OYEKAN & OYEDEJI VS AKINJIDE
September 3, 2025THE GOVERNOR, EASTERN NIGERIA VS EUGENE ONYELU & ORS
September 3, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1965-06) Legalpedia 13306 (SC)
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Holden At Abuja
Fri Jun 11, 1965
Suit Number: SC 165/1965
CORAM
BRETT JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
COKER JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
IDIGBE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
YANOR & ANOR
APPELLANTS
THE STATE
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
CRIMINAL LAW AND PRACTICE-EVIDENCE
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellants were convicted of the offence of culpable homicide contrary to section 221 of the Penal Code (Northern Nigeria) and each sentenced to death by the High Court, Northern Nigeria, hence this appeal.
HELD
Appeal dismissed
ISSUES
RATIONES DECIDENDI
GROUNDS ON WHICH POSTPONEMENT OF CRIMINAL TRIAL WILL BE GRANTED
If in the course of hearing of a criminal case an accused person applies to the court for postponement of the trial on the ground that a witness for the defence was not available to give evidence, he should normally satisfy the court on three important issues, and they are:
(1) that the witness sought to be produced is a material witness for his defence,
(2) that he (the applicant) has not been guilty of laches or neglect in procuring the attendance in court of the witness, and
(3) that there is reasonable expectation of his being able to procure the attendance in court of the witness at the future time to which he prays the trial to be postponed. Per Idigbe JSC
ASSESSMENT OF EVIDENCE BY THE COURT
The court can only decide a case on the evidence actually before it, but where the court is satisfied that an accused person has made a genuine effort to secure the attendance of a witness who could give material evidence and has failed to do so for reasons outside his own control, the court should bear the fact in mind when assessing the evidence before it, and give it such weight as justice seems to require. Per Idigbe JSC
BURDEN OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL MATTERS
While the onus is on the prosecution to prove the charge against an accused person the latter has, however, the duty of bringing the evidence on which he relies for his defence of alibi; when such evidence has been adduced the court should consider it in the light of the evidence adduced by the prosecution in support of the charge against the accused and if in the end the court is unable to reach a decision on the question whether the evidence in support of the case for the prosecution is stronger than that produced in support of the alibi, the accused must be acquitted. Per Idigbe JSC
CASES CITED
R. v. Mary Kingston
R. v. Le Chavalier D’Eon (1764) 97 E.R. 955
Chadwick (1917)12 Cr. App. R. 247.
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Criminal Procedure Code (Northern Nigeria)
Constitution of the Federation
