CYPRAIN ONWUAMA V. LOUIS EZEOKOLI
June 19, 2025TYOGBIDE AKULAKU V. IKYUME YONGO
June 19, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2002) Legalpedia (SC) 12490
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Mon Feb 25, 2002
Suit Number: SC. 160/2001
CORAM
PARTIES
SEGUN BALOGUN APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellant was charged and convicted for conspiracy and armed robbery by the trial court but the court of appeal substituted conspiracy to commit robbery and attempted robbery evidence did not prove actual robbery.
HELD
The court confirmed the decision of the court of appeal and held that it meant to convict the appellant for conspiracy to commit armed robbery.
ISSUES
1. Whether the learned Justices of Appeal were right in relying on contradictory evidence to convict the appellant of the offences of conspiracy to commit robbery and attempted robbery.
2. Whether the learned Justices of Appeal were right in holding that the defence of alibi raised by appellant was properly rejected.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
ONUS OF ESTABLISHING CONTRADICTION BETWEEN THE EVIDENCE OF WITNESS AND THE STATEMENT PREVIOUSLY MADE
It is the defence that would have to comply with the provisions of sections 199 and 209 of the Evidence Act since it would be its duty to cross-examine the prosecution witness if it so wished. It is not the duty of the prosecution unless when it confronts, in the course of cross-examination, a defence witness who has given evidence inconsistent with any statement he made to the police- Uwaifo J.S.C
PROOF OF ALIBI – DUTY ON THE DEFENCE
Where the prosecution has adduced evidence intended to disprove the defence of alibi raised by an accused, it is then the accused has the onus to lead evidence in order to weaken or discredit the evidence of the prosecution. In that regard, the standard of proof required of the accused is on the balance of probabilities- Uwaifo J.S.C
CONSPIRACY
Conviction for conspiracy does not become inappropriate simply because the substantive offence has not been successfully proved – Uwaifo J.S.C
CASES CITED
Obiode v. The State (1970)1 All NLR 35
Yanor V. The State (1965) NMLR 337;
Njoven v. The State (1973) 5 SC 17
Bozim v. The State (1985) 2 NWLR (pt8) 465.
STATUTES REFERRED TO
The Evidence Act
