May 14, 2025
Legalpedia Citation: (2013-05) Legalpedia (SC) 78101 In the Supreme Court of Nigeria Fri May 24, 2013 Suit Number: SC.227/2011 CORAM MUHAMMAD SAIFULLAH MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT MUHAMMAD […]
CORAM
MUHAMMAD SAIFULLAH MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
MUHAMMAD SAIFULLAH MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
HENRY NWOKEARU APPELLANTS
THE STATE
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
Appellant was charged with the offence of murder at the trial court and was found guilty as charged; he appealed to the court of appeal in which the lower court affirmed the decision of the trial court. Dissatisfied he appealed to the Apex court.?
HELD
APPEAL DISMISSED
ISSUES
1. Whether the Court below was not wrong in failing to set aside the judgment of the trial Court in the absence of proof of specific intention to commit the offence of murder for which the appellant was charged and convicted?
2. Whether the defence granted by Section 24 of the Criminal Code was not improperly denied the appellant by the way the Court below held that the defence of accident can only be credible and thus acceptable if there had been a physical fight between the parties prior to the emergence of the appellant to the scene.?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACTS OF TWO LOWER COURTS- ATTITUDE OF THE SUPREME COURT THERETO-WHEN IT WLL INTERFERE THEREWITH
“The principle is trite that concurrent findings of facts by two courts are interfered with only when such findings are shown to be perverse. An appellant succeeds only where he establishes any of the following:-
(1) That the two decisions do not arise from the evidence on record
(2) That in arriving at their decisions, the two courts had taken into account extraneous matters or
(3) That the courts did so on the basis of wrong inferences.
It must also be shown that the error in any of the three instances has occasioned a miscarriage of justice.”PER MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMAD, JSC
MURDER- -WHAT THE PROSECUTION MUST ESTABLISH TO SECURE A CONVICTION
It is settled and trite law that to secure conviction for murder, the prosecution has the burden to prove the following beyond reasonable doubt:
(a) That someone already identified had died;
(b) That the death of the person was caused by the accused person; 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. “PER OLU ARIWOOLA, JSC
GROUNDS OF APPEAL-GROUND OF APPEAL FROM WHICH NO ISSUE IS FORMULATED -HOW TREATED
“It is trite that a ground of appeal from which no issue for determination is formulated is deemed abandoned and liable to be struck out. However, it does not require extraordinary effort of Counsel to state that such grounds are abandoned.” PER Nwali Sylvester Ngwuta, JSC
GROUNDS OF APPEAL-WHETHER CAN BE LESS THAN THE ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
“The principle of law is that the grounds of appeal should in no circumstance be less than the issues for determination.” PER Nwali Sylvester Ngwuta, JSC
FACTS ADMITTED-WHETHER NEED FURTHER PROOF
“There is no need to establish the truth of a fact already admitted.” PER Nwali Sylvester Ngwuta, JSC
OFFENCES-MURDER- ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENCE OF MURDER UNDER SECTION 319 (1) OF CRIMINAL CODE
(1) The fact of death of the victim.
(2) The fact that the death of the victim was caused by an act of the appellant.
(3) The fact that the act of the appellant resulting in the death of the victim was intentional.” PER Nwali Sylvester Ngwuta, JSC
CASES CITED
Quinn v. Lethem (1901) AC 491, 533Ajikawo v. Ansaido (Nig) Ltd (1991) 2 NWLR (Pt. 173) 359.Akpan v. State (2002) 12 NWLR (part 780) 189Olaiya v. Olaiya (2002) 12 NWLR (part 782) 652?
STATUTES REFERRED TO
NONE