PETER ILIYA AZABADA VS THE STATE

CORAM

FATAYI-WILLIAM, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN    JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL

SULEIMAN GALADIMA    JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL

BODE RHODES-VIVOUR    JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL

KUMAI BAYANG AKA’AHS    JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL

PARTIES

PETER ILIYA AZABADA APPELLANTS

THE STATE

RESPONDENTS 

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The 2nd Accused/Appellant was arraigned alongside with the 1st Accused/Appellant at the trial Court on an amended three count charge of criminal conspiracy, armed robbery and culpable homicide punishable with death contrary to Sections 97(1), 298(d), 221 and 79 respectively of the Penal Code. The Accused/Appellants were guilty of all the offences charged and were sentenced to death by hanging. The 2nd and 1st Accused/Appellant appealed against this conviction to the Court of Appeal, Abuja independently but the said two appeals were consolidated by the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and irked by the decision of the Court of Appeal, the Accused/Appellants appealed to the Supreme Court.

HELD

Appeal Dismissed.

ISSUES

1. Whether the Court of Appeal Abuja Division was right when it affirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant merely on the strength of the confessional statement of the appellant and which confessional statement was retracted by the appellant in his oral testimony before the trial High Court of Kogi State?

2. Whether the Court of Appeal Abuja Division was right when it affirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant for conspiracy to commit armed robbery and culpable homicide when there were materials (sic) contradictions in the evidence of the Prosecution before the trial court?

3. Whether the Court of Appeal Abuja Division was right, in law, in refusing to set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant having found that it was wrong in law for the trial Judge to pass sentence on only one of the counts as charged after convicting the appellant on the counts of offences contained in the charge sheet before the trial court?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

APPEALS- PURPOSE OF APPEALS

“The purpose of appeals is to correct errors of a lower court with the intention/desire of ensuring substantial justice to the parties and even the court” PER ONNOGHEN JSC

CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACTS BY THE LOWER COURT- ATTITUDE OF THE SUPREME COURT TO CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACTS BY THE LOWER COURT

“It is settled law that the Supreme Court does not make a practice of interfering with concurrent finding of facts by the lower courts except in special circumstances such as where the finding is not supported by evidence on record or is otherwise perverse”. PER ONNOGHEN JSC

ERROR- NATURE OF ERROR THAT WILL RESULT IN SETTING ASIDE THE DECISION OF COURT

“It is settled law that it is not every error committed by a lower court that would result in the decision being set aside by an appellate court. For an error to qualify as one that will inevitably lead to the setting aside of the decision/judgment, it must be substantial in nature and must have resulted in a miscarriage of justice to the appellant”. PER ONNOGHEN JSC

ERROR- WHEN AN APPELLATE COURT WILL SET ASIDE THE DECISION OF A LOWER COURT BASED ON ERROR

“Where the error complained of is substantial and is likely to lead to a miscarriage of justice or has resulted in injustice, an appellate court will be eager to set aside the decision. However where the error is not substantial or has in no way resulted in a miscarriage of justice to the appellant, as in the instant case, the court will not set aside the decision because to do so will rather result in injustice to the respondent representing the society at
large”. PER ONNOGHEN JSC

CASES CITED

Ejelikwu vs State (1993) 7NWLR (Pt. 307) 554 at 583Hausa vs State (1994) 6 NWLR (Pt. 350) 281 at 309?

STATUTES REFERRED TO

Evidence Act 2011

Criminal Procedure Code?

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT