CORAM

---

Ibrahim Mohammed Musa Saulawa-Justice, Supreme Court

Emmanuel Akomaye Agim-Justice, Supreme Court

Chidi Nwaoma Uwa- Justice, Supreme Court

Moore Aseimo Abraham Adumein-Justice, Supreme Court

Mohammed Baba Idris-Justice, Supreme Court

---

PARTIES

---

YUSUF MUKARFI

APPELLANTS 

---

THE STATE

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE LAW, CULPABLE HOMICIDE, THEFT, CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT, CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, DOCTRINE OF RECENT POSSESSION, CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT, APPELLATE PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, BURDEN OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant, Yusuf Mukarfi, together with five co-accused persons, was charged before the High Court of Niger State in Charge No. NSHC/MN/2C/2020 with culpable homicide punishable with death and with theft. The prosecution’s case was as follows.

A truck loaded with 60,000 litres of fuel was parked at the Tungan Maje NNPC Depot, Suleja, on 24th July 2019, under the custody of the driver, Mustapha Goni Bamanga (also referred to as Mustapha Goni Dan Manga), who was to deliver the fuel to Nya-Nya in Abuja. The following morning, 25th July 2019, the lifeless body of Mustapha Goni Bamanga was found lying where the truck had been parked, while the truck and its entire cargo had disappeared.

Upon investigation, the missing truck was found at Gada Biyu near Kwali, in the custody of the Appellant and his co-accused persons, who were in the process of negotiating the sale of the petroleum product. They were arrested by police officers from Kwali Division while offloading the fuel.

All the accused voluntarily confessed to killing Mustapha Goni Bamanga. Their confessional statements described, in considerable detail, how the 1st accused (Goni Tijani) had recruited the Appellant and others from Lagos, brought them to Tungan Maje on the pretext of work, and instructed them to tie the driver’s legs, hands, and neck with ropes and strangle him to death while Goni Tijani waited behind the truck. After the killing, Goni Tijani and one other accused drove the truck to Gada Biyu, where they all awaited buyers for the fuel.

The Appellant’s extrajudicial confession (Exhibit F), recorded under caution and admitted in evidence without objection and without any challenge to its voluntariness, explicitly described his participation in the scheme — from being recruited in Lagos, travelling to Abuja, receiving instructions to kill the driver, tying the driver’s legs, hands, and neck, and travelling in the stolen truck to Gada Biyu.

At trial, the Appellant retracted his confession and testified as DW6, claiming that he was merely a stranded traveller who hitched a ride with Goni Tijani and Basiru, who were delivering fuel to Gada Biyu, and was arrested along with the others. However, his own testimony corroborated material parts of the confession — including being in the truck with the fuel at Gada Biyu and being arrested by police from Kwali Division.

The extrajudicial confessions were corroborated by circumstantial evidence and by the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, including the investigating police officer (PW3) who described the discovery of the body, the investigation, and the arrest of the accused persons at Gada Biyu.

The trial Court convicted the Appellant and his co-accused of culpable homicide punishable with death and sentenced each of them to death by hanging, and also convicted them of theft, sentencing each to five years’ imprisonment. The Court of Appeal dismissed the Appellant’s appeal, having reviewed, re-evaluated, and considered the entirety of the evidence and concurring with the trial Court’s findings and conviction.

The Appellant further appealed to the Supreme Court on a single, general issue challenging whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Crucially, no ground of appeal specifically challenged any of the concurrent findings of fact made by the trial Court and affirmed by the Court of Appeal.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that an appeal against concurrent findings of facts without challenging the specific underlying findings is not arguable, empty, and incompetent; and that in any event the concurrent findings were supported by the evidence.

 

---

HELD

---

1. The appeal was dismissed for lacking in merit.

2. A general issue challenging the correctness of a conviction, without any specific ground of appeal challenging the concurrent underlying findings of fact, is not arguable and is incompetent. The Appellant, having raised no complaint against the specific findings of facts upon which the conviction was based, is deemed to have accepted those findings as correct, conclusive, and binding.

3. The scope of the Supreme Court’s appellate power on concurrent findings of fact by two lower courts is limited to determining whether the findings are perverse or were made in violation of law causing miscarriage of justice. Issues raised must be specific within that scope and raise substantial propositions of law or fact; general vague issues beyond that scope are not competent.

