Legalpedia Citation: (2024-02) Legalpedia 84586 (SC)

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Fri Feb 23, 2024

Suit Number: SC.CR/1462/2022

CORAM

John Inyang Okoro Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Uwani Musa Abba Aji Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Helen Moronkeji Ogunwumiju Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Tijjani Abubakar Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Emmanuel Akomaye Agim Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

PARTIES

THEOPHILUS FRIDAY

APPELLANTS

THE STATE

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

Olusegun Obaro and Jonah Lase were sent by the 3rd accused person at the trial (the appellant herein) to Kidnap one Dada Akingboye a baby of 1 1/2 years old. That the baby was snatched and kidnapped from her mother in the night while she was sleeping beside her mother in the midnight of 16th June, 2011 at Ikorigho community and the 1st and 2nd accused persons handed the baby over to the Appellant.

On 17th day of June, 2011, the body of the baby was found close to her mother’s house with her right ear, right eye, right breast, and the right part of her scalp removed. Subsequently, the three accused persons were arrested by the Ikorigho community in connection with the crime and handed over to the police. After investigation, the Appellant and the two other accused persons were charged with the offence of Kidnapping and Murder of Dada Akingboye, an offence punishable under Section (3) of the Ondo State Anti-Kidnapping and Anti-abduction Law, 2010 and Sections 316 and 319 of the Criminal Code Laws of Ondo State 2006.

Following their trial, Appellant and his conspirators were found guilty and convicted of the offence of kidnapping and murder and sentenced accordingly. Being dissatisfied with the judgment, Appellant appealed to the lower Court, the Court of Appeal, Akure Division. Appellants appeal was dismissed by the Court in a judgment delivered on the 2nd day of October, 2020 resulting in the instant further appeal to this Court.

 

HELD

Appeal dismissed

ISSUES

 Whether from the totality of evidence adduced at the trial Court, the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt to warrant the conviction of the appellant for the offence of Kidnapping and Murder?

 

RATIONES DECIDENDI

PROSECUTION – WAYS THE PROSECUTION CAN ESTABLISH THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED

The law is fairly settled on a congregation of undoubted authorities that the guilt of an accused person can be established by the following methods (i.) the voluntary confession of the accused person (ii.) direct credible and reliable eyewitness or victim of the offence depending on the circumstance of the offence and (iii.) circumstantial evidence pointing or focusing on the guilt of the accused person, that he was the one or one of the persons who committed the offence charged and by no other person. See EGBOGHONOME V. THE STATE [1993] NWLR (Pt. 306) 282. – Per Tijjani Abubakar, JSC

CONCURRENT FINDINGS – DUTY OF AN APPELLANT SEEKING THE COURT TO SET ASIDE CONCURRENT DECISIONS OF LOWER COURTS – CONDUCT OF APPELLATE COURTS TO CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF LOWER COURTS

I must not fail to mention that this appeal is against concurrent findings of facts by the trial and the intermediate Courts, this Court must find concrete, cogent and convincing reasons to tinker with the concurrent findings. The Appellant must show this Court that the findings are patently perverse and must for those reasons be set aside, otherwise this Court is always wary of interfering with concurrent findings of facts by two lower Courts. In the instant appeal, the evidence is such that the Court must be reluctant to interfere, because the Appellant gave no compelling reasons moving this Court so do. See ALTINE V STATE (2022) LPELR-58101 (SC) where this Court while dealing with similar issue on concurrent findings held as follows per my law lord and learned brother AUGIE JSC (rtd):

“It is well-settled that findings on primary facts are matters within the province of a trial Court and there is a rebuttable presumption that a trial Court’s findings and conclusions on facts are correct, therefore, such findings are accorded due respect in appellate Courts – see lbhafidon V. Igbinosun (2001) 8 NWLR (Pt. 716) 653 SC, wherein this Court, per Karibi-Whyte, JSC, stated as follows – “It is a well-established principle that an appellate Court will very rarely, if at all, interfere with the findings of facts made by the trial Court. This is because such findings of fact enjoy the privilege of passing through the furnace of acrimonious cross-examination, the tooth comb scrutiny of the observation of the witnesses’ reactions and assessment of the veracity of their testimony. Accordingly, such findings ought to be accorded due respect in appellate Courts, which did not have the advantage of the trial Judge.” So, findings of facts made by a trial Court, which passed through the furnace of acrimonious cross-examination, the tooth comb scrutiny of the observation of the Witnesses’ reactions and assessment of the veracity of their testimony; are accorded due respect in appellate Courts that did not have the advantage of the trial Judge, and that is exactly what the Court of Appeal did in this case – accord respect to the findings of fact made by the trial Court and affirm same.”

It must be understood that where there is concurrent finding by the trial and the intermediate Courts, this Court must always accord respect to such findings and be circumspect in interfering with such findings except in exceptional circumstances, like where it is apparent from the records that the inferences from established facts are patently wrong, or the findings do not flow from the evidence generated at the trial or there is inappropriate appraisal of the evidence led at the trial, except where any of these features is shown, this Court must resist the invitation by an Appellant to tinker with the concurrent findings. – Per Tijjani Abubakar, JSC

 

CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – WHERE CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT OF A CO-ACCUSED CORROBORATES THE ESTABLISHED CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

It is a correct statement of the law that a confessional statement of an accused person is only evidence against him and cannot be used against a co-accused person unless the confessional statement is voluntarily adopted by the co-accused. See Ozaki Vs. State (1990) 1 NWLR (Pt.124) 92. Howbeit, where the confessional statements of co-accused persons substantially corroborates the established circumstantial evidence, as in this case, pointing irresistibly to the involvement of the Appellant, the Court would rightly consider those confessions together with the established circumstantial evidence to convict. – Per J. I. Okoro, JSC

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE – WHERE CONFESSION OF A CO-ACCUSED CORROBORATES ALREADY ESTABLISHED CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

In this case, the circumstantial evidence established by the Respondent, particularly through the testimony of PW1 points irresistibly to the involvement of the Appellant in the heinous crime of the kidnap and murder of little Dada Racheal Akingboye. The confession of the 1st accused person only corroborated the already established circumstantial evidence. See Abacha vs State (2002) LPELR-15 (SC), Ijioffor vs. State (2001) LPELR-1465 (SC). – Per J. I. Okoro, JSC

 

CASES CITED

Non Available

STATUTES REFERRED TO

1. Ondo State Anti-Kidnapping and Anti- abduction Law, 2010
2. Criminal Code Laws of Ondo State 2006
3. Evidence Act, 2011
   

   CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGEMENT