HIS HIGHNESS ISAAC BOYI UMUKORO & ORS VS NIGERIAN PORTS AUTHORITY & ANOR
July 3, 2025UMUKORO V NIGERIAN PORTS AUTHORITY
July 3, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1997) Legalpedia (SC) 51148
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri May 9, 1997
Suit Number: SC. 124/1996
CORAM
ABUBAKAR BASHIR WALI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
EMMANUEL OBIOMA OGWUEGBU JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The accused/respondent was charged with murder. The Trial Court found him not guilty, discharged and acquitted him. The prosecution/appellant failed to establish the ingredients of the said offence in its opinion. The prosecution appeal. Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on a lesser offence and thus charged the accused. The prosecution still dissatisfied has appealed to this Court.
HELD
Be that as it may, this appeal has failed. The learned trial Judge found that the prosecution had failed to prove the essential ingredients of the offence charged and that the defence of the accused was very consistent. I have no reason to disagree with this finding. I agree that the accused should be given the benefit of the doubt. The appeal is dismissed.
ISSUES
Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal, Kaduna Division rightly exercised its (sic) discretion when it (sic) convicted and sentenced the respondent under Sections 222 (4) and 224 of the Penal Code respectively, when its (sic) findings support section 221 of the Penal Code?Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal, Kaduna Division exercised their discretion judicially and judiciously when it (sic) sentenced the respondent to only N5,000.00 (five thousand naira) or two years imprisonment in default for an offence punishable under Section 224 of the Penal Code?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
CONTRADICTIONS IN EVIDENCE
Where there are such contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence before a criminal court, such as to cast reasonable doubt upon the guilt of the accused person, such accused person should be given the benefit of the doubt, and should not be convicted on the basis of such unreliable evidence. Per MOHAMMED JSC
CONTRADICTIONS IN EVIDENCE
That where there are contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses on a material fact and the contradictions are not explained by the prosecution through any of its witnesses, the trial court should not speculate on or proffer the explanation for such contradictions and thereby pick and choose from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that which it will believe. Per MOHAMMED JSC
CASES CITED
Nathaniel Nasamu v. The State (1979)All NLR 193Chiistopher Arehia & Anarn The State (1982) NSCC 85; (1982) 4 SC. 78Boy Muka & ors v. The State (1976) 9 & 10 SC 305 at p. 325Onubogn v. The Queen (1974) 9 SC. 1Alonge v. Inspector General of Police (1959) SCNLR 516; (1959) 4 ESC 203; Fatoyinbo v. A.G. Western Nigeria (1966) NMLR
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Evidence Act
