MANU v. STATE (2020)

MANU v. STATE

(2020)LCN/14426(CA)

In The Court Of Appeal

(MAKURDI JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Monday, July 13, 2020

CA/MK/17C/2019

Before Our Lordships:

Adamu Jauro Justice of the Court of Appeal

Onyekachi Aja Otisi Justice of the Court of Appeal

Joseph Eyo Ekanem Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

SGT. VINCENT MANU APPELANT(S)

And

THE STATE RESPONDENT(S)

RATIO

STANDARD OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL TRIALS

The law is long settled that in a criminal trial, the prosecution is duty bound to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. This is the import of Section 36 (5) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) which presumes an accused person innocent until he is proven guilty.
The burden placed on the prosecution is not discharged until the guilt of the accused person is properly established. See IDEMUDIA V. THE STATE (1999) 7 NWLR (Pt. 610) 202 at 215 F-G; ESANGBEDO V. THE STATE (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt. 113) 57. PER JAURO, J.C.A.

INGREDIENTS TO SUSTAIN CONVICTION FOR THE OFFENCE OF CULPABLE HOMICIDE PUNISHABLE WITH DEATH

It has been established in a legion of judicial authorities of this Court and the Supreme Court that to secure a conviction for the offence of culpable homicide punishable with death, the prosecution is duty bound to prove the following ingredients beyond reasonable doubt:
a. That the deceased died
b. That it was the unlawful act or omission of the Appellant which caused the death of the deceased.
c. That the act or omission of the accused which caused the death of the deceased was intentional with knowledge that death or grievous bodily harm was its probable consequence.
See the case of OKEREKE V. THE STATE (2016) LPELR – 40012 (SC). PER JAURO, J.C.A.

MEANS BY WHICH THE PROSECUTION CAN PROVE ITS CASE AGAINST AN ACCUSED PERSON

The law is also to the effect that the prosecution can prove its case against the accused person by all or any of the following means:
a) Evidence of any eye witness of the crime;
b) Confession or admission when voluntarily made by the accused; and
c) Circumstantial evidence which is positive, compelling and points to the conclusion that the accused committed the offence.
See the case of OJO V. STATE (2018) LPELR – 44699 (SC). PER JAURO, J.C.A.

THE DEFENCE OF SELF-DEFENSE

It is trite law that the defence of self-defense can only avail an accused person if he proves that he was a victim of attack which causes him reasonable apprehension of death or grievous harm and even then, the accused is only allowed by law to use such reasonable force to defend himself or repel the attack to defend himself from the danger and he is entitled to it even though such force may cause death or grievous harm. See the case of AGU V. THE STATE (2017) LPELR – 41664 (SC). PER JAURO, J.C.A.

ADAMU JAURO, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This appeal is against the decision of the High Court of Nasarawa State, sitting in Lafia delivered by Honourable Justice J.G. Abundaga in Charge No. NSD/LF124C/2013 on 13th April 2018. In the said judgment, the Appellant was convicted for the offence of Culpable Homicide punishable with death under Section 221 of the Penal Code and upon his conviction; he was sentenced to death by hanging.

BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS
The Appellant is one of the 6 other accused persons who were arraigned before the trial Court for the offences of criminal conspiracy and culpable homicide punishable under Sections 97 and 221 of the Penal Code. The said charge at page 3 of the record of appeal read as follows:
“COUNT 1
That you INSPECTOR DANLADI LENKENG (M), INSPECTOR ODULA ETEKO (M), SGT. VINCENT MANU (M), CPL. SAMSON MAGA (M), CPL. MUSA AUDU (M), CPL. CHRISTOPHER MAIKASUWA (M), on or about the 14th day of January, 2012 at about 0100hrs while on patrol along Albarka Street to Maraba Road, New Nyanya, Karu Local Government Area within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court did conspire among

yourselves to commit an offence, to wit, culpable homicide punishable with death, causing the death of one STEPHEN ANAKWE and thereby committed an offence punishable under S. 97 of the Penal Code, and triable by the High Court.
COUNT 2
That you INSPECTOR DANLADI LENKENG (M), INSPECTOR ODULA ETEKO (M), SGT. VINCENT MANU (M), CPL. SAMSON MAGA (M), CPL. MUSA AUDU (M), CPL. CHRISTOPHER MAIKASUWA (M), on or about the 14th day of January, 2012 at about 0100hrs while on patrol along Albarka Street to Maraba Road, New Nyanya, Karu Local Government Area within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court did commit the offence, to wit, culpable homicide contrary to S. 221 of the Penal Code punishable with death, by shooting to death one STEPHEN ANAKWE after arresting, handcuffing and moving him from point of arrest and thereby committed the offence punishable under S. 221 of the Penal Code, and triable by the High Court.

