NWOSU V. THE STATE

• Pages: 1029-1039

NWOSU V. THE STATE



102.9

NWOSU V. THE STATE

5

FELIX NWOSU

V

10 THE STATE

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

ESO,



J.S.C.

ANIAGOLU,



J.S.C.

15



UWAIS,



J.S.C.

COKER,



J.S.C.

KARIBI-WHYTE,



J.S.C.

10th July, 1986

20

Criminal Law - Murder.

APPELLANT

RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. SC 111/1985

Evidence - Statement of accused to the Police - Conflict with evidence on Oath

- Effect - Attitude of Court - Material Contradictions in testimony of prosecution

witness - Failure of trial judge to desolve before convicting.

25

Appeal - Appeal to Supreme Court - Circumstances under which Court of Appeal

should substitute findings of fact for those of trial court.

ISSUES:

30



1. Whether it is proper for a trial judge to convict an accused on the conflicting

testimonies of prosecution witnesses without resolving such contradictions.

2.

Whether a trial Judge can refuse to consider the evidence and statements on

oath made by an accused person merely because they were contradictory.

3.

Whether the act of perjury by an accused person during the criminal

35



proceedings, is enough to warrant his conviction by the trial court.

4.

Under what circumstances should the Court of Appeal substitute its findings of

facts for those of a trial court?

FACTS:

The accused was charged with the murder of one Johnson Francis and was

40



convicted and sentenced to death. His appeal to the Court of Appeal was dis-

missed so he further appealed to the Supreme Court.

At the Supreme Court, it was contended

inter alia

on his behalf that the trial

judge erred in convicting the accused on the contradictory and conflicting evi-

dence of the prosecution witnesses without resolving the contradictory; that the

45



trial judge failed to consider the statements of the accused and his evidence on

oath because (according to the trial judge) they were contradictory; that the Court

of Appeal erred in failing to substitute its own findings of fact for that of the trial

judge.

HELD:

50



1. Where two or more witnesses testify at a criminal proceeding and the testimony

of such witnesses is contradictory and irreconcible it would be illogical to

accept and believe the evidence of such witness. Where such is the case the

trial Judge must reconcile such testimonies before deciding to convict the

accused. Furthermore it is equally wrong for a trial Judge to attempt to