SULEIMAN JIBRIN VS. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA
April 11, 2025AIMUAMWEHI FRIDAY OSAREREN v. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA
April 11, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2022-06) Legalpedia 00550 (CA)
In the Court of Appeal
HOLDEN AT ABUJA
Fri Feb 23, 2018
Suit Number: SC.605/2014
CORAM
OLABODE RHODES-VIVOUR JUSTICE, COURT OF APEAL
KUMAI BAYANG AKAAHS, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
JOHN INYANG OKORO JUSTICE, COURT OF APEAL
AMINA ADAMU AUGIE JUSTICE, COURT OF APEAL
PAUL ADAMU GALINJE JUSTICE, COURT OF APEAL
PARTIES
UMOH EKPO
APPELLANTS
THE STATE
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
EVIDENCE, CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellant was arraigned before the Lagos State High Court on the 15th of May, 2008 charged with armed robbery. The Prosecution’s case against the Appellant at the trial court is that on the 5th January 2006. One miss Ronke Odelana, who testified as Pw1 in that court, and her sister Toyin Odelana were walking towards Idi-Iroko bus stop, Anthony Area of Lagos State at about 6.45 a.m when the Appellant and another person, now at large, who were on a motorcycle, accosted them. The Appellant alighted from the motorcycle and pointed an object which Pw1 thought at the time to be a gun. The Appellant asked Pw1 to handover her bag, wallet and phone. She handed over the items to the appellant who passed them over to the second person. As the appellant was about to mount the motorcycle, Pw1 held him and shouted for help. The shout attracted passers-by who came to her help and the appellant was arrested. While this was going on the second person rode off on the motorcycle with the properties belonging to Pw1.
The Appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge. In order to prove its case, the Prosecution called three witnesses and tendered the statement of the Appellant and seven other witnesses as well as a plier. These items were admitted in evidence arid marked Exhibits P1-P8 and K respectively. Appellant testified in his defense and called no additional witness.
At the end of the trial, Dada J. in a reserved and considered judgment delivered on the 16th of September, 2010 found the Appellant guilty as charged and sentenced him to death by hanging.
Aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division which dismissed the Appellant’s appeal on the 6th of June, 2014.
Dissatisfied with the decision of the Court of Appeal, the Appellant has filed a further appeal to the Supreme Court vide a Notice of Appeal dated and filed on the 4th July, 2014 which contains three grounds of appeal.
HELD
Appeal dismissed.
ISSUES
Whether, after a proper and total evaluation of all the evidence on the records, the case against the Appellant could be said to have been proved beyond reasonable doubts.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
PROOF IN CRIMINAL TRIAL – STANDARD AND BURDEN OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL TRIAL
“Now the Law is settled that if the commission of a crime by a party to any proceeding is directly in issue in any proceeding civil or criminal, it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The burden of proving that any person has been guilty of a crime or wrongful act is on the person who asserts it, whether the commission of such act is or is not directly in issue in the action. See Section 135 (i) and (2) of the Evidence Act 2011, Adamu v A. G. Bendel State (1986) 2 NWLR (Pt.22) 284; Akpan v The State (1990) 7 NWLR (Pt.160) 101.
Section 36 (5) of the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 provides that every person who is charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until he is proved guilty. The burden of proof is on the prosecution who must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and a general duty to rebut the presumption of innocence constitutionally guaranteed to the accused person. This burden of proof on the prosecution does not shift. See Alibi v The State (1993) 7 NWLR (Pt.307) 511 at 531 paragraph A- C, Solola v the State (2005) 5 SC (Pt.1) 135. Where the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the accused must be discharged and acquitted.” – Per GALINIE, J.S.C.
OFFENCE OF ARMED ROBBERY- INGREDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE OF ARMED ROBBERY
CONTRADICTION IN EVIDENCE- WHEN A CONTRADICTION IN EVIDENCE WOULD UPSET THE JUDGMENT OF A COURT
“I have noted the discrepancies highlighted by learned counsel for the Appellant. It is not every contradiction in the prosecution’s case that will result in upsetting a trial court’s judgment. For a contradiction to upset a judgment it must be of such magnitude as to warrant interference with the conclusion reached by the trial court. In other words for a contradiction to upset the judgment of the trial court, such contradiction must go to the root of the case and if allowed will lead to a miscarriage of justice. See Ejeka v State (2003)7 NWLR (Pt.819) 408, Gidado Iyanda v The Queen (1960) SCLR 595, Ikemson v The State (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt.110) 455 at 466.” – Per GALINIE, J.S.C.
CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT- APPROPRIATE TIME TO RAISE THE INVOLUNTARINESS OF A CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE- ADMISSIBLITY OF STATEMENTS NOT TENDERED BY IT’S MAKER
“On the issue raised by Learned Counsel for the Appellant that the first confessional statement of the Appellant that was admitted and marked Exhibit P7 was not tendered through the police officer that recorded it, I find nothing wrong with that procedure, by virtue of section 83(2) (a) of the Evidence Act 2011, the court may at any stage of the proceeding, if having regard to all the circumstances of the case it is satisfied that undue delay or expense would otherwise be caused, admit a statement in evidence notwithstanding that the maker of the statement is available but is not called as a witness.” – Per GALINIE, J.S.C.
PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT-WHAT IT ENTAILS
“Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all doubt, or all shadow of doubt. It simply means establishing the guilt of the accused person with compelling and conclusive evidence. As was held by Oputa, JSC in Bakare v The State (1987) 1NSCC Vol. 18 P. 267 at 279, the burden is on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt with emphasis on “reasonable”. That not all doubts are reasonable. It was further assessed that reasonable doubt will automatically exclude unreasonable doubt, fanciful doubt, imaginary doubt and speculative doubt i.e. a doubt not borne out by the facts and surrounding circumstances of the case.
Reasonable doubt does not eliminate the possibility of any doubts whatsoever, including remote possibilities as was expressed by Denning J in Miller v Minister of Pensions (1947) 2 ALL ER 373 as follows:-
“The law will fail to protect the community if it admitted fanciful possibilities to deflect the course of justice. If the evidence is so strong as to leave only a remote possibility in his favour which can be dismissed with one sentence – ‘of course it is possible but not in the least probable the case is proved beyond reasonable doubt.”
See also Nwaturuocha v the State (2011) LPELR – 8119 (SC), (2011) 6 NWLR (pt 1242) 170 Akinlonu v The State (2015) LPELR- 25986 (SC)”– Per OKORO, J.S.C.
CASES CITED
NONE
STATUTES REFERRED TO
1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended)
Criminal Code Law Cap.C17 Vol.2 Laws of Lagos State 2003.
