ANDERSON EMMANUEL v. THE STATE
(2018)LCN/12490(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Thursday, the 19th day of July, 2018
CA/B/192CB/2014
RATIO
CRIMINAL LAW: PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
“It is the law that in a criminal prosecution, the required standard is that of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The burden on the prosecution in a criminal trial has been succinctly enshrined in Section 135(1) of the Evidence Act 2011 which provides as follows:-
‘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.’ Although, it is trite that proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean that the prosecution must prove its case with mathematical exactitude nor does it mean proof beyond any shadow of doubt. See the following:- – JULIUS ABIRIFON VS THE STATE (2013) LPELR 20807 (SC); – ADIO VS THE STATE (1986) 5 SC Page 194 at Pages 219 – 220; – ITU VS STATE (2016) 5 NWLR Part 1506 Page 443 at 465 -466 Paragraphs H & B, 468 Paragraphs A – B; – DIBIE VS STATE (2007) 3 SCNJ Page 160 at 170 – 178.” PER JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA, J.C.A.
EVIDENCE: WAYS TO PROVE THE GUILT OF AN ACCUSED
“The guilt of an accused person can be proved through any of the following methods:-
(a) Through confessional statement of the accused, or
(b) Through circumstantial evidence, or
(c) Through the testimony of an eyewitness or eyewitnesses. See the following cases:-
– EMEKA VS STATE (2001) 14 NWLR Part 734 Page 666; -IGABELE VS STATE (2006) 6 NWLR Part 975 Page 100; – OGBA VS STATE (1992) 2 NWLR Part 222 Page 146; – OGUONZEE VS STATE (1998) 58 LRCN Page 3512 at 3551.” PER JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA, J.C.A.
EVIDENCE: WHERE THERE IS CONTRADICTION IN EVIDENCE
“In AGBO VS STATE (2006) NWLR Part 977 Page 545, the Supreme Court held among others thus:- ‘The law is settled that it is not every trifling inconsistency in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that could be fatal to its case. It is only when such inconsistencies or contradictions are substantial and fundamental to the main issue in question before the Court and thus create doubt in the mind of the trial Judge that an accused is entitled to benefit therefrom. See Okonji Vs the State (1987) 1 NWLR Part 52 Page 659; The State Vs Aibangbee (1988) 3 NWLR Part 84 Page 548; Wankey Vs The State (1993) 5 NWLR Part 295 Page 542; Azu Vs The State (1993) 6 NWLR Part 299 Page 303 and Theophilus Vs The State (1996) 1 NWLR Part 423 Page 139.’
See also the following cases of:- – OGBU VS THE STATE(2007) 2 SCNJ Page 334 – 335;
– AKPA VS THE STATE (2010) Volume 8 L.R.C.N.C.C. Page 70.” PER JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA, J.C.A.
Before Their Lordships
JIMI OLUKAYODE BADAJustice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
PHILOMENA MBUA EKPEJustice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
MUDASHIRU NASIRU ONIYANGIJustice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
ANDERSON EMMANUELAppellant(s)
AND
THE STATERespondent(s)
JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment):
This is an appeal against the Judgment of the Delta State High Court of Justice, Orerokpe delivered on the 18th day of December 2013 in Charge No: HOR/3C/2012 – Between: THE STATE VS (1) JOHN JAFUWA (2) JOSIAH OMAYERUE FESTUS EGITE (4) DAVID IRIRI (5) ALEX AKPALLALA (6) ANDERSON EMMANUEL i.e. (The Appellant) (7) EDIRI IRIRI (8) CHIEF KINGS IRIRI.
The Appellant was found guilty and convicted for the offences of conspiracy to commit murder and murder of one JONATHAN AKPOME and sentenced to five years imprisonment and death by hanging, respectively.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that the Appellant who was the 6th accused person at the lower Court was charged together with seven other persons for the offence of conspiracy to commit murder and murder.
The 1st, 2nd, 4th and 6th accused persons did not enter their defence and did not call any witness in support of their case. They rested their case on the case of the prosecution. By consent, Counsel to the accused persons and the prosecution filed and adopted their written addresses.
