THE QUEEN V. OLAGUNJU

• Pages: 10-13

10



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1961] N.S.C.C.

This question was not argued before the trial Judge, and it is right to point out

that in the course of his judgment he said "it is not in dispute that the accused con-

trols the Nigerian Shipping Company and in that capacity if he possessed himself

of this money in the terms of the section he is guilty if the other elements of the of-

fence are present". We consider, however, that the capacity in which the appellant



5

received the money is a questionto be answered by inference of law from the facts

proved and that in holding that he received it in a dual capacity we are not going

beyond the functions of a court of appeal and coming to a conclusion of fact to

which the trial Judge refused to come.

The appeal therefore fails on both counts, and it is dismissed.



10

Appeal dismissed.

THE QUEEN V. OLAGUNJU.



15

THE QUEEN

V

SHITTA OLAGUNJU

FEDERAL SUPREME COURT.

BRETT,



F.J.

TAYLOR,



F.J.

BAIRAMIAN,



F.J

23rd January, 1961.

RESPONDENT

APPELLANT

SUIT NO. FSC 288/1960

20

25

Appeal in Criminal Cases -



Appeal against conviction - jury trial - Judge



summing up favourably to accused - Jug's verdict of guilty - Case turning



30

on credibility of witnesses.

Criminal Law - Jug trial - No case to answer - Judge discharging accused

without jug's verdict of not guilty - Criminal Procedure Ordinance, s. 363.

35

ISSUE:

1. Under what circumstances will an appellate court interfere with the conclusion

of fact of a jury?

FACTS:



The appellant and another man were charged jointly in the High Court of Lagos



40

with murder. The other man was discharged at the close of the case for the pros-

ecution as having no case to answer, and the trial proceeded against the appel-

lant alone. The main issue for the jury to resolve was whether the appellant was

satisfactorily identified as the person who stabbed the deceased. In his summing



up, the trial judge pointed out to the jury, in a manner most favourable to the ap-



45

pellant, all the matters which might have raised doubts as to the credibility of the

witnesses, and correctly pointed out to them that it was for them to decide whether

or not they believed the evidence of any witness or not. They deliberated for quite

some time before coming to a verdict of guilty.



On Appeal, no complaint was made about the summing up, but it was argued



50

that the verdict was unreasonable and unwarranted and could not be supported

having regard to the evidence. Learned counsel for the appellant argued further

that no reasonable jury could have convicted the appellant in this case and that the