AYO ADEGBITE v. THE STATE

CORAM

HABEEB A. O. ABIRU JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL

HABEEB A. O. ABIRU JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL

HABEEB A. O. ABIRU JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL

PARTIES

AYO ADEGBITE   APPELLANTS

THE STATE RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Accused was charged for murder contrary to Section 319 of the Criminal Code Cap. Vol. 11 Laws of Ondo State of Nigeria, 1978,  of one Afolabi Theophilus who before his death made a statement to the police that the Accused on the 7th of November, 2009, poured acid substance on him along Ilu-Abo Ajegunle in Ondo State, which invariably led to his death. The Accused on  the other hand claimed the defence of alibi stating that he was at the wedding ceremony of his sister-in-law and was running errands at the time of the incident. After the close of trial, the court adjourned for hearing of parties address.

However, the address was stalled and the case transferred to another judge to start de novo. At the conclusion of the trial, the Court found the accused person guilty of murder and sentenced him to death. Dissatisfied with the conviction, the Accused now Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.

HELD

Appeal dismissed

ISSUES

1.Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt in view of the wrongly admitted and inadmissible evidence relied upon by the learned trial court to found the Appellant’s conviction and sentence.?

2.Whether the identification evidence in this case properly linked the Appellant to the murder of Theophilus Afolabi.?

3.Whether the Appellant’s right to fair hearing was not breached due to non-consideration of the defence of alibi raised by him.?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

DEFENCE OF ALIBI- THE PARTY CLAMING ALIBI MUST OFFER EVIDENCE AS TO WHERE HE WAS AT THE TIME OF THE CRIME AND WITH WHOM HE WAS AT THE MATERIAL TIME

‘‘The law relating to alibi is that an accused person who wishes to raise alibi must raise it at the earliest opportunity to enable the police to investigate it. The accused must offer evidence as to where he was at the time of the crime and with whom he was at the material time.See: Onyegbu v. State (1995) 4 NWLR (391) 510; Ifejirika v. State (1999) 3 NWLR (Pt. 593) 59; Isiekwe v. State (1999) 9 NWLR (Pt. 617) 43; Eyisi v. The State (2000) 12 SC (Pt. 1) 24; Njiokwuemeni v. The State (2001) 14 WRN 96.’’ PER. Mojeed .A. Owoade, J.C.A

CONVICTION ON THE CHARGE OF MURDER – INGREDIENTS THE PROSECUTION MUST PROVE TO SECURE CONVICTION ON A CHARGE OF MURDER

‘‘In the case of Adekunle v. The State (2006) 43 WRN 1 at 24, the Supreme Court reiterated the position of the law that “from a long line of the decisions of this court, it is settled beyond controversy that to secure a conviction on a charge of murder the prosecution must prove (a) that the deceased had died (b) that the death of the deceased was caused by the accused, and (c) that the act or omission of the accused which caused the death of the deceased was intentional with knowledge that death or grievous bodily harm was its probable consequence”. See also Akpan v. The State (1994) 25A LRCN 137 at 146.’’ PER. M. A. OWOADE, J.C.A

IDENTIFICATION PARADE -WHERE EVIDENCE BY THE PROSECUTION DEMONSTRATES AMPLE OPPORTUNITY OF IDENTIFYING THE ACCUSED PERSON, IDENTIFICATION PARADE WILL NOT BE NECESSARY

‘‘Now, as a matter of law it is not in every case that identification parade is necessary. Whereas in the instant case, the evidence by the prosecution demonstrates ample opportunity of identifying the accused or shows knowledge of the accused, identification parade is not necessary.Archibong v. State (2004) 1 NWLR (Pt. 855) 488; Alada v. State (1998) 8 NWLR (Pt. 563) 618; Igbi v. State (2000) 2 SC 67; Eyisi v. The State (2001) 8 WRN 1 at 9.’’ PER. M. A. OWOADE, J.C.A

DEFENCE OF ALIBI – THE DEFENCE OF ALIBI MUST BE RAISED AT THE EARLIEST OPPORTUNITY WITH THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES FOR IT TO SUCCEED

‘‘It is indeed important in the first place for a defence of alibi to be successfully raised for the accused to raise same at the earliest opportunity of contact with the law enforcement agencies. In raising the defence of alibi, the accused must at the earliest opportunity furnish the police with full details of the alibi, to check the details. See: Sowemimo v. State (2004) 11 NWLR (Pt. 885) 515; Nsofor v. State (2002) 10 NWLR (Pt. 775) 274; Balogun v. A-G Ogun state (2002) 6 NWLR (Pt. 763) 512.’’ PER. M. A. OWOADE, J.C.A

DEFENCE OF ALIBI – FOR THE DEFENCE OF ALIBI TO BE SUSTAINED, THERE MUST BE EVIDENCE THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE ACCUSED TO HAVE BEEN AT LOCUS CRIMINIS

‘‘There must be evidence that it is physically impossible for the accused to be at the locus criminis before alibi can be sustained: See Ogoala v. The State (1991) 2 NWLR (Pt. 175) 509 at 521 D – E”.PER. M. A. OWOADE, J.C.A

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

1.Criminal Code Cap. Vol. 11 Laws of Ondo State of Nigeria, 1978

2.Evidence Act 2011

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT