CORAM
ADOLPHUS G. KARIBI-WHYTE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
MICHAEL E. OGUNDARE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
SYLVESTER UMARU ONU JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
ANTHONY JECHUKWU IGUH JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
EMMANUEL O. AYOOLA JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
MR. OLADITI ADESOLA(ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND THE OTHER MEMBERS OF ADERIN BRANCH OF OLUOKUN FAMILY) APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellant and the deceased who are both mechanics are friends. The deceased was working in a workshop managed by an Elf Petrol Station. Appellant worked in a neighbouring garage. They were on 4/7/91 engaged in a fight. They had been separated, before the Manager of the Elf Petrol Station (PW1) arrived. On arrival, the Manager of the Elf Petrol Station where the deceased was working started the process of resolving the dispute and was talking to the deceased working under him to brief him on what was responsible for the fight. Whilst the deceased was narrating the story to the Manager, the PW1, the accused standing nearby but separated by a concrete wall fence and holding a shovel in his hand, hit the deceased on the head with the shovel. The deceased fell down immediately and unconscious.
HELD
If the deceased had not been struck on the head, he would not be in a position where he would need the advanced health care systems of the industrialised countries to stay alive and the court affirmed the decision of the lower Court.
ISSUES
Whether based on the admissibility of the statements of appellant, Exhibits A and B in the trial and reliance on them by the learned trial Judge for the conviction of the Appellant for murder of the deceased.Whether the error in not acquitting the Appellant after a favourable medical evidence of the cause of death is not related to the issue purported to have been derived from it occasioned miscarriage of justice?Whether the procedure adopted by the trial Judge in evaluating or considering the case of the prosecution or the defence put forward or open to the appellant in this case would make the judgemnent to be perverse?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
WHAT CONSTITUTE ADMISSIBLE CONFESSIONS
Voluntary confessions per se are admissible. To be inadmissible, a confession must be shown not to be voluntarily made, or caused by inducement, threat or promise. – See S.28, See Saidu v State (1982) 4 SC 41, Per Adolphus Karibi-Whyte JSC
CASES CITED
Abisi v Ekwealor (1993) 6 NWLR (Pt. 302) 643Akpan Esaidh Essien v The State (1984) 3 SC. 14Arum v State (1979) 11 SC 91Dakur v Dapal (1998) 10 NWLR (Pt. 571) 578Enang v Adu [1981] 11-12 SC. 25
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Evidence ActThe Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1979Criminal Code Act