CORAM
ADEMOLA, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
BAIRAMIAN, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
TAYLOR, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
EFFINOG OKON EYO AND ORS
APPELLANTS
THE QUEEN
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
LAW OF EVIDENCE-WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE-CIRCUMSTANCIAL EVIDENCE–APPEAL
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The four appellants were found guilty on all the counts and sentenced to var-ious terms of imprisonment to run concurrently with one another, they appealed against their charge and the various sentencing on grounds that the evidence did not support the charge.
HELD
Appeal allowed
ISSUES
Not Available
RATIONES DECIDENDI
INSTANCE OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
‘The intent to do such harm can be proved by circumstantial evidence. Where persons unlawfully assemble in large numbers determined to use force if necessary to carry out their common intent of preventing certain per-sons from lawfully using the highway, and in order to achieve their object they carry such weapons as were used in this case on appeal, it seems to be clear that the intent to do grievous bodily harm was established.’ Per TAYLOR F.J.
CASES CITED
1. Rex v. Augustine Ume and Ors. 8 W. A.C.A. 123
2. R. v Alli Bello, 12 W.A.C.A. 432
3. Reg. v. Grimwood, (1962) 3 W.L.R. 747
4. Reg. v. Whybrow, 35 C.A.R. 141
5. Rex v. Wray, 7 W.A.C.A. 14
STATUTES REFERRED TO
1. The Evidence Act
2. The Criminal Code.