May 25, 2025
Legalpedia Citation: (2010) Legalpedia (SC) 31181 In the Supreme Court of Nigeria Fri Mar 26, 2010 Suit Number: SC.44/2009 CORAM PARTIES SAMUEL ATTAH APPELLANTS RESPONDENTS AREA(S) OF LAW […]
CORAM
PARTIES
SAMUEL ATTAH APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellant were convicted and sentenced to death for conspiracy to commit robbery and armed robbery. Their conviction and sentencing were affirmed by the Court of Appeal. The appellant has further appealed
HELD
Appeal dismissed
ISSUES
1. Whether the discretion of the learned trial judge in granting leave to prefer charge against the appellant(s) was exercised in accordance with the law.
2. Whether there was enough credible and admissible evidence before the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal for continuing and affirming the conviction(s) and sentence(s) of the appellants.
3. Whether the non-compliance of the judgment of the learned trial judge with the mandatory provisions of Section 269(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code did not vitiate the entire proceedings and thus rendering it a nullity.
4. Whether having regard to the entire circumstances of the case the prosecution did not withhold evidence thereby denying the appellant(s) a fair trial.
5. Whether the appellant’s defence(s) of alibi was (were) adequately considered and rightly rejected by the courts below.
6. Whether having regard to the circumstances of this case, the learned justices of the Court of Appeal were right to hold that an identification parade was unnecessary.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
DEFENCE OF ALIBI: DUTY OF ACCUSED.
An accused person is duty bound to furnish the necessary information from which his where -abouts at the crucial time can be checked and where there is more credible evidence believed by the trial judge fixing the accused person at the scene of the crime, where he is seen committing offence, the defence of alibi will collapse. Per MUSDAPHER JSC
IDENTIFICATION PARADE: WHERE UNNECESSARY.
Identification parade is irrelevant and unnecessary where the witnesses knew the accused person or persons. Per MUSDAPHER JSC
POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION BELIEVED BY TRIAL JUDGE.
Where there is visual and positive identification of the accused at the scene of the crime which is believed by the trial judge, the appellate court should not disturb such a finding. Per MUSDAPHER JSC
IRREGULARITY IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS.
Where there is an irregularity in the initiation of the procedure for a criminal trial, the defence has a duty to object timeously and not when the trial is concluded. Per MUSDAPHER JSC
CASES CITED
1. AGBO VS. THE STATE (2006) 6 NWLR (Pt. 977) 545.
2. ADEKUNLE VS. THE STATE (2006) 14 NWLR (Pt.1000) 717.
3. AKOSILE VS. THE STATE (1972) 8 SC 332,
4. NGWO KALU VS. THE STATE (1988) 4 NWLR (Pt. 90) 503.
5. OKONJI VS. THE STATE (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt. 52) 659.
6. WALTER GRAHAM ROWLAND (1947) 32 C.R. APP. R
STATUTES REFERRED TO
1. Evidence Act