At the conclusion of hearing, in a Judgment delivered on 18th December 2013, the 1st, 2nd and 4th accused persons were discharged and acquitted while 3rd, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th accused persons were convicted and sentenced to five years imprisonment for conspiracy to commit murder and death by hanging for the offence of murder.
The Appellant, who is dissatisfied with the Judgment of the lower Court, appealed to this Court.
The Learned Counsel for the Appellant formulated a sole issue for the determination of this appeal. The issue is set out as follows:-
‘Was the learned trial Judge right in law in convicting Appellant of murder when the case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt’ (Distilled from Grounds 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Grounds of Appeal).
On the other hand, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent also formulated a sole issue for the determination of the appeal. The said issue is set out as follows:-
‘Whether the learned trial Judge was right in law when she held that the Respondent proved the offence of conspiracy to murder and murder against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt’.
At the hearing of this appeal on 22nd May 2018, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant stated that the appeal is against the Judgment of Delta State High Court delivered on 18th December 2013. The amended Appellant’s Notice of Appeal was filed on 8th December 2016 and deemed as properly filed on 25th April 2017. The Appellant’s brief of argument was filed on 6th June 2017 while the Appellant’s reply brief was filed on 20th November 2014 and was deemed as properly filed on 22nd May 2018.
The Learned Counsel for the Appellant adopted and relied on the Appellant’s brief as well as his Appellant reply brief as his argument in urging that this appeal be allowed.
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent in his own case, referred to the Respondent’s brief of argument filed on 30th October 2017 which was deemed as properly filed on 22nd May 2018.
He adopted and relied on the said Respondent?s brief of argument in urging that the appeal be dismissed.
I have perused the issues formulated for determination of this appeal by Counsel for both parties. The issues are more or less the same. I will therefore rely on the issue formulated for the determination of the appeal by Counsel for the Appellant.
ISSUE FOR THE DETERMINATION OF THE APPEAL.
Was the Learned trial Judge right in law in convicting the Appellant of murder when the case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt? (Distilled from Grounds 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Grounds of Appeal)?.
The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that a person charged with a criminal offence can be lawfully convicted only if his guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt.
He stated that this case is a capital offence and that conviction carries a death sentence, therefore care must be taken to ensure that the evidence produced by the prosecution unquestionably point to and unmistakenly at the guilt of the accused person.
The Learned Counsel for the Appellant referred to the evidence before the lower Court that Okwidiemo Community was split into two warring factions. He went further that there were those alleged to be armed robbers and kidnappers led by the deceased and of which PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW5 are supporters. Those opposed to them are the youths and elders of the community of which the Appellant happens to be part. He referred to the evidence of PW3 on page 203 paragraphs 2 and 3 of the record of appeal.
It was submitted on behalf of the Appellant that a proper perusal of the record of proceedings would reveal that there is nothing in the purported evidence of PW1 to PW5 to warrant conviction of the Appellant.
He went further in his submission that the evidence of prosecution witnesses is replete with inconsistencies and contradictions which rendered the evidence unreliable.
He referred to the evidence of PW1 on page 191 where it was said, that the deceased addressed a question to the 8th accused and that they were waiting for the deceased i.e. Jonathan Akpome. But the PW2, in his evidence, said that the 8th accused did not respond to the deceased’s question. PW2 said it was another person that responded.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant stated that the PW3 the wife of the deceased gave a totally different account of event from that given by PW1 and PW2.
Also the testimony of the PW4 and PW5 contradicted the evidence of PW1 and PW2.
It was submitted on behalf of the Appellant that with the contradictions in the evidence given by PW1 to PW5 that the learned trial Judge ought to have rejected the prosecution’s evidence as unreliable.
The Learned Counsel for the Appellant also referred to the fact that there is contradiction between Exhibit ‘E’ and evidence of PW3. The PW3’s evidence contradicted her previous statement Exhibit ‘E’.
He relied on ONUBOGU VS THE STATE (1974) 9 – 10 S.C. Page 9 and OKAFOR VS THE STATE (2006) ALL FWLR Part 398 Page 719, where it was held that the Court reiterated the established principle of law that where a witness has made previous statements inconsistent with the evidence given at the trial, the Court should disregard his evidence as unreliable.
