Segun V. State (2021)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

EJEMBI EKO, J.S.C. 

On 16th May, 2018 the Court of Appeal, Ado-Ekiti Division (the lower Court) delivered judgment in the appeal of the Appellant in which the said lower Court affirmed the conviction of the Appellant, and death sentence imposed on him, for murder. The opinion of the lower Court prepared and delivered by AHMAD O. BELGORE, Presiding Justice, was unanimously concurred by FATIMA OMORO AKINBAMBI and PAUL OBI ELECHI, JJCA. This further appeal is against the said decision.

The uniqueness of the judgment appealed warrants my having to set it out, clearly, in its three active components. Firstly, at pages 204 – 207 of the Record, the Notice of Appeal against the decision of the trial Court containing 4 grounds of appeal, was set out verbatim thus:

It is against the decision of the High Court, that the appellant has appealed to this Court. Pursuant to the leave of this Court granted on the 16th day of October, 2017, on Amended Notice of Appeal contained four Grounds of Appeal was filed on the 26th day of October, 2017. The four grounds of appeal are –

GROUND 1 (ONE) ERROR IN LAW

​The learned trial Judge erred in law when he relied on the evidence of Prosecution witnesses who are not eye witnesses to the commission of crime in convicting the Appellant of the offence of Murder.

PARTICULARS OF ERROR

1. The only eye witness was PW3 whose evidence was not corroborated by any other person.
2. The evidence of PW3 before the Court shows that PW3 is a tainted witness having alleged that she was almost killed by the Appellant who in any event did not assault, bear or done any harm to PW3.
3. There was no legally admissible evidence on which the Court could hinge the guilt of the accused person for which reason the Court did not consider the evidence before the Court but decided the guilt of the accused person hearsay evidence.

GROUND 2 (TWO)

The learned trial Judge erred in law when he convicted the Appellant of Murder despite the failure of the Prosecution in discharging the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt as the evidence adduced is insufficient to ground or sustain the ingredient of a Murder charge.

PARTICULARS OF ERROR

1. It is evidence that the alleged crime for which the Appellant was convicted was not witnessed by any of the Prosecution witnesses, yet the Court convicted the Appellant on the evidence of PW3 without corroboration.
2. The Court held that failure of the Appellant’s witnesses to volunteer any statement to the Police discharges the Prosecution of Mandatory burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt in a criminal trial.
3. The evidence adduced by the Prosecution against the Appellant which the Court believed and based its decision no conclusion based on law.

GROUND 3 (THREE) ERROR IN LAW

The entire trial as it relates to the Appellant is a nullity, the trial having been conducted against the Appellant’s right to fair hearing.

PARTICULARS OF ERROR

1. The law is that the Court is bound to consider any defence offered by any accused person in a criminal trial, this the Court failed to do in this case.
2. The Court held that failure of the Appellant’s witnesses to volunteer any statement to the Police make their evidence not reliable and therefore liable to rejection in clear breach of law and judicial authorities that an accused person cannot be condemned unheard.

The second phase of the judgment of the lower Court has therein set out and reproduced the respective issues distilled from the 4 grounds of appeal at pages 207 – 208. That is –