May 27, 2025
Legalpedia Citation: (2009-03) Legalpedia 66292 (SC) In the Supreme Court of Nigeria Holden at Abuja Fri Mar 6, 2009 Suit Number: SC 69/2008 CORAM D MUSDAPHER, JUSTICE […]
CORAM
D MUSDAPHER, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
G A OGUNTADE, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
W S N ONNOGHEN, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
I F OGBUAGU, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
J O OGEBE, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
1. DAVID OMOTOLA
2. TIMOTHY BENSON
3. AYODELE AYINDE
4. AKEEM ADEBAYO
5. ADEMOLA APANISILE
APPELLANTS
THE STATE
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
CRIMINAL LAW – CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE – TAINTED WITNESS – CONSPIRACY – ALIBI
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellant along with others were accused of murdering the deceased, a lawyer who was his rival in trying to set up a rival union and there was evidence that the appellant’s group openly said that the deceased would not live to take part in the launch process. The deceased was murdered the night before the scheduled launch. The trial judge discharged and acquitted some of the accused but found the appellant and 3 others guilty. They unsuccessfully appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeal. Hence this further appeal
HELD
Appeal dismissed and conviction by the two lower courts affirmed.
ISSUES
1. Whether the Court of Appeal was not in error in pronouncing upon the remote and immediate causes of the murder of the deceased before considering the issues submitted for its determination and whether the approach of the Court of Appeal has not occasioned miscarriage of justice on the appellants.?
2. Whether the Court of Appeal was not in error in dismissing the defence of alibi raised by the appellants.?
3. Whether the Court of Appeal was not in error in affirming the conviction of the appellants thereby failing to apply to the appellants’ benefit favourable available evidence on record and in placing reliance on the evidence of tainted witnesses called by the prosecution.?
4. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in affirming the conviction of the appellants on weak circumstantial and contradictory evidence adduced by the prosecution.?
5. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in affirming the conviction of the appellants when their guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt and the issue of their identification was riddled with so much irregularities.?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
DISPROVING AN ALIBI
One of the ways by which the prosecution may disprove an alibi is to call evidence against it which is cogent, substantial and credible. The fact that an accused has raised an alibi by his evidence or that of his witnesses does not imply that the alibi must be accepted by a court. If the evidence called by the prosecution is credible, strong and compelling, the court may reject the defence of alibi. Per Oguntade, JSC
WHEN EVIDENCE IS REJECTED
When a court has rejected a piece of evidence as incredible, it has no evidential value of any kind. Per Oguntade, JSC
A TAINTED WITNESS-WHO IS
A tainted witness, it is now settled, is a witness who though not an accomplice, is a witness, who may have his or her own purpose to serve. Per Ogbuagu, JSC
BLOOD RELATIONS CAN TESTIFY
There is no law, which prohibits blood relations, from testifying for the prosecution where such a relation, is the victim of the crime committed. Per Ogbuagu, JSC
Evidence of a relation, can be accepted, if cogent enough to rule out the probability of deliberate falsehood and bias. Per Ogbuagu, JSC
ELEMENT OF THE OFFENCE OF CONSPIRACY
In order to get conviction on a count of conspiracy, the prosecution must establish the element of agreement to do something which is unlawful or to do something which is lawful by unlawful means. Per Oguntade, JSC
WHEN CONVICTION WILL BE BASED ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
For circumstantial evidence to ground conviction it must lead to one and only one conclusion i.e. The guilt of accused. Per Oguntade, JSC
CASES CITED
1. Fatoyinbo v. Attorney-General, Western Nigeria [1966] W.N.L.R. 4
2. R v. Johnson [1961] 1 WLR 1478 and Yanor v. The State [1965] N.M.L.R. 337
3. Ishola v. The State (1978) NSCC (vol. 2) 479: (1978)9-10 SC. 81 at 100
4. Adetola & 2 Qrs. v. The State (1992) 4 NWLR (Pt. 235) 267 at 273: (1992) 4 SCNJ. 199 204
5. Ogunlana & 3 Ors. v. The State (1995) 5 SCNJ. 189
6. The State v. Mebudon (1981) IMSLR 285 at 290
7. Chukwu v. The State (1992)1 NWLR (Pt. 217) 255 at 263: (1992)1 SCNJ. 57
STATUTES REFERRED TO
None.