THE QUEEN V. UKPONG

• Pages: 24-26

24



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES [1961] N.S.C.C.

was made of false pretences at the hearing, the finding was altered to false preten-

ces in the judgment of that Court.

The other submission made to us was that the appellant was selling as a prin-

cipal and was entitled to make a profit. This is a submission on the facts which is

no longer open to the appellant in this further appeal, having regard to the view



5

taken by the courts below on the role he played in order to dupe the complainant

and defraud her.

The appeal is dismissed; the conviction of stealing and the sentence of six

months therefor passed by the Magistrate on the 4th July, 1960, are restored, in

lieu of the order made by the High Court on the 24th October, 1960; and the ap-



10

pellant is ordered to serve his sentence.

Appeal dismissed: Magistrate's

judgment restored.

15

THE QUEEN V. UKPONG.

THE QUEEN

V

ASUQUO AKPAN UKPONG

FEDERAL SUPREME COURT.

BRETT,



F.J.

TAYLOR,



F.J.

BAIRAMIAN,



F.J.

26th January, 1961.

RESPONDENT

APPELLANT

SUIT NO. FSC 336/1960

20

25

30

Criminal Law - S!atement of hostile witness put in evidence - Warning on such

statement.

ISSUE:

1. What is the duty of a trial Judge to the jury where a witness is shown to have



35

made a previous statement inconsistent with evidence given by him during the

trial?

FACTS:

The appellant was charged with and convicted of the murder of one Akpan

Uduak at the Ikot Ekpene High Court. During the course of the trial a statement



40

made by the witness of the accused was put in evidence by the prosecution after

leave had been obtained to treat her as a hostile witness.

In the judgment the learned trial Judge made use of this evidence, which was

inconsistent with the witness's evidence at the trial to consider some aspects of the

appellant's defence.



45

The point, though not raised on appeal by learned counsel to the appellant,

was commented on by the Supreme Court.

HELD:

1. When a witness is shown to have made a previous statement inconsistent with

the evidence given by him at the trial, the jury should not merely be directed



50

that his evidence at the trial should be regarded as unreliable, but also that the

previous statements, whether sworn or unsworn, do not constitute evidence

upon which they can act, and, in a non-jury case, the court should direct itself

likewise. The trial Judge's use of the statement was improper.