4. The extrajudicial confession of the Appellant (Exhibit F), admitted in evidence without objection and without challenge to its voluntariness, was positive, direct, and corroborated by circumstantial evidence and the testimonies of prosecution witnesses. An accused can be convicted solely on a positive and direct confessional statement, even where it is subsequently retracted.

5. The doctrine of recent possession applied: the Appellant and his co-accused were found in possession of a stolen truck very shortly after the killing of its driver and the theft of the vehicle. They offered no credible explanation for their possession. The law presumes such persons to be the thieves and killers.

6. The concurrent findings of fact were not perverse and were fully supported by the evidence. The convictions for culpable homicide and theft were affirmed.

 

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in its decision that the Respondent proved beyond reasonable doubt the case against the Appellant as required by law, to warrant the conviction and sentence passed on the Appellant?

2 Whether an appeal against concurrent findings of two lower courts on facts, framed in general terms without specifically challenging any of the underlying findings of fact, is arguable and competent?

3. Whether a confessional statement admitted in evidence without objection and without any challenge to its voluntariness can ground a conviction, even where subsequently retracted by the accused?

4. Whether the doctrine of recent possession under Section 167(a) of the Evidence Act 2011 was properly applied to the circumstances of this case?

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

APPEAL AGAINST CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT WITHOUT CHALLENGING SPECIFIC UNDERLYING FINDINGS — AN APPEAL AGAINST ONLY THE FINAL CONCLUSION OF A JUDGMENT WITHOUT APPEALING AGAINST THE SPECIFIC FINDINGS OF FACTS UPON WHICH THE CONCLUSION RESTS IS BOUND TO FAIL AS UNARGUABLE

---

“An appeal against the final conclusion in a judgment, without appealing against the specific findings of facts and holdings that resulted in and formed the basis of that conclusion is bound to fail as it Is unarguable. In the absence of any complaint against the reasons or findings of facts from which the conclusions that the prosecution proved its case and that the appeal lacks merit are derived, the appeal is empty and baseless or groundless. Without appealing against the findings of facts or reasons from which a conclusion was made, an appeal against only the conclusion is not arguable and is incompetent.” – Per E. A. Agim, JSC.

 

---

THE SCOPE OF APPELLATE POWER ON CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT — THE SUPREME COURT’S POWER IS LIMITED TO DETERMINING WHETHER THE FINDINGS ARE PERVERSE OR WERE MADE IN VIOLATION OF LAW CAUSING MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE; ISSUES RAISED MUST BE SPECIFIC AND RAISE SUBSTANTIAL PROPOSITIONS

---

“This appeal, being against concurrent findings of two lower Courts on facts, the scope of the appellate power of this Court in dealing with such appeals is limited to determining whether the findings are perverse or were made in violation of law, causing miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the issues for determination must raise questions or propositions within the above scope and not raise general questions beyond that scope…Having not appealed against the said findings, the appellant accepted them as correct, conclusive and binding.” – Per E. A. Agim, JSC.

 

---

A CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT ADMITTED WITHOUT OBJECTION AND WITHOUT CHALLENGE TO ITS VOLUNTARINESS IS GOOD EVIDENCE — AN ACCUSED MAY BE CONVICTED ON IT ALONE EVEN WHERE SUBSEQUENTLY RETRACTED

---

“Reliance on exhibit F, the extra judicial confession of the appellant, admitted in evidence without objection and without any question to its voluntariness is faultless. As held by this Court in Egharevba V the State (2016) LPELR-40029 SC, ‘Once a confessional statement is tendered and admitted without objection by the defence, it is good evidence and can be relied upon. The Court can even utilize it alone, place a conviction without corroboration even if the Appellant had retracted the making thereof.'” – Per E. A. Agim, JSC.

