Stephen Ogho-oghene Akpata v. The State (2023)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

SAIDU TANKO HUSSAINI, JCA (Delivering the leading judgment)

The High Court of Bayelsa State holden at Yenegoa on the 22nd March, 2019, per Hon. Justice. I. T. Cocodia, had reason to convict and sentence the appellant to death by hanging for the offence of murder under section 247(1) of the Criminal Code Law of Bayelsa State, 2006.

The facts have it that the deceased, by name Ovinve Faustina Eze was found stone dead in her flat in a well secured compound behind Fido Water, Yenagoa in the early hours of 16th August, 2017 shortly after she had prepared herself to leave for her working place.

Evidence led through the prosecution witnesses pointed towards the appellant, Stephen Ggho-Oghene Akpata as the person last known to be with the deceased on the night of the 15th August, 2017 and in the early hours of the 16th August, 2017, hence the trial court acting on this piece of evidence among other findings of the court found the appellant guilty as charged and sentenced him accordingly notwithstanding the stance the appellant had projected in support of his defence case.

It is against this judgment and order of the High Court of Bayelsa State, the appellant has appealed to this court vide the notice of appeal filed on the 29th September, 2020 with six (6) grounds of appeal. See pages 143 – 148 of the record of appeal.

The appeal was entered on the 27th October, 2020 hence the brief of argument filed for the appellant on the 22nd July 2022 was deemed as properly filed and served on the 23rd May, 2023. Respondent’s brief of argument filed on the 9th February, 2023 was similarly deemed on the 23rd May, 2023.

At the hearing on the 23rd May, 2023, learned counsel on both sides in adopting their respective briefs urged the court to do the needful relative to the reliefs or prayers sought by them.

I have read through the briefs of argument for the appellant and respondent respectively. In the brief of argument for the appellant are the two issues identified by him at paragraph 3.01 at page five (5) to wit:-

(1) Whether the prosecution by clear evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt the mandatory requirement of establishing a murder charge that the death of the deceased was a direct result of an act of the appellant, to the exclusion of all other probable causes? (Distilled from ground 1)

(2) Whether the trial court properly directed itself in dismissing the alibi raised by the accused person when there is nothing placed before the court to debunk same. (Distilled from ground, 1)

For the respondent, the two (2) issues earmarked by them for the determination of court are couched in the following terms;

(1) Whether the learned trial Judge was right to convict the appellant for the offence of murder taking into consideration the totality of evidence adduced by the prosecution in the course of the trial? (Distilled from issue 1 in the appellant’s brief.)

(2) Whether the alibi put up by the appellant was considered by the trial court before it arrived at its decision? (Distilled from issue 2 in the appellant’s brief)

I should observe here and now that issues formulated and earmarked for determination of court by the respondent cannot be derived from issues formulated in the appellant’s brief of argument.