The Appellant pleaded not guilty to the offences charged and in a bid to discharge the burden of proof imposed on it by law, the Respondent called six witnesses and tendered 20 Exhibits. The case of the Respondent was that on the 13th

January, 2012 while PW1 and PW2 were at a drinking joint with some friends including the deceased, the deceased left telling them that he was coming back to his hotel to sleep. The Respondent stated further that PW2 who left to ease himself after the departure of the deceased, rushed back to inform the others that the deceased was being beaten by the police.

According to the testimony of PW1 and PW2, the policemen took Stephen into their van before leaving the scene and the next day, they were informed about the demise of the deceased. PW4 (IPO) stated that in the course of his investigation, he visited the scene of crime but could not trace any building or vehicle where the AK47 bullet which killed the deceased penetrated in its trajectory. PW4 stated further that at the division, he asked the DCO why he killed a suspected robber one day and buried him the next day and the DCO stated that it was because the robber’s identity was unknown. The Respondent stated that the corpse of the deceased was exhumed and an autopsy conducted and that PW4 took pictures in his capacity as the Zonal Photographer. That the AK47 recovered from the Appellant and the

expended ammunitions were sent to a ballistician for analysis and it was discovered that the AK47 was the one used by the Appellant and his co-accused.

PW5, the medical expert called to testify on behalf of the Respondent to ascertain the actual cause of death gave his opinion to the effect that the bullet wound was made by a high missile, having a top to down trajectory and exited the body of the deceased through the abdomen, having been shot from the right upper back, thus the deceased was either sitting or kneeling when shot. He further testified that there was also a depression around the wrist of the deceased which may be consistent with his being handcuffed and that the left wrist was not accessed due to decomposition of the wrist.

Upon the close of the Respondent’s case at trial, the Appellant testified in his defence wherein he testified that while on routine patrol duty, they encountered the deceased who was drunk to stupor and he was stopped and ordered to come out of his car. The Appellant stated that the deceased stepped out of his car with a loaded pistol attempting to shoot them. That in an attempt to defend himself and his

colleagues, he was left with no option than to shoot at the deceased in order to mitigate a likely death of himself, more than 3 policemen and even some members of the public.

At the close of trial and final addresses by counsel to the respective parties, the trial Court in a considered judgment delivered on the 13th April, 2018 discharged the Appellant for the offence of criminal conspiracy punishable under Section 97 of the Penal Code but convicted the Appellant for the offence of Culpable Homicide punishable with death under Section 221 of the Penal Code. The other accused persons were exonerated of the two offences charged and were consequently discharged and acquitted.

The Appellant on the other hand, dissatisfied with the decision of the trial Court and in exercising his right of appeal invoked the appellate jurisdiction of this Court vide a Notice of Appeal dated 4th July, 2018 and filed on 6th July, 2018. The said Notice of Appeal containing five grounds of appeal can be found at pages 367 – 373 of the record of appeal.

In line with the Rules of this Court, parties filed and exchanged their respective briefs of argument. The

Appellant’s brief is undated but filed on 24th February, 2020. The said Brief was settled by FRANK IKPE ESQ., who at page 2 of the Appellant’s brief distilled three issues for the determination of the appeal to wit:
“1. Whether the Learned Trial Judge was right in convicting the Appellant in the face of the irreconcilable material contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Issue 1 is distilled from ground 1 of the grounds of appeal.
2. Whether the Learned Trial Judge was right not to have sustained the defence of self-defense raised by the Appellant in arriving at its decision. This issue is distilled from grounds 2 & 3 of the grounds of appeal.
3. Whether the Learned Trial Judge was right to have accorded relevance to the submission of the prosecution in his final written address over and above the medical report tendered by the prosecution. This issue is distilled from ground 4 of the grounds of appeal.”

The Respondent’s brief on the other hand is dated 3rd June, 2020 and filed on 4th June, 2020. The said Brief was settled by ASSOC. PROF. ABDULKARIM A. KANA, Honourable Attorney

General, Nasarrawa State. Learned Senior Counsel at paragraph 3.0 of the Respondent merely adopted the issues formulated by the Appellant for the determination of the instant appeal.

The appeal was heard on 11th June, 2020 wherein counsel adopted their respective briefs and made oral adumbrations in respect of their contentions in the appeal.

