SIMEON NEBEIFE OBIDIKE v. THE STATE

CORAM

PARTIES

SIMEON NEBEIFE OBIDIKE APPELLANTS

THE STATE

RESPONDENTS 

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant and six other accused persons were arrested and charge at the High Court for murder contrary to section 274 (1) of the Criminal Code Cap. 36 Vol. 1, Laws of Anambra State of Nigeria 1986. The Appellant was the 4th accused. The trial court convicted and sentenced to death by hanging the Appellant and five of his co-accused while the 7th accused was given the benefit of the doubt on his defence of alibi and was accordingly discharged and acquitted. The Appellant being dissatisfied with the decision of the trial court, appealed to the Court of appeal which dismissed and affirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. The Appellant has further appealed to this court.

HELD

Appeal Dismissed

ISSUES

1. Whether the prosecution proved it case beyond reasonable doubt, upon the community reading of section 132,135, 136 140 of the Evidence Act Law of the Federation of Nigeria 2011?

2. Whether the court below was right in affirming the conviction of the appellant based on the evidence of the single eye witness; the P.w. 5?

3. Whether the appellant can raise the issue of alibi without leave when the issue was abandoned at the trial court and was neither raised nor considered at the court below ?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

CRIMINAL TRIAL-DUTY OF A PROSECUTION THERETO

“The duty of the prosecution in a criminal trial is to prove its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. In order to do so it must prove every ingredient of the offence beyond reasonable doubt”. PER KEKERE-EKUN,JSC

OFFENCES-MURDER-WHAT THE PROSECUTION MUST PROVE TO SECURE A CONVICTION THERETO

“To secure a conviction for murder, the prosecution must prove the following:
1. That the deceased died
2. That the death of the deceased resulted from the act of the accused person; and
3. That the act of the accused was intentional with knowledge that death or grievous bodily harm was its probable consequence.” PER KEKERE-EKUN, JSC

EVIDENCE OF A RELATION-WHEN CAN BE ACCEPTED-DUTY OF A COURT THERETO

“There is no law which precludes a blood relation of a deceased person from testifying for the prosecution.Evidence of a relation can be accepted if cogent enough to rule out element of falsehood and bias. What a court must consider as an abiding factor is truthfulness of the witness touching on his integrity, veracity and knowledge of the matter.” PER FABIYI JSC

WITNESSES-EVIDENCE OF A SINGLE WITNESS- WHETHER CAN SUSTAIN A CHARGE IN MURDER

“Evidence of a single witness, as herein, if believed by the court can sustain a charge even in a criminal matter relating to murder”. PER FABIYI JSC

CRIMINAL JUSTICE-PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE OF AN ACCUSED PERSON-DUTY ON THE PROSECUTION THERETO

“Under our system of criminal justice, an accused person is presumed innocent until he is proved guilty. There is therefore no question of an accused proving his innocence before a Law Court. It has to be noted that throughout the duration of a trial an accused person may not utter a word; he is not bound to say anything. The duty is on the prosecution to prove the charge against an accused person beyond reasonable doubt”. PER OKORO JSC

WITNESSES- WHETHER THE DEFENSE IS PRECLUDED FROM CALLING ANY WITNESS

“The defence is not in any way prevented from calling any witness he desired in disproof of the threat on the life of the deceased. The appellant chose not to call any other witness on this point. The appellant has no right to dictate to the prosecution the witnesses to call or not to call”. PER FABIYI JSC

ADDRESSES- NATURE OF-WHETHER CAN SUBSTITUTE EVIDENCE

“Addresses are designed to assist the court. No amount of brilliance in a fine speech can make up for the lack of evidence to prove and establish or else disprove and demolish points in issue. There is no need to make submission against the flow of evidence in a bid to procure underserved attention.” PER FABIYI JSC

WITNESSES- EVIDENCE OF A WITNESS WHO IS RELATED TO THE VICTIM OF A CRIME- WHETHER CONSTITUTES SUFFICIENT REASON FOR THE COURT TO DISREGARD HIS EVIDENCE

“The mere fact that a witness is related to the victim of a crime is not a sufficient reason, without more, for the court to disregard his evidence. There must be evidence that the witness has a purpose of his own to serve by giving such testimony. PER KEKERE-EKUN, JSC

CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT-WHEN AN APPELLATE COURT CAN DISTURB SAME

“It is now well settled that in such a situation, as herein, this court will not ordinarily disturb such concurrent findings unless same is shown to be perverse or there is an error in procedure or substantive law which has occasioned miscarriage of justice.” PER FABIYI JSC

APPELLATE COURT-WHETHER CAN SUBSTITUTE ITS VIEWS OF FACT FOR THOSE OF THE TRIAL COURT

“It is now settled that an appellant court should not ordinarily substitute its own views of fact for those of the trial court.” PER FABIYI JSC

FINDINGS OF FACT BY A TRIAL COURT-WHEN AN APPELLATE COURT WILL INTERFERE THEREWITH

“An appellate court will not interfere with findings of fact by a trial court except where wrongly applied to the circumstances of the case or the conclusion reached was perverse.” PER FABIYI JSC

CASES CITED

Akinfe Vs The State (1988) 8 NWLR (Pt 85)Alor v The State (1997) 4 NWLR (Pt. 501) 511Balogun Vs Abboola (1974)1 ALL NLR (Pt 2) 66Bamigboye Vs University of Ilorin & Ors (1999) 6SC (PT 11) 72Ebba Vs Ogodo (1984) 1 SCNLR 372Edwin Ogda Vs The State (1992) 2 NWLR (Pt 222)164 @ 198Egonu Vs Egonu (1978) 11-12 SC 11Ime David Idiok V The State (2008) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1104) 225Kale Vs Coker (1982) 12 SC 252Motunwase Vs Sorungbe (1988) 5 NWLR (Pt 92) 90Niger Construction Ltd Vs Okugbeni (1987)3 NWLR (Pt 67)Nkebisi v The State (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt.1188) 471 @ 497Nneji Vs Chukwu (1996) 10 NWLR (Pt 378)265Nwachukwu v The State (2002) FWLR (Pt. 123) 312;Nweke v The State (2001) FWLR (Pt. 40) 1595Nwosu Vs Board Of Customs and Excise (1988) 5 NWLR (Pt 93)Ogbechie Vs Onochie (1998) 1 NWLR (Pt 479 370)Okei Vs Attorney – General Bendel State (1986) 2 NWLR (Pt 24)648Olanrewaju Vs Governor Of Oyo State & Ors (1992 )11-12 SCNJ 92Onah Vs The State (1985) 3 NWLR (Pt 12)236 @ 537Uwagboe v The State (2008) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1102) 621Williams V The State (1992) 10 SCNJ 74Yongo v C.O.P (1992) 8 NWLR (Pt. 257) 36;(1992) 4 SCNJ 113

STATUTES REFERRED TO

Evidence Act 2011

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT