Patrick Ekpemegbere v. The State (2023) LLJR-SC

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report – SUPREME COURT

IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA, JSC (Delivering the leading judgment)

The present appeal is against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Ibadan Judicial Division, delivered on December 10, 2014 in appeal No. CA/1/306/2011. By the said judgment, the court below, coram A.A.B. Gumel, O. Daniel-Kalio and N. Okoronkwo, JJCA dismissed the appellant’s appeal and upheld the judgment of the trial High Court of Oyo State, delivered on 18/05/2011, thereby convicting and sentencing the appellant to death for murder, punishable under section 319 of the Criminal Code CAP. 38 volume II, Laws of Oyo State, 2000.

Background facts

On November 15, 2007, the appellant was arraigned before the trial High Court upon a sole count charge of murder, contrary to section 316 and punishable under section 319 of the Criminal Code CAP. 38 Volume II, Laws of Oyo State of Nigeria, 2000:

Count II

That you Patrick Ekpengbere on the 14th March, 2006 at Mantana area of Ibadan in the Ibadan Judicial Division did cause the death of one Evelyn Stephen and thereby committed an offence contrary to section 316 of the Criminal Code Cap. 38, volume II, Laws of Oyo State, 2000 and punishable under section 319 of the same Law.

Both the appellant’s counsel, Mrs. Bukola Anjola – Ayeni, (a Legal Aid officer) and respondent’s counsel, Kayode Babalola, Esq. (a Legal officer) were in court. The prosecution counsel, however, prayed the trial court for leave to amend the charge earlier filed. Accordingly, the trial court ruled:

Court: Order as prayed. Leave is hereby granted to the State to amend the charge in the manner contained in the purported amended charge marked exhibit A in this affidavit in support of the application.

The amended charge in question was promptly read and explained to the appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty.

In the course of the trial, a total of six witnesses testified for the prosecution as PW1, PW2, PW3, PW4, PW5 and PW6, respectively. At the close of the prosecution’s case, the Appellant gave evidence in his own defence, albeit called no any other witness.

On 01/3/2011, consequent upon the close of the case for the defence, the learned counsel to the respective parties addressed the trial court, thereby resulting in delivering the vexed judgment to the conclusive effect:

“From a consideration of it available defences to this charge, I am satisfied that the facts do not disclose any material defence that could avail the accused person.

In the result that I hold that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused person beyond all reasonable doubts. Consequently, I hereby find the accused guilty of the murder of Evelyn Stephen and I convict him accordingly.

Sentence