Kehinde Olude V. The State (2018)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE, J.S.C.

The appellant herein was arraigned before the High Court of Lagos State for the offence of the murder of the deceased, R. A. Adisa. One Julius Adeniran Adeloye was charged with him. The Charge was subsequently, amended.

In the amended Charge, the appellant alone, was charged for the offence of the murder of the said deceased person, R. A. Adisa. Upon his arraignment on the amended Charge on May 9, 2005, the appellant pleaded not guilty. The respondent’s case was presented by five witnesses, namely, PW1; PW2; PW3; PW4 and PW5. On his part, the appellant, (as accused person], testified in his own defence.

Having heard the evidence of the witnesses for the Prosecution and the accused person [the appellant], the learned trial Jugde, Oyewole, J., (as he then was), convicted the appellant and sentenced him to death by hanging. His appeal against the judgment of the trial Court, having been dismissed by the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division, the appellant has approached this Court imploring it to set aside the concurrent findings of the lower Courts.

1

The appellant submitted the following four issues for the determination of this appeal, namely:

1. Whether in the absence of a Respondent’s Notice, the Court of Appeal had the jurisdiction in law to affirm the decision of the learned trial Judge on grounds other than the sole ground relied upon by the learned trial Judge
2. Whether by ignoring and giving no consideration whatsoever to the appellant’s arguments and submissions in his reply brief of argument, the Court of Appeal denied the appellant’s constitutional right to fair hearing
3. Whether from the facts and circumstances of this case, the Court of Appeal was right to hold that the respondent laid the legal foundation for the admission of exhibit P4 pursuant to Section 50 of the Evidence Act, 2011
4. Whether the Court of Appeal was right to hold that exhibit P4 was properly tendered and admitted in evidence

On the other hand, the respondent framed only one issue for the determination of this appeal. The sole issue was couched thus:

Whether considering the state of the evidence on record before the Court of Appeal, the lower Court’s judgment should be affirmed by this honourable

2

Court

Against the background of the principal agitations of the appellant in the Notice and Grounds of Appeal, I take the view that the respondent’s concise, albeit, commodious sole issue, neatly, encapsulates the four issues which the appellant put forward. This appeal would therefore, be determined based on this sole issue, that is-

Whether, considering the state of the evidence on record before the Court of Appeal, the lower Court’s judgment should be affirmed by this honourable Court

SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES

APPELLANT’S CONTENTION