 

---

DOCTRINE OF RECENT POSSESSION — A PERSON FOUND IN POSSESSION OF STOLEN GOODS SOON AFTER THEIR THEFT IS PRESUMED BY LAW TO BE THE THIEF OR RECEIVER OF STOLEN GOODS UNLESS HE CAN ACCOUNT FOR HIS POSSESSION

---

“Section 167(a) of the Evidence Act, 2011 states that: ‘The Court may presume the existence of any fact which it deems likely to have happened…the Court may presume that — (a) a man who is in possession of stolen goods soon after their theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession.’ In the instant case, the Appellant and five others were arrested while trying to sell petroleum product inside a truck which was stolen at the NNPC Depot, Tungan Maje Suleja…The Appellant and his co-accused persons failed to give any explanation as to how they came into possession of the truck. The law in the circumstances presumes them to be the robber and the killers of the deceased.” – Per C. N. Uwa, JSC.

 

---

MEANS OF PROVING A CRIMINAL ALLEGATION — A CRIMINAL CHARGE MAY BE PROVED BY DIRECT EVIDENCE OF EYEWITNESSES, BY CONFESSION OF THE ACCUSED, OR BY CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

---

“The law is that a crime accusation or allegation can be proved by any of the following three means, methods or ways: ‘(a) direct evidence of eyewitness or eyewitnesses, or (b) confession of the accused defendant, or (c) circumstantial evidence. See the cases of Ocholi Friday v. The State (2024) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1957) 121 and Cpl. Hassan Mamman V The State (2025) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1973) 281.'” – Per M. A. A. Adumein, JSC.

 

---

THE PROCESS OF APPEAL IS PYRAMIDAL — ISSUES RAISED IN AN APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT MUST BE SPECIFIC, NARROWER IN SCOPE THAN THOSE DETERMINED BY LOWER COURTS, AND RAISE SUBSTANTIAL PROPOSITIONS OF LAW OR FACT

---

“The process of appeal from the decision of a trial Court upwards is a pyramidal shape showing the width of the complaints getting narrower and more specific with each stage of appeal. Any issue raised for determination in an appeal to this Court, particularly on grounds of facts or mixed law and facts, cannot be as wide and general as the issues determined in the lower Courts, and therefore, must be specific concerning a particular part of the judgment appealed against to this Court and raise substantial proposition of law or fact for determination.” – Per E. A. Agim, JSC.

 

---

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE — WHERE THE ONLY REASONABLE INFERENCE FROM THE PROVEN FACTS IS THAT THE ACCUSED COMMITTED THE CRIME, A CONVICTION FOUNDED ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE WILL BE UPHELD

---

“Upon a careful consideration of the arguments of the learned counsel for the contending parties, I am in complete agreement with the learned counsel for the respondent that the Court of Appeal was right in its decision that the prosecution proved its case, beyond reasonable doubt, by circumstantial evidence. The appellant and his co-defendants were caught with the deceased’s truck, as they were trying to sell the petroleum product in the truck. The corpse of the deceased was found, in the morning, at the scene where he had parked his truck the previous night. The only reasonable inference is that he, appellant and his co-defendants, who could not give any reasonable explanation of how they got to be in custody or possession of the deceased’s truck, but were trying to sell the product therein, were the people who killed the deceased and stole his truck containing petroleum product.” – Per M. A. A. Adumein, JSC.

 

---

THE PRINCIPLE AGAINST INTERFERENCE WITH CONCURRENT FINDINGS — WHERE THE TRIAL COURT EVALUATED EVIDENCE AND MADE SPECIFIC FINDINGS AND THE COURT OF APPEAL CONFIRMED THEM, THE SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT DISTURB THOSE FINDINGS UNLESS THEY ARE SHOWN TO BE PERVERSE OR VIOLATE A PRINCIPLE OF LAW

---

“The principle that this Court should not interfere with concurrent findings is based on the sound reasoning that the Court of first instance evaluated the evidence, believed or disbelieved the witnesses it observed testify, then made specific findings of material facts from the evidence and drew final conclusion of fact as to the success or failure of the case from the several specific findings of facts, that the Court of Appeal having confirmed the trial Court’s findings of facts and verdict, this should settle the correctness of the confirmed findings unless an appeal against such findings show that any of them is perverse resulting in miscarriage of justice or has violated some principle of law or procedure.” – Per E. A. Agim, JSC.

 

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

-Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)

-Evidence Act 2011 — Section 167(a)

-Penal Code (applicable to Niger State) — provisions on culpable homicide punishable with death and theft

 

---

OTHER CITATIONS

---

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT 

---

COUNSEL

---