Page 636, The law is also well settled and as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that, it is not every inconsistency or contradiction in the case of the prosecution that would warrant a reversal of the decision of a court; such inconsistency must be material to the extent of casting serious doubt on the case presented by the prosecution against the accused before it can be countenanced. See the case of Dominic Princet V. State (2002) 18 NWLR (Pt 798) P.49 also Isibor V. State (2002) 3 NWLR (Pt 754) P.250.” PER C. B. OGUNBIYI, J.S.C.
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE – CONDITIONS FOR WHICH CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE WOULD GROUND A CONVICTION
“The law is trite and well settled that for circumstantial evidence to ground a conviction, it must lead only to one and only one conclusion, namely, the guilt of the accused person. However and where there appear to be other probabilities in the case that could give a possible likelihood that another person other than the accused, was likely to have committed the offence, i.e. to say suggesting that another person different from the accused had the opportunity of committing the offence with which the accused was charged, the conviction of the accused for murder cannot be sustained
In other words, in order for the prosecution to succeed in proof of an offence based on circumstantial evidence, it must be found to be positive, compelling and also with scientific precision, point to the guilt of the accused person.” PER C. B. OGUNBIYI, J.S.C.
BURDEN OF PROOF – ON WHO LIES THE ONUS OF PROVING THE GUILT OF AN ACCUSED PERSON
“It is elementary to restate that by Section 36(5) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, any person charged with a criminal offence is presumed innocent until he/she is proved guilty; the law also places the burden of proving the guilt of a person accused of committing a criminal offence on the prosecution. Both statute and case laws are settled that the burden placed on the prosecution is not discharged until the guilt of an accused person is established beyond reasonable doubts. See the cases of Idemudia V. State (1999) 7 NWLR (Pt 610) 202 at 215; and Esangbedo V. State (1989) 4 NWLR(Pt 113) 57..” PER C. B. OGUNBIYI, J.S.C.
STANDARD OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL MATTERS – SEC. 135(1) EVIDENCE ACT 2011
“The provision of Section 135(1) of the Evidence Act 2011 is also in support that the standard of the burden of proof required in a criminal trial is proof beyond reasonable doubt with sub-sections (2) and (3) of the said Act placing this burden on the prosecution which does not shift in general terms. See the case of Nwosu V, State (1998) 8 NWLR (Pt 562) 433 at 444, and also the case of Aigbagbon V. State (2000) 7 NWLR (Pt 666) 686 at 704 where this court reiterates that:
“In a criminal trial, the onus lies throughout upon the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Even where an accused in his statement to the police admitted committing the offence, the prosecution is not relieved of that burden.” PER C. B. OGUNBIYI, J.S.C.
“BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT” – INTERPRETATION OF THE PHRASE “BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT”
“Plethora of authorities have interpreted the phrase “beyond reasonable doubt”, as not being beyond all shadow of doubt or beyond any iota of doubt. See the case of Bazil Akalezi V, State (1993) 2 NWLR (Part 273) Page 1.” PER C. B. OGUNBIYI, J.S.C.
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999
