Ayodele Ikumonihan V. The State (2018)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

AMINA ADAMU AUGIE, J.S.C.

The Appellant and two others were convicted by the High Court of Ondo State and sentenced to death for the murder of Maria Joseph Erhiyore” (deceased). Her body was found in a pit latrine behind the house of one Francis Omosaye, three days after she left Okitipupa for Ode-Erinje on 2/6/1995, to buy palm oil.

Following his arrest, the said Francis Omosaye roped in the Appellant and the others, and they were subsequently arrested and arraigned with him. But the said Francis Omosaye, who was arraigned as the second Accused, pleaded guilty to the Charge, and was convicted and sentenced accordingly.

The Appellant, who was the first Accused, pleaded not guilty. At the trial, Prosecution called four Witnesses, including Inspector Omojeje John as PW3, through whom the Prosecution sought to tender the Appellant’s Statement to the Police in evidence but he objected thereto on the ground of involuntariness.

The trial Court then conducted a trial-within-trial wherein the said PW3 testified as PW1, and the Superior Police Officer, who endorsed the Statement, testified as PW2. The Appellant also stated his case at the said trial-within-trial.

1

The trial Court believed the two Police Officers, and held as follows in its Ruling:

The 1st Accused Person is not telling the truth. I hold that he wrote his names as his signature in his own very good handwritings in about seven places in the Statement and the Form – – l also hold that the statements are admissible in law as they are made voluntarily. The Statement and the Form of confessional statement are admitted in evidence and marked Exhibit C1 – C2.

In Exhibit C1, which forms part of the case for the Prosecution, the Appellant confessed that he lured the deceased to the said Francis Omosaye’s house on the pre that he had some palm oil for sale. He sent Francis to call the others, and when they came, he and two others took turns in raping her until she died.

But in his defence as DW1, the Appellant retracted the said confession, and denied the allegation that he participated in the murder of the deceased. He put up an alibi that he was at the farm with his brother at the material time. In its Judgment delivered on 29/9/2006, the trial Court rejected his defence and found Appellant guilty as charged, and convicted and sentenced him to death.

2

The Court of Appeal, to which he appealed, upheld the findings of the trial Court and dismissed his Appeal. He further appealed to this Court with a Notice of Appeal containing Eight Grounds of Appeal. But he notified this Court that he is abandoning Ground 8 of the Grounds of Appeal, which complained that the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law when they found that Exhibits F-F5 [photographs and negatives taken of the deceased’s body], were properly admitted in evidence and relied upon by the trial Court, because the said Exhibits F-F5 only relate to proof of the death of the deceased and were not the only evidence relied upon by the trial Court in its finding on same.

The said Ground 8, having been abandoned by Appellant, is struck out. This Appeal will, therefore, be decided on the basis of the Grounds of Appeal in respect of which issues for determination have been distilled, and arguments canvassed in his Brief. The Appellant formulated four issues for Determination:

1. Whether the Court below did not misdirect itself in affirming the decision of the trial Court by finding that the

3