Ayinde v. State (2023)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report – SUPREME COURT

MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, JSC (Delivering the leading judgment)

The appellant was convicted for the offence of murder of the Ayuba Karim, punishable under section 319 (1) of the Criminal Code, Cap. 30, Vol. 11, Laws of Oyo State, by the High Court of Oyo State, Ibadan (trial court) and sentenced to death by hanging.

The appellants appeal to the Court of Appeal, Ibadan Division, (court below) was dismissed in the judgment delivered on the 10th of February, 2017, and being dissatisfied with that decision, he brought this appeal vide the notice of appeal filed on the 21st February, 2017 on three (3) grounds.

In the appellants brief filed on the 2nd January, 2018, deemed on 3rd February, 2021 and re-deemed on the 12th January, 2023; the date of the oral hearing of the appeal, two (2) issues are set out on page 5 for determination, thus:-

2.1 issue 1

Whether the lower court was right to have affirmed the findings of the trial court which discountenanced the alibi raised by the appellant and held that the appellant failed to discharge the burden placed on him to prove his alibi, even though the prosecution did not investigate or impeach the alibi timeously raised by the appellant?

2.2 issue 2

Whether the lower court was right when it held that the dying declaration of the deceased and the circumstantial evidence in the case was unequivocal and irresistibly pointed to the appellant as the person that inflicted matchet cuts on the deceased?

For the respondent, an issue each was formulated from the three grounds of appeal in the amended respondents brief filed on the 8th November, 2022, deemed on the 12th January, 2023, for decision by the court in the following terms:-

a. Whether the trial court and indeed the court below rightly held that the statement Kazeem Pele Pami o meaning Kazeem pele has killed me made by the deceased to PW1, PW2 and PW4 was a dying declaration in accordance with section 33(1) a of the Evidence Act Cap E14 Volume 6 LFN 2004 (then applicable) now section 40 (1) of the Evidence Act, 2011. (Arising from grounds 2).

b. Whether the trial court and indeed the court below rightly held that the defence of alibi raised by the appellant would not avail him. (Arising fromground 1).

c. Whether the trial court and indeed the court below rightly held that the respondent proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant. (Arising from ground 3).

The appellant also filed an appellants reply brief on the 20th July, 2018, also deemed on 12th January, 2023, in response to the respondents brief.

For representing the precise complaints by the appellant against the decision of the court below, I would adopt and use the issues submitted in the appellant brief in the determination of the appeal.