CORAM
NNAMANI, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
OPUTA, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
UWAIS, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
AGBAJE, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
CRAIG, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
SUNDAY ONUOHA & ORS
APPELLANTS
THE STATE
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
CRIMINAL LAW – COURT – EVIDENCE- POWER TO CALL WITNESSES
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellants were convicted on the evidence of the deceased’s son to the effect that they murdered his father. The witness did not mention the names of the appellant when he reported the death of his father to the police. The trial judge, at the conclusion of defence, called two witnesses to rebut the defence of alibi put up by the defence.
HELD
The court held that there was doubt as to whether the appellants shot the deceased and that the trial court was in error to have called witnesses to rebut the defence put up by the appellants. The appeal was allowed.
ISSUES
1. Whether on the totality of the evidence before the trial High Court the Respondent discharged the onus of proof beyond reasonable doubt as required by section 137 of the Evidence Act, Laws of the Federation.
2. Whether the calling of witnesses (Juel Iheanacho and Nwaegesi Ezealor) by the trial court after the close of the case of both the prosecution and defence, when there was nothing arising ‘ex improviso’ in the case presented by the defence, was proper and did not occasion a miscarriage of justice
RATIONES DECIDENDI
CALLING OF WITNESSES TO RESOLVE DOUBT AT THE CLOSE OF DEFENCE.
If at the close of the defence the totality of the evidence causes the trial Judge to doubt, the law is that the benefit of such a doubt be given to the accused. It is definitely not our law that a trial Judge should invoke Section 200 C.P.L. and call his own witnesses in order to clear that doubt – Oputa J.S.C
EVIDENCE OF AN EYE WITNESS WHO DID NOT MENTION THE NAME OF THE ACCUSED PERSON AT THE EARLIEST OPPORTUNITY
When an eye-witness omits to mention at the earliest opportunity the names of persons he said he saw committing an offence, a Court must be cautious in accepting his evidence given later and implicating other persons unless a satisfactory explanation is given as to why the names were not mentioned before- Agbaje J.S.C
CASES CITED
Nwabueze & Ors. v. The State (1988) 4 N.W.L.R. 16
Ngwo Kalu v. The State (1988) 10-11 S.C.N.J. 1 at p.9.
Rex v. Asuquo Edam & Ors. (1943) 9 W.A.C.A. 25
Dickson Ejukolem v. I.G. of Police (1952) 14 W.A.C.A. 161;
Horvat v. Police (1952) 20 N.L.R. 52 at p.54
West v. Police (1952) 20 N.L.R. 71 at p.72
STATUTES REFERRED TO
The Criminal Code