OHUKA & ORS. V. THE STATE

• Pages: 371-388

OHUKA & ORS. V. THE STATE



371

5



OHUKA & ORS. V. THE STATE

1.

ANANABA OHUKA

2.

OKACHUKWU ONYEGBULE

10 3. BOY OGBUEHI

4.

CHIKA UWADINEKE

5.

ENYINNAYA UWADINEKE

6.

ONUOHA NWOSU

7.

PETER SABI

15



V

THE STATE

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

ESO,



J.S.C.

20



KARIBI-WHYTE,



J.S.C.

OPUTA,



J.S.C.

AGBAJE,



J.S.C.

CRAIG,



J.S.C.

8th July, 1988

APPELLANTS

RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. SC.31/1986

25

30

35

Criminal Law and Procedure Murder - Trial - No case submission - Wrongful overruling -

Conviction on evidence subsequently obtained - Accused taking part in subsequent

proceedings - Effect.

Evidence -Admissibility - Evidence of co-accused - Extra- judicial statement of co-accused

- Whether evidence against other accused persons - Evidence of accomplice - Courts

Need to warn self - sufficiency of evidence - Mere opportunity to comnzit a

Crinle

-

Witnesses - Contradictory evidence of witnesses, whether safe to rely on - Standard of

proof - Proof beyond reasonable doubt - Mere suspicion - Whether proof beyond

reasonable doubt.

ISSUES:

1.

Whether an extra-judicial statement of an accused person can be evidence

40



against his co-accused for the purposes of a ruling on a "no case submission".

2.

Whether evidence of suspicion can suffice as proof of the commission of an

offence.

3.

Where the evidence against an accused person is that of mere opportunity, can

such evidence be strengthened by other pieces of evidence, regardless of their

45



contradictory nature?

4.

Whether evidence of opportunity, supported by circumstantial evidence is

sufficient to convict an accused of murder.

5.

What is the meaning of a submission of no case to answer?

6.

Whether it is proper to convict an accused person on the incriminating evidence

50



of a co-accused, obtained after a "submission of no case" had been wrongfully

overruled and the accused had taken part in the subsequent proceedings.

7.

Can a conviction be faulted on the ground that the trial court did not warn itself

on the dangers of convicting on the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice?

372



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES



[1988] 2 N.S.C.C.

FACTS:

The appellants were arraigned in the High Court of Imo State (Umuahia Judicial

Division) on a charge of the murder of one Okebugwu Nwosuagwu. The case of the

prosecution was that on or about the 5th day of November 1978, the 6th accused

person (5th appellant) hosted the other accused persons and the deceased to a

party in his house. The party, which was to mark the birth of one of his children,

lasted well into the night. The party however, came at an abrupt end when the elec-

tric generator which the 6th accused had used to illuminate the place went off sud-

denly. It was to be speculated later, because of the event that followed, that the

electric generating machine had been put off in the manner in which it was on pur-

pose. As it happened, the deceased, who left (as did the rest of the invitees) the

place of merriment when the light went off never got home. A few days later, follow-

ing police investigations, parts of the deceased's body were discovered. On the 6th

of November, 1978, the wife of the deceased had, in the company of P.W.7, dis-



covered a pool of blood and blood stained palm fronds near the house of the 6th



1

accused person whereupon the police were invited to investigate the event. This led

to the arrest of the all the accused persons. While in custody, the 1st accused vol-

unteered a statement. confessing to the murder of the deceased and implicating the

rest of the accused persons. He gave directions to the police as to how to recover



the various pieces of the body of the deceased. The information proved accurate.



2

When the truncated legs of the deceased was found, it was wrapped with a piece of

tarpaulin which had been cut off from a larger tarpaulin bag. The other piece was

found in the house of the 6th accused person who identified it as his. The trunk of

the deceased was recovered from the house of the 1st accused, while a blood stained



pair of trousers, and palm fronds were found in the house of the 5th accused. At the



2

trial, counsel for the accused persons made a submission of "no case" on behalf of

the accused persons. The learned trial Judge upheld the "no case" submission on

behalf of the 2nd and 7th accused persons but overruled the submission on behalf

of the rest. Counsel then indicated that the accused person would rest their cases



on the "no case" submission. Nevertheless, he cross-examined the 1st accused who



3.

testified for himself and the other witnesses of the prosecution. The 1st accused in

his defence gave very damnifying evidence incriminating the rest of the accused per-

sons.

Earlier on, P.W. 19, one of the police men who investigated the case said under



cross-examination, that although he did not mention in his report that the 3rd, 4th



3.

and 5th accused persons accompanied the police to the scene where the head and

legs of the deceased were found, they had in fact done so. Another police officer,

P.W.17 also confirmed in his evidence, what P.W19 had said under cross-examin-

ation. All the persons, excluding the 9th accused who was discharged and acquitted,



were convicted as charged. They appealed unsuccessfully to the Court of Appeal.



4

,

On further appeal to the Supreme Court, the issues which arose for determination

\ A/ere:

(1) whether the no case submission of the appellants were rightly overruled,

(2) whether, the appellants having rested their case in the no case submission, they

were properly convicted on evidence subsequently obtained from one of the co-ac-



cused persons in his evidence in- chief, and (3) whether the trial Judge warned him-



4

self sufficiently on the dangers of convicting on the uncorroborated evidence of an

accomplice.

HELD:

1. That it is trite to say that the statement of an accused person to the police is



evidence only against such an accused and not evidence against his co-accused



5

persons. In the instant case therefore, to come to the conclusion that any of the

accused persons had a case to answer, evidence other than the statement of a

co-accused person, implicating such other accused directly, must be examined.

Mere evidence of opportunity to commit the offence without more, will not suffice

to ground a ruling that an accused person has a case to answer.