SUPREME COURT & COURT OF APPEAL DECISIONS (13665)
Children categories
Filing of a reply brief even by the Appellant, where desirable, should not be used to either extend the scope of arguments in the Appellants brief or to raise issues that did not arise as new issues or matters in the Respondents brief Although, filing of a reply brief is not mandatory,
It is the general practice since the introduction of brief writing that there may be need for an Appellant to file a reply brief when an issue of law or argument is raised in the Respondent s brief not necessarily being a mere repetition of what the Appellant s brief contained.
Where for the sake of convenience, the court deems it fit to hear a Preliminary Objection to an appeal along with the appeal, the usual practice, always, is to determine the preliminary objection first so as to know what line of action next, the court shall adopt. Onyekwulaje v. Animashaun & Anor. (1996) 3 SCNJ; Godwin v .. The Apostolic Church (1998) 12 SCNJ 213.
SPDC Ltd & 2 ors vs Agbara & 9 ors [2015] 12 M. J. S. C [Po 111] Paras. D-E
The Law is that the Inconsistency Rule does not apply to an Accused person. It does not cover a case where an Accused person's extra judicial statement is contrary to his testimony in court. A court can convict on the retracted confessional statement of an Accused person but the court must evaluate the testimony and confession of the Accused person and all the evidence available to ascertain that the necessary legal criteria are met.
In criminal trials, the standard required is proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is not proof beyond any shadow of doubt. The two requirements are completely dissimilar. That is why the expression "proof beyond reasonable doubt" cannot be employed conterminously with the expression "proof beyond any shadow of doubt. " The law has opted for the expression "proof beyond reasonable doubt, " Dibie v. State (2007) LPELR -941 (SC); Dimlong v. Dimlong [1998} 2 NWLR (Pt. 538) 381, 178; State v. Gwangwan (2015) LPELR-24837 (SC)
Intent can be proved either positively where there is proof of the declared intent of the Accused person or inferentially from the overt act by the accused.
To successfully prove the offence of murder, the Prosecution has the obligation to demonstrate the following:
- the deceased had died;
- the act of the accused caused the death;
For a defence of alibi to be entertained, it must be raised at the earliest opportunity by a suspect at the investigation. Once an alibi has been raised, the burden rest on the prosecution to investigate and rebut such evidence in order to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
By definition, an alibi is a defence whereby an Accused person alleges that at the time of committing the offence for which he was charged, he was elsewhere and doing something different. This is to enable the police investigate same with a view to finding out the truth or falsity of his claim.
Abubakar Sale vs State [2015] 12 M. J. S. C [Po 56] Paras. F-G
By the provisions of Section 167 (d) of the Evidence Act, Cap. 614, 2011, evidence which could be and is not produce is presumed to be unfavorable to the person who witholds it. Ogidiv. State (1998) 4 SCNJ 226 at 253 and Okparaji & Anor. v. Ohanu & Ors. (1999) 6 SCNJ 27 at 42 -48.
Abubakar Sale vs State [2015] 12 M. J. S. C [Po 54] Para. G