CLEMENT NWANCHI V. THE STATE
August 7, 2025MBA ORIE & ANOR V. OKPAN UBA & ANOR
August 7, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1976) Legalpedia (SC) 93917
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Oct 8, 1976
Suit Number: SC. 23/1976
CORAM
OBASEKE, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
MADARIKAN, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
OKAY ACHIKE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
SAM AIGBE DAVID BANJI OGUNDIRAN APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellants were jointly arraigned in the High Court. During the trial Lt. Osumah was convicted of armed robbery by the Robbery and Firearms Tribunal and was executed. Thereafter the trial of the appellants proceeded and it resulted in their convictions of several offences which are forgery and theft, and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment.
HELD
All the grounds argued in favor of the 1st appellant failed and his appeal will be dismissed. The Supreme Court accordingly allowed the appeal of the 2nd appellant, quashed the convictions and set aside the sentences. It was ordered that the case against the 2nd appellant be re-tried before another Judge of the High Court.
ISSUES
1. That the convictions are unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence.
2. That conspiracy to steal in count 1 is bad in law for vagueness and duplicity since in the context of the various offences of stealing in counts 5, 8 and 11 in the information, it does not specify which of the said stealing.
3. The learned trial Judge erred in law in passing sentence on the 2nd appellant on counts 3, 6, 9 and 12, although the learned trial Judge failed to make finding of guilt against the 2nd appellant.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
THE MERE FACT THAT A WITNESS HAS MADE SEVERAL STATEMENTS TO THE POLICE IS NOT A GROUND FOR DISCREDITING THE WITNESS
“We think the mere fact that a witness has made several statements to the police is not a ground per se for discrediting the witness but such statements may be used in accordance with the provisions of Sections 208 and 209(c) of the Evidence Act to discredit the witness.” Per BELLO, JSC.
THE COUNT CHARGING GENERAL CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT AN OFFENSE NEEDS NOT STATE THE OBJECT OF THE CONSPIRACY
“A count charging general conspiracy to commit an offence needs not state the object of the conspiracy with the same certainty as is required in a charge for the offence conspired to be committed.” Per BELLO, JSC.
CASES CITED
NIL
STATUTES REFERRED TO
NIL