ARGUMENTS AND SUBMISSIONS OF COUNSEL
On issue No. 1 distilled by the Appellant, counsel argued that the law is trite that where there are material contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution, the Court is duty bound to resolve the contradictions in favour of the accused person. He referred this Court to the case of ADOBA V. STATE (2018) LPELR – 44065 (SC). Counsel submitted that there are material contradictions in the case of the Respondent regarding the date and time of the commission of the offence. He submitted further that while the charge sheet states that the incident occurred in the 14/1/12 at about 0100hrs the case of the prosecution and its evidence before the Court state that the offence was committee on the 13/1/2012 at about 10 p.m. It is also the submission of counsel that the

charge sheet and the proof of evidence of the Respondent at the trial Court were materially at variance. That contrary to the charge sheet, both PW1 and PW2 in their testimonies, maintained that the incident occurred at 2200hrs (10pm) on 13/1/12.

Flowing from the above, he submitted that the failure of the trial judge to resolve the material contradictions in favour of the Appellant occasioned a miscarriage of justice.

In response to the above issue, learned counsel to the Respondent submitted that even though the highlighted contradictions exist on the record, they are not material to the extent that they affect the substance of the issue to be decided regarding culpability or otherwise of the Appellant. Counsel argued that it is not every contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution that would lead to the rejection of such evidence. He referred this Court to the case ofJIMMY V. STATE (2013) LPELR – 20333 (SC). Counsel submitted that discrepancy in dates or time does not affect the proven facts that the death of the deceased occurred and was caused by the intentional act of the Appellant. He referred this Court to the case of

UDOR V. STATE (2011) 11 NWLR (PT. 1259) 472 at 478 – 479.

On issue No. 2 and No. 3, counsel to the Appellant submitted that the material facts establishing a defence of self-defense is the presence of real danger causing reasonable apprehension of fear or grievous bodily harm at the hand of another. He argued that the law is trite that every person is allowed to use and or apply all reasonable, necessary force availing him/her against an unprovoked assailant for the protection of self or any other member of the public whose life is in danger or under threat.

He submitted that it is without dispute that testimonies of all Defence witnesses at the trial Court points to the fact that the deceased was armed with a pistol which he removed from a leather bag and pointed same at one Corporal Samson Maga, the 3rd Accused person. He submitted further that the Appellant was left with a choice of either responding spontaneously without afterthought against an unprovoked assailant or lose his life and or that of his colleagues. He referred this Court to the case of YEKINI AFOSI V. THE STATE (2013) 13 NWLR pt. 1371 pg. 329 @ 336. He submitted that a consideration

of what transpired between the Appellant and the deceased would show that the Appellant acted within the ambit of the law and reasonably too in protection of his life, that of his colleagues and the general public by opting for the option he took.

On issue No.3, counsel to the Appellant argued that the address of counsel cannot take the place of evidence no matter how elegant it may be. He cited the case of SHUAIBU V. MUAZU (2014) 8 NWLR (Part 1409) 207 at 243 CA. He submitted that the learned trial Judge took the submission of the Respondent counsel in his address as a substitute for the Medical Report admitted in evidence. He submitted further that the Medical Report admitted in evidence is written in English and clearly suggests that the deceased died of chest and abdominal injuries from gunshots. It is his contention that there is nothing in the Medical Report before the learned trial judge to show evidence of kneeling down, lying down or being shot from the back as argued by the Respondent counsel and agreed to by the learned trial Judge.

He submitted that the silence of the Defence counsel on the medical report is not a legal reason for the

learned trial Judge to misconstrue the document before it. He argued that in the construction of documents, ordinary and plain grammatical meanings are to be given to the words. He cited the case of C. G. C. (NIG.) LTD. V. AYOVUARE (2016) NWLR (Part 1504) 1 at 8.

Counsel to the Appellant therefore urged the Court to allow the appeal and to discharge and acquit the Appellant accordingly.

In response to the submissions of the Appellant above, counsel to the Respondent submitted that from the facts adduced at trial, the ingredients to prove Culpable Homicide were never in doubt. He submitted further that the trial Court undertook a critical analysis of and weighed the evidence adduced by the Appellant in form of his claim of self defence and that the trial Court rejected the evidence of the defence witnesses as incredible and riddles with holes.