He also referred to Page 271 of the Record of Appeal where the trial Court in convicting the Appellant, held that by the Appellant’s extra-judicial statements Exhibits ?R? and ?Q? placed himself at the scene of crime.
He submitted that being at the scene of crime cannot amount to guilt for the offence of murder. He argued that, there must be direct evidence that the accused took part in inflicting injuries on the deceased which led to his death.
He relied on the case of ? YAKUBU VS STATE (1980) 3 – 4 S.C. Page 84 at 94.
He finally submitted that the count of conspiracy to commit murder and murder was not proved against the Appellant. He urged that the appeal be allowed.
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Respondent proved beyond reasonable doubt the offence of conspiracy to commit murder and murder against the Appellant.
He went further that in charge of murder, the onus of proof is on the prosecution to establish by evidence the following facts beyond reasonable doubt.
(a) The fact of death.
(b) Death within a year and a day of the act.
(c) The act or omission on the part of the Appellant i.e. accused that directly caused the death of the deceased; and
(d) The intent to kill or do grievous bodily harm, or do an act or make omission likely to endanger human life while pursuing unlawful purpose.
He submitted that the above conditions must co-exist and where one of them is absent, the charge will fail.
He relied on the following cases:-
– OWORUKE VS C.O.P (2015) 245 LRCN Page 38;
– IDOWU VS STATE (2000) 80 LRCN Page 2788;
– OGBA VS STATE (1992) 2 NWLR Part 222 Page 164;
– NWOSU VS STATE (1986) 4 NWLR Part 35 Page 384.
He referred to conspiracy as defined in :
– OBIAKOR VS THE STATE (2002) 6 S.C Part 2 Page 33 at 39 – 40;
– PATRICK NJOVENS VS THE STATE (1973) 5 S.C Page 17.
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the prosecution at the lower Court proved the ingredients of the offence of murder against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and statements of the Appellant and circumstantial evidence.
He urged that this appeal be dismissed.
In the Appellant’s reply brief of argument, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant reiterated his earlier submission. He relied on the case of Al-MUSTAPHA VS STATE (2013) 17 NWLR Part 1383 Page 350 particularly on Page 415 – 416, in support of his contention on proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that the PW1 to PW5 are not eyewitnesses. And apart from that, there are a lot of contradictions in their testimony. He relied on:
– EGWUMI VS STATE (2013) 13 NWLR Part 1372 Page 525 at 562 ? 563 paragraphs H ? A;
– ONUCHUKWU VS STATE (1998) 4 NWLR Part 547 Page 576.
It was submitted on behalf of the Appellant that where there are material contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution’s witness, the Court is duty bound to discountenance the entire evidence and treat it as unreliable. It was stated that the Court cannot pick which to believe. This is because the prosecution must sink or sail with their evidence.
It was also contended that the learned trial Judge in convicting the Appellant relied on evidence of identification which was rejected in her Judgment. Having rejected the identification evidence of the prosecution’s witnesses with regards to 1st, 2nd and 4th accused persons, the Court cannot therefore rely on same flawed identification evidence to convict the Appellant.
It was also submitted on behalf of the Appellant that it is a settled principle of law that where evidence is given against two or more accused persons in a criminal case, if one of the accused person is discharged and acquitted, the other should be discharged and acquitted too when their case is clearly interwoven and inseparable from one or the other. He relied on the case of:- AKPAN VS THE STATE FWLR Part 110 Page 1845 paragraphs F – G where the Supreme Court held thus:-
‘Where the evidence against two accused persons in a criminal trial is in all material aspect, the same and a doubt is resolved by the trial Judge in favour of one of the accused person, the same doubt should be resolved in favour of the others. Consequently if one is discharged and acquitted the others should also be discharged and acquitted’.
The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that having rejected the same testimony of the prosecution?s witnesses which purportedly fix the accused person including those discharged to the scene of crime, a trial Judge cannot turn round to convict the Appellant on the same evidence that he was at the scene of crime. He therefore urged that the appeal be allowed.
