FRONTLINE HOLDINGS VS. WEMA BANK
April 16, 2025GABRIEL OLATAYO ODUKOYA vs AUGUSTINE K. MARCUS
April 16, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2017) Legalpedia (SC) 21781
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Feb 17, 2017
Suit Number: SC.316/2014
CORAM
PARTIES
SOPAKIRIBA IGBIKIS APPELLANTS
THE STATE
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
None
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellant and two others were tried at the River State High Court for conspiracy and the murder of some chiefs who were travelling on a speed boat from Abonnema to Kula within Akuku Toru Local Government Area in River State.
The Respondent in proof of its case called six witnesses and tendered Exhibits A, B, B1, C and C1-C17.
The Appellant in his extra judicial statement denied being part of the conspiracy and murder of the deceased persons.
The Prosecution called PW5 who was the only eye witness to the murder and he made three extra judicial statements but did not mention the Appellant’s name in Exhibit C6 and Exhibit C4 but did mention his name in Exhibit C5 which was made four years later.
At the end of the trial, the court convicted and sentenced the Appellant and his co-conspirators as charged.
Aggrieved, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal where the appeal was dismissed. Dissatisfied with the lower court’s decision, the Appellant has further appealed to this Court.
HELD
Appeal Allowed
ISSUES
Was there any admissible evidence on record from which the court below could have justifiably affirmed the trial court’s inference of conspiracy to commit murder by the appellant (ground 5).
RATIONES DECIDENDI
FINDINGS OF FACT -BASIS OF FINDINGS OF FACT
“The law is again firmly established that findings of fact must be based on admissible evidence (oral or documentary). Where it is however otherwise and based on inadmissible evidence, the finding will be held as perverse and the law enjoins an appellate court to interfere there with and set it aside. See Olayinka v. state (2007) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1040) 561 at 578, where it was held that a decision is perverse where: i). It is speculative and not based on any evidence; ii). the court took into account matters which it ought not to have taken into account; or iii). the court has ignored the obvious. See again Umah v. Akpabio (2014) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1407)472 at 488.
DECISION OF COURT – STATUS OF A COURT’S DECISION WHICH DOES NOT ARISE FROM THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD
“I agree with learned appellant counsel that on the authorities a court’s decision which does not arise from the evidence on record constitutes such miscarriage of justice that imposes on the appellate court the duty to set same aside. If indeed the lower court has failed to set aside the trial court’s conviction and sentence of the appellant which does not arise from any credible evidence, then this Court is entitled to step in and do the needful. See Rabiu V. The State (1980) 8-11 SC 85; Atolagbe V. Shown (1985) 1 NWLR (Pt 2) 360; (1985) LPELR 592 (SC) and Williams V. The State (1992) 10 SCNJ 74”.
GUILT OF AN ACCUSED PERSON – ON WHOM LIES THE ONUS OF ESTABLISHING THE GUILT OF AN ACCUSED PERSON
“The conviction and sentence of the appellant arises from a criminal trial. The onus of establishing his guilt beyond reasonable doubt lies on the respondent. The onus does not shift. If at the end of trial and on the whole evidence, the trial court is left in a state of doubt, the respondent would have failed to discharge the burden the law puts on it thereby entitling the appellant to an acquittal. See Okputu obiode &ors 10 V. The State (1970) LPLER-2524 (SC) and Ogundiyan V. The State (1991) 3 NWLR (Pt 181) 519”. PER
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE – NATURE OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
