Evarist Eze V. The State (1985)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

C. A. OPUTA, J.S.C. 

The court heard the above appeal on the 10th day of September, 1985. After close and careful study of the record of proceedings and the Briefs filed by counsel on either side; and after listening to oral arguments by counsel, in elaboration of the various issues canvassed in their respect briefs; the court, there and then, dismissed the appeal and reserved its reasons for the dismissal to the 6th day of December, 1985.

Hereunder are my reasons. The original ground filed by the appellant himself from his prison cell reads as follows:-

“That the Court of Appeal has not based its findings on the weight of evidence and law.”

This ground was abandoned by Mr. Mogboh, learned counsel for the appellant and was consequently struck out. Leave of Court was sought and obtained by the appellant’s counsel to file and argue two “Additional Grounds of Appeal.” During the argument however, the second ground was also abandoned by learned counsel for the appellant. That ground was also accordingly struck out. Only one ground was in fact argued.

That ground reads:”

Ground 1

The learned justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law when they held at p. 79 Lines 11-16 as follows:-

“The finding of the key that filled the motor cycle, the property of P.W.1, is sufficient together with other pieces of evidence as to the identity of the appellant as they lead to no other conclusion than the appellant’s participation in the robbery.”

Particulars of Error

(i) The circumstantial evidence was not conclusive enough.

(ii) Possession of Ex. E, i.e. the ignition key was not conclusive.

(iii) The “stolen property” was a motor-cycle not an ignition key that can start a motor-cycle.

(iv) No effort was made by the prosecution to test Ex. E with the appellant’s own motor-cycle RV 9136 PB Honda CD 175.