RESOLUTION
It is the law that in a criminal prosecution, the required standard is that of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The burden on the prosecution in a criminal trial has been succinctly enshrined in Section 135(1) of the Evidence Act 2011 which provides as follows:-
‘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.’
Although, it is trite that proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean that the prosecution must prove its case with mathematical exactitude nor does it mean proof beyond any shadow of doubt.
See the following:-
– JULIUS ABIRIFON VS THE STATE (2013) LPELR 20807 (SC);
– ADIO VS THE STATE (1986) 5 SC Page 194 at Pages 219 – 220;
– ITU VS STATE (2016) 5 NWLR Part 1506 Page 443 at 465 -466 Paragraphs H & B, 468 Paragraphs A – B;
– DIBIE VS STATE (2007) 3 SCNJ Page 160 at 170 – 178.
The guilt of an accused person can be proved through any of the following methods:-
(a) Through confessional statement of the accused, or
(b) Through circumstantial evidence, or
(c) Through the testimony of an eyewitness or eyewitnesses.
See the following cases:-
– EMEKA VS STATE (2001) 14 NWLR Part 734 Page 666;
-IGABELE VS STATE (2006) 6 NWLR Part 975 Page 100;
– OGBA VS STATE (1992) 2 NWLR Part 222 Page 146;
– OGUONZEE VS STATE (1998) 58 LRCN Page 3512 at 3551.
The Appellant and the other accused persons were arraigned before the lower Court on 28th day of March, 2012 on two count charge of conspiracy to commit murder punishable under Section 324 of the Criminal Code Cap C21 Volume 1 Laws of Delta State of Nigeria 2006 and murder punishable under Section 319(1) of the Criminal Code Cap C21 Laws of Delta State of Nigeria 2006.
Conspiracy has been held in a number of decided cases to be an agreement by two or more persons to do an unlawful act or to do a lawful act by an unlawful means. The two or more persons must be found to have combined in order to ground a conviction. See the following cases:-
– OBIAKOR VS THE STATE (Supra);
– GARBA VS C.O.P. (2007) 16 NWLR Part 1060 Page 378 at 400;
– KAYODE VS STATE (2016) LPELR 40028 (SC);
– PATRICK NJOVENS VS THE STATE (Supra).
The ingredients of the offence of conspiracy are:-
There must be an agreement between two or more persons to do an unlawful act; They must agree to do a lawful act by illegal means.
The main substance of the offence of conspiracy is the meeting of minds of the conspirators which is hardly capable of direct proof. The offence of conspiracy is established as a matter of inference deduced from certain criminal acts of the parties concerned.
In the case of murder, the ingredients of the offence of murder are:-
(a) That the death of the deceased occurred;
(b) That the death of the deceased was caused by the accused or accused persons on trial; and
(c) That it was the act or omission of the accused that caused the death of the deceased victim and such act or omission was intentional or with the knowledge that death or grievous bodily harm was the probable result or consequence.
The ingredients mentioned above must co-exist, if any of them is missing, then the offence of murder cannot be said to have been proved hence, the prosecution cannot obtain conviction of murder against the accused person and the Court must exonerate him and acquit him of the offence of murder.
The prosecution has the heavy task of proving its case or the aforementioned ingredients beyond reasonable doubt. That is the standard of proof short of which the prosecution shall fail.
See the following cases:-
– GIRA VS STATE (1996) 2 NWLR Part 443 Page 375;
– OGBA VS STATE (Supra);
– ITU VS STATE (Supra);
– NWOSU VS THE STATE (1986) 4 NWLR Part 35 Page 384.
In this appeal, the Appellant was convicted of murder which is a capital offence. The conviction for murder carries sentence of death without any option. Therefore, care must be taken by the trial Judge in ensuring that the evidence produced by the prosecution unquestionably point to the guilt of the accused person.
In this appeal, the case of the prosecution at the lower Court and before this Court is that it proved the ingredients of the offence of murder against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt through the credible evidence of the prosecution witnesses, statement of the Appellant and circumstantial evidence.