Counsel submitted that as opposed to the submission of counsel to the Appellant that the trial Court relied on the final address of the Respondent, the trial Court only affirmed the arguments made therein. Counsel submitted that the Respondent relied on oral evidence particularly that of PW1, PW2 and PW4

to show that the deceased was not killed on the spot as alleged by the Appellant and further led medical evidence to show that the death did not occur in the manner presented by the Appellant in his defence.

It is the submission of Counsel that the medical report tendered and admitted in Evidence by PW5 indicated that contrary to the evidence of the Appellant that the deceased was shot on the chest, the medical evidence showed that he was shot from the back at a downward trajectory which suggested he was either sitting or kneeling. He submitted further that failure of the Appellant to call another expert to contradict the opinion of PW5 on the cause of death was fatal to its case. He cited the case of NNADI V. STATE (2016) LPELR – 40924 (CA).

Counsel to the Respondent therefore urged the Court to resolve all the issues raised in the appeal in favour of the Respondent and to dismiss the appeal for lacking in merit.

RESOLUTION
I have perused the record of appeal compiled and duly transmitted in this case; the brief of arguments filed by both parties as well as the issues distilled for determination across the divide. I have also reviewed the

evidence adduced at the trial which was relied upon by the trial Judge in reaching the decision that is being challenged now.

Thus; having considered the issues so formulated by the Appellant which were adopted by the Respondent, I am of the opinion that the understated issue would suffice in the determination of this appeal.
“Whether from the totality of the evidence adduced by the Respondent at trial and the defence put up by the Appellant, the guilt of the Appellant was proved beyond reasonable doubt to justify his conviction by the trial Court?”

The Appellant and 6 others were charged on a

two count charge of conspiracy to commit culpable homicide punishable with death and culpable homicide punishable with death contrary to Sections 97 and 221 of the Penal Code. The Appellant pleaded not guilty to the offences charged. The trial Court in its judgment discharged and acquitted the Appellant on the first count of conspiracy to commit the offence of culpable homicide but found him guilty of the second count of culpable homicide punishable with death.

In a bid to prove the guilt of the Appellant, the Respondent called five witnesses and tendered 20 exhibits. Having carefully examined the evidence led at trial, the fact that the deceased died and that the act of the Appellant caused his death seems to have been duly established by the Respondent. The substance of the Appeal was rightly captured at paragraph 4.2.3 of the Respondent’s brief of argument when counsel stated as follows:
“The divergence however, was that while the Appellant testified that the act was exercised in the right to self defence and the defence of his co-accused, the Prosecution adduced evidence to show that the act was not done in lawful execution of duty or in self defence but was an unlawful killing.”

In similar vein, the Appellant’s counsel at paragraph 3.16 of the Appellant’s brief of argument also submitted as follows:
“My Lords, it would have been an issue if the Appellant disputed committing the offence but in this instance, the Accused/Appellant admitted committing same with convincing and cogent reasons, which is self defence and of which every reasonable person would have reached same way the Appellant did.”

In due consideration of the excerpts of the brief of respective counsel, I find it unnecessary to belabor myself in the review of the evidence led on whether the deceased died and whether it was the act of the Appellant that caused his death. What is to be considered is whether the act of Appellant which caused the death of the deceased was done in the lawful execution of duty or in self defence or whether the killing of the deceased by the Appellant was unlawful.

The Appellant volunteered a confessional statement which was tendered and admitted as Exhibit ‘Q’. The Appellant did not resile from his confessional statement in view of defence of self defence. The question at

this stage is whether the trial Court was right to have discountenanced the Appellant’s defence of self defence and to have convicted him for the offence of culpable homicide punishable under Section 221 of the Penal Code. In the Appellant’s extra-judicial statement at pages 14 – 15 of the record of appeal, he stated as follows:
“It all happened that on the 14th day of January, 2012 at about 0215hrs, I was on patrol in a Hilux Toyota Vehicle. I was on the patrol with Inspector Danladi Lengila, Inspector Odula Eteko, Sgt. Vincent Manu, Cpl. Samson Maga. Cpl. Christopher Maukasua and Cpl. Musa Audu. And while we were patrolling along Abuja Keffi road, on reaching Albarka Suits, we sighted a vehicle, Toyota Corolla red in colour driving and coming toward us slowly. We now stopped the vehicle, Toyota Corolla to find out who is and where he was going to. Immediately we stopped him, the others took post while myself and Cpl. Samson Maga advanced to the packed vehicle. When we got closely to the vehicle, Cpl. Samson Maga asked the occupant to come out of the car. The Inspector Danladi Lengila also responded by saying “come

