CHIEF A.S. AMOS & ORS V SHELL-BP PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT COMPANY OF NIGERIA LTD. & ANOR
August 8, 2025J.B. ATUNRASE & ORS VS FEDERAL COMMISSIONER FOR WORKS AND HOUSING
August 8, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1975) Legalpedia (SC) 25141
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Jun 20, 1975
Suit Number: SC. 112/1974
CORAM
TASLIM O. ELIAS, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
ATANDA FATAYI-WILLIAM, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
SIR UDO UDOMA, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
WAHABI ONASANYA MUMUNI & 13 ORS APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellants were charged with forgery, delivery of money by false pretences and Receiving stolen property.
HELD
The appeals of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th, 7th, 11th and 12th accused persons failed on all counts and they were dismissed. The convictions and sentence were affirmed. Also, the appeal of the 9th and 13th accused was allowed on all the counts on which they were convicted and they were accordingly discharged and acquitted in the case. They were both ordered to be released from custody.
ISSUES
Whether there is evidence of conspiracy among the appellants
RATIONES DECIDENDI
CONSPIRACY TRIAL – EVIDENCE IN A CONSPIRACY TRIAL
“In a conspiracy trial, evidence of what one accused says in the absence of other conspirators is rendered admissible against such others on the basis that, if they are all conspirators what one of them says in furtherance of the conspiracy would be admissible evidence against them, even though it was said in the absence of the other conspirators. This is said to be an exception to the hearsay rule.” Per IRIKEFE, JSC
CONSPIRACY TRIAL – DUTY OF PROSECUTION LEAD DISTINCT EVIDENCE OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE CONSPIRACY
“Although the rules as to an admissibility of evidence generally would appear to be relaxed when a charge of conspiracy is tried along with other substantive charges, the prosecution initially has a duty to lead distinct evidence of the existence of the conspiracy – and the involvement of each conspirator in it.” Per IRIKEFE, JSC
CASES CITED
R.v Aspinall – 2 QBD (1876-77) p. 45 at pp 58-9
R. v. Murrhy – 173 ER p. 505
R. v. Griffiths – 49 CAR p.279
R. v. Luberg & Ors.19 CAR p.133
STATUTES REFERRED TO