There is evidence on record which the trial Court believed that the deceased Jonathan Akpome is dead. PW6, a police officer attached to Orerokpe police station testified that on the 17th day of May, 2011, the body of the deceased was brought to Orerokpe General Hospital where PW7 performed a post mortem examination on the body of the deceased.
The learned trial Judge’s findings reads thus:-
‘I find as a fact, that the body which the PW6 took to PW7 and upon which autopsy was carried out was that of Jonathan Akpome who was described in Exhibit ‘H’ as Okolo Akpome, alias one mama, one bele. I therefore hold that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that it was in respect of the body of Jonathan Akpome that PW6 filed a coroner’s form which said form was served on PW7 upon which an autopsy was carried out and Exhibit ‘J’ issued.’
On the issue whether it was the act of the Appellant that led to the death of the deceased, there is evidence before the trial Court by PW1 at page 191 lines 7 – 13 which states as follows:
“The boys then attacked Jonathan. The boys who attacked Jonathan are Festus Egitie, the 3rd accused, John Idama who is also known as John Egewueferiwa who begat Idama, John Idama is the 1st accused person, Josiah Omunobure who is also known as Onoriode Omayeraya, the 2nd accused person, Michael Ediri Eriri, the 7th accused person, Again Emmanuel Idamukirho who is also known as Anderson Itamukirhi. Apart from these persons there are other persons who also took part. ..”
The ‘PW2’, in his testimony on page 195 line 29 of the record of appeal, also mentioned the name of the Appellant as one of those who attacked the deceased, Jonathan Akpome.
The Appellant, who was the 6th accused at the trial Court did not give any defence. But, in Exhibits ?P? and ?Q?, which is the extra-judicial statement to the police, he identified himself at the scene of crime where the deceased was killed.
At page 71 of the record of appeal lines 28 – 29, the Appellant stated thus:-
Though I took part during the crises but I don?t know who actually killed him.
The Appellant, in his statement to police identified himself at the scene of the crime where the deceased was killed. This is a case where common intention on the part of the Appellant and his cohort to kill the deceased, Jonathan Akpome can be inferred.
See Sections 7 and 8 of the Criminal Code Law Cap C21, Volume 1 Laws of Delta State of Nigeria, 2006.
See the following cases:-
– OYAKHIRE VS STATE (2006) 15 NWLR Part 1001 Page 157;
– ALARAPE VS STATE (2001) 5 NWLR Part 705 Page 79.
As I said earlier in this Judgment, the Appellant who was the 6th accused at the trial Court, unlike the other accused persons, did not enter a defence at the trial. He rested his case on that of the prosecution.
The learned trial Judge in his findings held thus:-
In respect of the 6th accused person, Anderson Emmanuel, although no identification parade was conducted by the police to enable the prosecution witness identify whether the 6th accused person was one of those whom they stated they could identify, the 6th accused person by Exhibit ‘R’ placed himself at the scene of crime. In Exhibit ‘R’, the 6th accused person stated that there was crisis in Okwidiemor and he took part in the crises. The 6th accused person in Exhibit ‘R’ admitted that Jonathan Akpome died during the said crisis?
Again, in Exhibit ‘Q’ the 6th accused described what led to the event of 17th May, 2011. He further stated that Jonathan Akpome died in the crisis. In Exhibit ‘Q’, the 6th accused person stated thus:-
‘… That I took part in filling (sic) and I do not know who killed Jonathan Akpome. That he died during the crisis between his gang and the youth of Okwidiemor Community.’
The conviction of the Appellant was based upon the facts in the record of appeal.
It is settled law that the evaluation of evidence and ascription of probative value to such evidence are the primary function of a trial Court which saw, heard and assessed the witness while they testified before it. The Appellate Court will not interfere with such findings of fact as long as it is not perverse.
In my humble view, the Appellant in this case, fixed himself at the scene of crime by his statements referred to earlier in this Judgment. He did not offer a defence, he rested his case on the prosecution’s case.
