md←→ previous / next
Before Their Lordships
MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMAD Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
KUDIRAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
AMINA ADAMU AUGIE Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
EJEMBI EKO Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
KUDIRAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
AMINA ADAMU AUGIE Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
EJEMBI EKO Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
Between
MR. SUNDAY IKENNE- Appellant
AND
THE STATE –Respondent
…………………….A…………………….
MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMAD, J.S.C.(Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Enugu Division, hereinafter referred to as the lower Court, dismissing appellant’s appeal against the decision of the Anambra State High Court, hereinafter referred to as the trial Court.
The appellant and three others were arraigned before the trial Court for the murder of one IFEANYICHUKWU UDECHUKWU contrary to Section 274(1) of the Criminal Code Cap 36 Vol. 2 Revised Laws of Anambra State 1991. The four pleaded not guilty and the case proceeded to trial. The prosecution called six witnesses while each of the four accused gave evidence in his own defence. Three other witnesses also testified on behalf of the accused persons. At the end of trial including final addresses of counsel, the Court on the 19th November 2012 delivered its judgment discharging the 1st, 3rd and 4th accused persons but convicting and sentencing the appellant as charged.
This appeal is against the dismissal of appellant’s appeal against the trial Court’s judgment by the lower Court in its decision dated 14th November 2014.
At the hearing of the appeal, having identified the briefs parties earlier filed and exchanged, counsel adopted and relied on same as their arguments for and against the appeal. The unusually repetitive seven issues distilled in the appellants brief as having arisen for the determination of the appeal read:-
“ISSUE ONE ARISING FROM GROUND ONE
Whether the Justices of the Court of Appeal of Nigeria, Enugu Division, were right when they upheld and/or confirmed the conviction of the appellant for murder and the death sentence passed on him by the trial Court?
ISSUE TWO ARISING FROM GROUND TWO
Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal of Nigeria, Enugu Division, were right when they held that the learned trial judge had no obligation to make any findings on the inconsistencies and contradictions in exhibits “C and “D vis-a-vis oral evidence in Court of PW2 because no submissions were made on them by counsel for inter-alia, the appellant in trial Court in his final address?
ISSUE THREE ARISING FROM GROUND THREE
Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal of Nigeria, Enugu Division, were right when they held that it was too late in the day for the appellant’s counsel to ventilate the question of consistency or contradiction in the extrajudicial statement of PW2 tendered as exhibit “D” vis-a-vis his oral evidence and therefore the appellant’s submission on the alleged contradictions are of no moment as they go to no findings of the trial judge?
ISSUE FOUR ARISING FROM GROUND FOUR
Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal of Nigeria, Enugu Division, were right when they failed to declare the findings of the trial judge on his evaluation of the evidence of PW2 and PW3 as being perverse which would have enabled them to intervene and reevaluate their evidence?
ISSUE FIVE ARISING FROM GROUND FIVE
Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal of Nigeria, Enugu Division, were right when they held that the prosecution was not obliged to call Chekwube Aniakor and Chimezie Okafor who PW2 and PW3 claimed were with them and witnessed what happened but who made statements that did not support the evidence PW2 and PW3 gave in Court?
ISSUE SIX ARISING FROM GROUND SIX
Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal of Nigeria, Enugu Division, were right when they agreed with the trial judge that the appellant shot the deceased on 13/12/2008 which he intended to cause him grievous bodily harm and which eventually led to his death?
ISSUE SEVEN ARISING FROM GROUND SEVEN
Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal of Nigeria, Enugu Division, were right when they affirmed the learned trial judge’s disbelief of the appellant’s evidence?”
The three issues the respondent proposes in its brief as calling for determination in the appeal are:-
“Issue No. 1
Whether the Justices of the Court of Appeal of Nigeria Enugu Division were right when they held that the prosecution has through PW2, PW3 and PW5 proved their case against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
Issue No. 2
Whether the Justices of the Court of Appeal of Nigeria, Enugu Division were right when they held that there was no material contradiction in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.
Issue No.3
This appeal is against the dismissal of appellant’s appeal against the trial Court’s judgment by the lower Court in its decision dated 14th November 2014.
At the hearing of the appeal, having identified the briefs parties earlier filed and exchanged, counsel adopted and relied on same as their arguments for and against the appeal. The unusually repetitive seven issues distilled in the appellants brief as having arisen for the determination of the appeal read:-
“ISSUE ONE ARISING FROM GROUND ONE
Whether the Justices of the Court of Appeal of Nigeria, Enugu Division, were right when they upheld and/or confirmed the conviction of the appellant for murder and the death sentence passed on him by the trial Court?
ISSUE TWO ARISING FROM GROUND TWO
Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal of Nigeria, Enugu Division, were right when they held that the learned trial judge had no obligation to make any findings on the inconsistencies and contradictions in exhibits “C and “D vis-a-vis oral evidence in Court of PW2 because no submissions were made on them by counsel for inter-alia, the appellant in trial Court in his final address?
ISSUE THREE ARISING FROM GROUND THREE
Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal of Nigeria, Enugu Division, were right when they held that it was too late in the day for the appellant’s counsel to ventilate the question of consistency or contradiction in the extrajudicial statement of PW2 tendered as exhibit “D” vis-a-vis his oral evidence and therefore the appellant’s submission on the alleged contradictions are of no moment as they go to no findings of the trial judge?
ISSUE FOUR ARISING FROM GROUND FOUR
Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal of Nigeria, Enugu Division, were right when they failed to declare the findings of the trial judge on his evaluation of the evidence of PW2 and PW3 as being perverse which would have enabled them to intervene and reevaluate their evidence?
ISSUE FIVE ARISING FROM GROUND FIVE
Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal of Nigeria, Enugu Division, were right when they held that the prosecution was not obliged to call Chekwube Aniakor and Chimezie Okafor who PW2 and PW3 claimed were with them and witnessed what happened but who made statements that did not support the evidence PW2 and PW3 gave in Court?
ISSUE SIX ARISING FROM GROUND SIX
Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal of Nigeria, Enugu Division, were right when they agreed with the trial judge that the appellant shot the deceased on 13/12/2008 which he intended to cause him grievous bodily harm and which eventually led to his death?
ISSUE SEVEN ARISING FROM GROUND SEVEN
Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal of Nigeria, Enugu Division, were right when they affirmed the learned trial judge’s disbelief of the appellant’s evidence?”
The three issues the respondent proposes in its brief as calling for determination in the appeal are:-
“Issue No. 1
Whether the Justices of the Court of Appeal of Nigeria Enugu Division were right when they held that the prosecution has through PW2, PW3 and PW5 proved their case against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
Issue No. 2
Whether the Justices of the Court of Appeal of Nigeria, Enugu Division were right when they held that there was no material contradiction in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.
Issue No.3
…………………….B…………………….
Continue reading IKENNE v. THE STATE
You have read the opening. Unlock the full library once and it stays unlocked - one payment, no subscription, the same library as the app.
- All 725 Laws of the Federation, A to Z
- 916 full judgments and 269 case collections
- 8,046 legal principles and 124 rules of court
- 343 drafts, with the Draft Builder
- The Law Dictionary - 31,442 terms
- Law School notes and 2,082 MCQs
Every Act, case collection and principle beginning with A, B or C is free to read in full, without unlocking - the same boundary as the Android app.