out”. So one young man came out of the car, I thought he was going to identify himself, he stepped out and brought out a pistol from a white small leather and pointed at (the) (sic) Cpl. Samson Maga. As soon as I saw the young man removed a pistol and pointed at the Cpl. While I was at the other end, I quickly shot him at the chest to save my colleague. We then recovered the pistol from with one life ammunition. He died at the spot. We then removed the dead body to the station and informed the DPO Mr. Ibrahim Adamu CSP of the development. The dead body was searched at the station and we recovered a wrap of indian hemp, Nokia handset, wrist watch and the sum of eight hundred and eighty naira. The DPO, Mr. Ibrahim Adamu ordered that the dead body to be taken to Federal Medical Center Keffi where post mortem examination was carried out and he ordered that the dead body be buried because the name and address of the deceased were unknown.”

accused is only allowed by law to use such reasonable force to defend himself or repel the attack to defend himself from the danger and he is entitled to it even though such force may cause death or grievous harm. See the case of AGU V. THE STATE (2017) LPELR – 41664 (SC).

In the Appellant’s testimony at pages 296 of the record of appeal, he testified that the deceased died on the spot and that at the scene of the incident, one Okada man and a tea seller assisted them in carrying the corpse of the deceased into their van. Also, the Appellant under cross-examination at page 299 of the record of appeal testified as follows:
“…We were a bit close to the deceased when he pull (sic) out his gun. Shot the deceased on the chest. I cannot know whether from the left side or the right side he was not shot from the back. The deceased came out of the vehicle and pulled out his gun.”

The law is settled that for an accused person to succeed in such a defence that may lead to an acquittal, he must support and substantiate the defence with unassailable credible evidence that is not riddled with holes. See OCHEMAJE V. THE STATE (2008)

LPELR – 2198 (SC).

The testimonies of the Respondent’s witnesses particularly those of PW4 and PW5 are instructive regarding the death of the deceased. PW4 is the investigating Police Officer and in his testimony at page 257 of the record of appeal, he testified that:
“…We continued our investigation, we book and went to the scene of crime at Karu – that is Albarka Suit Street. We went on the company of the nominal complainant Stanley Onokwe and the accused person. At the scene the 1st accused person showed us where the deceased was shot. There we did not see where the bullet penetrated the building either on left or right or even the vehicle. At Karu we asked the DCO why he killed and (sic) armed robbery suspect and the (sic) hurriedly buried him. He told us that the deceased identity was not known with them (sic) we then questioned him since his men recovered a vehicle with Registration No, and a handset were there (sic) not sufficient to enable them to identify the identity of the deceased. We asked the DCO where the deceased was buried, he said it was at Karu burial ground and took us to Karu head Centre. At the Head

Centre were where (sic) directed to Esu Karu Palace where we told him our mission was to exhume the body of buried man. We went to the Esu Karu and our request was granted, we were directed to the burial ground where the body was exhume. We took the corpse to Uke Mortuary and deposited it there. There the autopsy was performed and we were issued the report thereafter.

It is on record that the evidence of PW4 above was not challenged by the Appellant under cross-examination. The law is trite where evidence given by a party to any proceedings was not challenged by the opposite party who had the opportunity to do so, it is always open to the Court seised of the matter to act on such unchallenged evidence before it.

The Respondent at trial tendered the autopsy report which was admitted and marked ‘Exhibit S’. Due to the unavailability of one Doctor B.M. Duyeme, the pathologist who prepared ‘Exhibit S’, PW5 was called in his capacity as an expert to explain the content of the said autopsy report. In his testimony at page 272 of the record of appeal, PW5 testified that:
“The entry wound was in the right upper part and

the exit wound was at the left lower abdomen part. In my opinion the deceased was shot at the right upper part of the body. In my opinion the shut (sic) was from higher elevation at the back of the deceased body and the deceased was either sitting or kneeling at the time he was shut (sic), there was also depression around the right wrist of the deceased which may be consistent with being handcuff. The left wrist was not assessed because it had decomposed.” (Underlining mine)

The Appellant at the trial Court was silent on the evidence led by PW5 regarding the cause of the deceased’s death. The testimonies of PW4 and PW5 neutralizes the evidence of the Appellant that the deceased was shot at the scene of the incident and that the deceased was shot on the chest while he stepped out and brought out a pistol from a white small leather and pointed same at the Appellant’s colleague. I can only wonder why the deceased was hurriedly buried by the Appellant and his colleagues. The testimonies of the Appellant and his colleagues vary and the trial Court was right not to have believed them. The trial Court held at page 358 of the record of appeal as

follows:
“Looking holistically at the statements of the accused persons to the police (inclusive, and particularly that of the 2nd accused person) and their evidence in Court, one cannot but hold that there are material contradictions and discrepancies between them, such that render the 2nd accused person’s defence of self – defence suspect. The following questions beg for answers – was the deceased shot on the chest or on the back, or on the shoulder; was the deceased killed inside his vehicle when he pointed a gun at the 3rd accused person and was shot by the 2nd accused person? Did the 3rd accused person who claimed that a gun was pointed at him by the deceased dive down and shouted?”

