OLADEJO V. THE STATE

• Pages: 1025-1034

OLADEJO V. THE STATE



1025

OLADEJO V. THE STATE

5

SAKA OLADEJO

V

10 THE STATE

APPELLANT

RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. SC 79/1987

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

OBASEKI,



J.S.C.

NNAMANI,



J.S.C.

15



UWAIS,



J.S.C.

KAZEEM,



J.S.C.

KAWU,



J.S.C.

9th July, 1987

20



Evidence - Circumstantial evidence - To ground conviction must be unequivocal,

positive and must point inesistably to accused as person who committed the

offence - Where witness makes statement to police which is inconsistent with

his oral testimony in court - Both statements should be disregarded by cowl

in judgment.

25

ISSUES:

1.

How should a court treat the statement an accused person made to the police

and his oral testimony in court where one is inconsistent with the other?

2.

Upon what considerations can circumstantial evidence ground a conviction.

30

FACTS:

The deceased drove to Kano on the 18th of December, 1980, where he visited

different places including the place of work of the appellant, and was in fact seen

driving his car in the company of the appellant. Thereafter, nothing was heard of

him until a few days later when his headless corpse was removed from a well in

35



the appellant's house. On the 29th of December, 1980 the appellant attempted to

sell the deceased's car to two plain clothes policemen. After his arrest, the appel-

lant made a statement to the Police (Exhibit B) confessing to the killing. At the trial,

the prosecution led evidence to show that the deceased slept in the appellant's

house, in the same room with him, on the fateful day, 18th December 1980. In his

40



evidence in court the appellant said that the deceased died after he had engaged

him in a sudden fight over the latter's attempt to have sexual intercourse with him.

The trial judge disbelieved his evidence in court and relying on Exhibit B sentenced

him to 15 years imprisonment on the 1st charge and death on the 2nd charge. The

appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, but being dissatisfied with the court's

45



judgment he further appealed to the Supreme Court.

HELD:

1.

Where a witness (the accused person in this case) makes a statement which is

inconsistent with his testimony such testimony is to be treated as unreliable while

the statement is not regarded as evidence upon which the court can act. The

50



trial court would be entitled to reject the inconsistent defences and rely on the

evidence adduced by the prosecution. The trial court and the Court of Appeal

were in error in accepting the accused person's statement and then going on

to take portions of his testimony in court.