Osemeke Kingsley V. The State (2002)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

PHILOMENA MBUA EKPE, J.C.A. 

This is an appeal against the Judgment of Honourable Justice I.E. Okogwu, of the Delta State High Court sitting at Agbor Judicial Division delivered on the 27th day of March, 2014 wherein the Appellant was charged on a four-count information of conspiracy to kidnap, demanding money with menaces, written threat to murder and conspiracy to murder.

The Appellant was found guilty and convicted on count 2 and 3, and sentenced to prison for two years and five years respectively without an option of fine.

FACT OF THE CASE:
The Appellant was charged to Court on four counts of conspiracy to kidnap, demanding money with menaces, written threat to murder and conspiracy to murder and he pleaded not guilty to all the counts. At the trial, the prosecution called three (3) witnesses in proof of its case beyond reasonable doubt and tendered Exhibits A  the statement of the accused, Exhibits B and B1 which are the alleged text messages and Exhibit C  the handset recovered from the accused. At the close of

1

the prosecutions case, the Appellants counsel made a no case submission. The learned trial Judge in his ruling upheld the no case submission in respect of counts 1 and 4 pursuant to Section 286 of the Criminal Procedure Law. However, in counts 2 and 3, the trial Judge overruled the no case submission and called upon the accused to open his defence. The Appellant testified for himself and called no witness. In his defence, he denied the allegation against him.

In arriving at his Judgment, the learned trial Judge relied heavily on the alleged confessional statement of the Appellant in finding him guilty.

Dissatisfied with the said Judgment, the Appellant has hereby filed a Notice of Appeal. The Notice of Appeal is founded on pages 111  113 of the records containing five grounds of appeal.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:
The Appellant has raised two issues for determination as follows:
1. Whether the extra judicial statement of the Appellant to the police which he denied at the trial was rightly admitted in evidence as Exhibit A
2. Whether the prosecution succeeded in proving its case beyond reasonable

2

doubt.

Learned counsel for the Respondent on the other hand also formulated two issues for determination thus:
1. Whether the extra judicial statement of the Appellant to the police which was objected on grounds of duress was rightly admitted in evidence as Exhibit A without conducting a mini trial known as trial within trial.
2. Whether the learned trial Judge was right in holding that the prosecution has proved the charges of demanding money with menaces and written threats to murder in counts 2 and 3 against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

The issues formulated by counsel in both parties are exactly the same. I have however chosen to adopt the issues for determination as couched by the Appellant as they appear to be more elegant and all embrasive.

ISSUE ONE:
WHETHER THE EXTRA JUDICIAL STATEMENT OF THE APPELLANT TO THE POLICE WHICH HE DENIED AT THE TRIAL WAS RIGHTLY ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE AS EXHIBIT A.