As far as the case of the Appellant is concerned, I am of the view that there is no serious contradiction. In AGBO VS STATE (2006) NWLR Part 977 Page 545, the Supreme Court held among others thus:-
‘The law is settled that it is not every trifling inconsistency in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that could be fatal to its case. It is only when such inconsistencies or contradictions are substantial and fundamental to the main issue in question before the Court and thus create doubt in the mind of the trial Judge that an accused is entitled to benefit therefrom. See Okonji Vs the State (1987) 1 NWLR Part 52 Page 659; The State Vs Aibangbee (1988) 3 NWLR Part 84 Page 548; Wankey Vs The State (1993) 5 NWLR Part 295 Page 542; Azu Vs The State (1993) 6 NWLR Part 299 Page 303 and Theophilus Vs The State (1996) 1 NWLR Part 423 Page 139.
See also the following cases of:-
– OGBU VS THE STATE(2007) 2 SCNJ Page 334 – 335;
– AKPA VS THE STATE (2010) Volume 8 L.R.C.N.C.C. Page 70.
The Learned Counsel for the Appellant also complained that identification parade was not conducted, but it is settled law that it is not in every case that an identification parade must be conducted to determine the identity of the persons who commit a crime. It would not be necessary to conduct an identification parade where there is circumstantial evidence showing the involvement of an accused person in the commission of the offence.
See the following cases:-
– BALOGUN VS OGUN STATE (2002) FWLR Part 100 Page 1287 at 1300 Paragraphs D ? F;
– IKEMSON VS THE STATE (1989) 3 NWLR Part 110 Page 455;
– EBENEH VS THE STATE (2008) 10 NWLR Part 1096 Page 596 at 607 Paragraphs G ? H.
Consequent upon the foregoing, this lone issue is hereby resolved in favour of the Respondent and against the Appellant.
In the result, I am of the view that this appeal lacks merit and it is hereby dismissed.
The Judgment of the trial Court in Charge No: – HOR/3C/2012 ? Between ? THE STATE VS (1) JOHN JAFUWA (2) JOSIAH OMAYERUE (3) FESTUS EGITIE (4) DAVID IRIRI (5) ALEX AKPALLALA (6) ANDERSON EMMANUEL i.e. (Appellant) (7) EDIRI IRIRI (8) CHIEF KINGS IRIRI, delivered on 18/12/2013, as far as ANDERSON EMMANUEL (Appellant) is concerned, is hereby affirmed.
Appeal dismissed.
PHILOMENA MBUA EKPE, J.C.A.: I had the privilege of reading the draft judgment delivered by my learned brother J.O. BADA, JCA. I align myself with the reasoning and conclusions reached by my Lord in the resolution of the lone issue raised by both counsel in this appeal. In my view I also find no scintilla of merit in this appeal and as a result it fails and lacks merit. It is hereby dismissed.
Consequently therefore, the judgment of the trial Court in Charge No. HOR/3C/2012 – Between: THE STATE VS. (1) JOHN JAFUWA (2) JOSIAH OMAYERVE (3) FESTUS EGITE (4) DAVID IRIRI (5) ALEX AKPALLALA (I.e. Appellant) (6) ANDERSON EMMANUEL (7) EDIRI IRIRI (8) CHIEF KINGS IRIRI, delivered on the 18th day of December, 2013 is hereby affirmed as far as ANDERSON EMMANUEL (the Appellant) is concerned.
I too, dismiss the appeal.
MUDASHIRU NASIRU ONIYANGI, J.C.A.: My learned brother, JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA, JCA. Obliged me a preview of the lead judgment just delivered. I entirely agree with his Lordship that the appeal is bereft of merit and that same be dismissed.
I also dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgment of the Delta State High Court delivered on 18th day of December 2013 in charge No: HOR/3C/2012.
Appearances:
Chief T.J. Okpoko SAN with him, I.O. Osobe, Esq. and N.E. Dozie, Esq.For Appellant(s)
Mr. Peter Mrakpor (Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Delta State) with him, O.F. Enenmo, Esq. (Director, Department of Appeals, Ministry of Justice, Delta State) and C.O. Agbagwu (Assistant Director, Department of Appeals, Ministry of Justice, Delta State)For Respondent(s)