“Circumstantial evidence is very often the best evidence. It is evidence of a combination of circumstances against an accused person, none of which, on its own, provides the court with cogent proof of guilt but when viewed together create strong conclusion of his guilt with the highest degree of exactitude. See Isong Akpan Udoebre & ors V. The State (2001) 8 SCM 127, Joseph Ilori & anor V. The State (1980) 8-11 SC52 and Moses Jua V. The State (2010) 1-2 SC 96. In a number of its decisions, this Court has insisted that only such circumstances that make a complete and unbroken chain constituting sufficient proof that the accused person did commit the offence for which he is charge will sustain a conviction. See Ofe Adesina (A.K.A. Alhaji) & anor V. The State (2012) 6 SC (Pt III) 114”
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE -REQUIREMENT FOR DRAWING AN INFERENCE OF AN ACCUSED PERSON’S GUILT FROM CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
“For the purpose of drawing an inference of an accused person’s guilt from circumstantial evidence, there must not be other co-existing circumstances which would weaken or destroy that inference, Igho v State [1978] 3 SC 87:. State v Edobor [1975] 9-11 SC 69. Thus, all other factors and surrounding circumstances must be, carefully, considered for they may be enough to adversely affect the inference of guilt, Lori v State [1980] 8-11 SC 81; Udedibia v State [1976] 11 SC 133; Aigbadion v State [2000] 7 NWLR (pt 666) 686”
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE – RATIONALE FOR EXERCISING CAUTION IN DRAWING INFERENCE FROM CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE WITH RESPECT TO THE GUILT OF AN ACCUSED PERSON
“The explanation for this need for circumspection is simple: evidence that falls within this category may be fabricated to cast aspersion on other people, per Lord Normand in R v Tepper (1952) 480, 489 approvingly adopted in State v Edobor [1975] 9-11 SC 69, 77. That is why a court must, properly, appraise the circumstantial evidence adduced by the Prosecution before convicting an accused person thereon, Adepelu v State [1998] 9 NWLR (pt 565) 185; Iko v State [2001] FWLR (pt 68) 1161; [2001] 14 NWLR (pt 732) 221; Orji v State [2008] AH FWLR (pt422) 1093,1107”
PROOF IN CRIMINAL TRIAL – DUTY ON A PROSECUTION IN PROVING THE CASE AGAINST AN ACCUSED PERSON
“The law is trite and well settled that in a criminal trial, the prosecution has a duty to prove its case against an accused person beyond reasonable doubt. See the case of Abirifon v. State (2013) 9 SCM page 1 at 5”
CHARGE OF MURDER – INGREDIENTS A PROSECUTION MUST ESTABLISH IN A CHARGE OF MURDER
“Specifically and in a charge of murder for instance, the prosecution is saddled with the burden of establishing the following ingredients, which must all Co – exist: a). that the deceased died b). that the death of the deceased was caused by the accused. c). that the accused person intended to either kill the victim or cause him grievous bodily harm. See case of Njokwu v.The state (2013) 2 SCM page 177 at 180
PROOF OF GUILT OF AN ACCUSED PERSON – WAYS OF PROVING THE GUILT OF AN ACCUSED PERSON
“It is also a settled principle of law that the guilt of an accused person may be proved by any or all of the following ways: a). confessional statement of the accused; b). circumstantial evidence and c). evidence of an eye witness
SUSPICION – WHETHER SUSPICION CAN GROUND A CONVICTION
“In my view, the conviction at best, was bordered on mere suspicion, which no matter how strong, cannot constitute a crime or ground a conviction. See the case of Alake v. State (1992) 9 NWLR (Pt. 265) 260 at 272.”
CONVICTION – BASIS OF CONVICTION
“This court has held times without number that a conviction must be founded on evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. See I T. Muhammed, JSC in the case of The People of Lagos state v. Umaru (2014) 7 NWLR (Pt.1407) 584 at 606. See also Arabambi v. Advance Beverages Ltd. (2005) 19 NWLR (Pt. 959) 1 at 28”
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE – INSTANCES WHEN CONVICTION CAN BE BASED ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
“Where there is no eye witness account or direct evidence of the commission of an offence, a conviction may be based on circumstantial evidence, Igbale v State [2004] 15 NWLR (pt 896) 314. However, such circumstantial evidence must point to only one conclusion, namely, that the offence had been committed and that it was the accused person who committed It, Dick v C. O. P. [2009] 9 NWLR (pt1147) 530, 551”.
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
None