I am of the firm view that when the Appellant’s story of self defence if placed aside the evidence adduced by the Respondent, the evidence of the Appellant is riddled with holes to substantiate the defence put up by him. The trial Court was therefore right that the defence of self-defence which was specifically raised and relied on by the Appellant does not avail him in the circumstances of this case.

Learned counsel to the Appellant under issue No. 1 made heavy weather on the inconsistencies in the case of the Respondent at trial. The inconsistencies were in respect of the time and the date of the commission of the offence charged. I find it rather illogical to submit in one limb of the Appellant’s brief that the Appellant admitted committing the offence but that same was committed in defence of himself and in another limb argue that the inconsistencies of the Respondent’s witnesses evidence in respect of the time and date of the commission of the offence is fatal to its case and ought to lead to the Appellant’s acquittal. It is settled that contradiction that will be fatal must be substantial to cast doubt on the guilt of an accused person. See UCHE V. STATE (2015) LPELR-24693 (SC). I am of the view that if there are any inconsistencies as to time and the date of the commission of the offence, such is incapable of subtracting from the cogent evidence led by the Respondent’s witnesses that the Appellant killed the deceased.

On the whole, I hereby resolve the sole issue distilled by this Court against the Appellant and in favour of the Respondent. I

hold that his appeal is bereft of an iota of merit and same is hereby dismissed. The decision of the trial Court delivered by HONOURABLE JUSTICE J.G. ABUNDAGA in Charge No. NSD/LF124C/2013 on the 13th day, of April 2018 wherein the learned trial Judge found the Appellant guilty of the offence of culpable homicide punishable with death under Section 221 of the Penal Code and sentenced him to death by hanging is hereby affirmed.

ONYEKACHI AJA OTISI, J.C.A.: My Learned Brother, Adamu Jauro, JCA, made available to me in advance, a draft copy of the judgment just delivered in which this appeal has been dismissed. I am in agreement with the resolution of the issues arising for determination. I will only make few comments in support.

A piece of evidence is said to contradict another when it affirms the opposite of what that evidence has stated, not when there is just a minor discrepancy in both: Nnadike & Anor v. Nwachukwu (2019) LPELR-48131(SC); Yakubu v. Jauroyel & Ors (2014) LPELR-22732(SC), Odunlami v. The Nigerian Navy (2013) LPELR-20701(SC), Kayili v. Yilbuk & Ors (2015) LPELR-24323(SC). The law allows room for minor discrepancies in the

evidence of witnesses, which may not be fatal to the prosecution’s case; Dibie & Ors v. The State (2007) LPELR-941(SC); Ikpa v. The State (2017) LPELR-42590(SC). Therefore, it is not every minor contradiction that matters; for a trial Judge to disbelieve a witness, the contradiction in his evidence must be on a material point.

For this reason and for the fuller reasons given in the lead Judgment, I also dismiss this appeal and abide by the orders made therein.

JOSEPH EYO EKANEM, J.C.A.: I read in advance the lead Judgment of my learned brother, Adamu Jauro, JCA. I agree with the reasoning and conclusion therein that the appeal lacks merit. I adopt the same in dismissing the appeal and affirming the decision of the trial Court.

Appearances:

T.B. Malyaki, Esq., with him, Z.O. Umar, Esq. For Appellant(s)

Dr. Abdulkarim A. Kana, Hon. Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice, Nasarawa State, with him, Solomon Ayenaje, Director of Legal Drafting and E.U. Aliyu, Esq. Principal State Counsel For Respondent(s)

LawCare Nigeria

admin

YOU MAY HAVE MISSED

UNDERSTANDING CONTRACT LAW FOR BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS IN NIGERIA

Protecting Minority Shareholders in a Nigerian Company

Agency and Distribution Agreements in Nigeria: What You Need to Know

Franchising Your Business in Nigeria: Key Legal Considerations

admin

Related Story

YOU MAY HAVE MISSED