n Compulaw - 1st Indigenous Digital Law Library
Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

Abirifon V. State (2013) CLR 6(a) (SC)

Judgement delivered on June 21st 2013

Brief

  • Conspiracy
  • Murder
  • Section 138(1) of the Evidence Act
  • Proof beyond reasonable doubt
  • Concurrent finding of fact

Facts

The appellant herein, along with others: Sunday Abirifon and Mathew Olomi Abirifon were charged with conspiracy, and murder of one Peter John, an indigene of former Bendel State. He was an annual labourer to Mr. Mathew Oloni Abirifon (father to the appellant). Mr. Mathew Oloni Abirifon owed Peter John (the deceased) an amount of money in the sum of thirty thousand Naira (N30.000.00) being money due to the deceased as his annual dues for the year 2008. It was in a bid to avoid the payment of the money to late Peter John that Mr. Mathew Oloni Abirifon conspired with his children and murdered the deceased.

The charge was brought before the Ekiti State High Court holden at Ado Ekiti (trial court) pursuant to Sections 324 and 319(1) of the Criminal Code Laws of Ondo State as applicable in Ekiti State. Before trial commenced however, Mr. Mathew Oloni Abirifon and Sunday Abirifon died and their names were struck out, subsequently, from the trial court's cause list, now leaving the names of the appellant and one other.

On arraignment, the appellant pleaded not guilty to the two counts charge. The case then proceeded for full trial. Witnesses were called. Exhibits were 'tendered. After the close of evidence and defence, respective learned counsel for the

parties addressed the court. At the end of trial, the learned trial judge found the appellant guilty as charged, convicted him and sentenced him to death.

Dissatisfied, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal sitting in llorin. His appeal was unsuccessful as it was dismissed. The appellant appealed further to this court

The learned trial Judge found that there was evidence (from the plaintiffs) that there were other children and grandchildren of Chief T. K. Dada who were not mentioned in Exhibit A. He therefore found that those other children and grandchildren acquired no interest in the land granted. The learned trial Judge observed that there was no averment in the statement of claim that the Aige family ever granted or allotted the land in dispute delineated on Exhibit A to Chief T.A. Dada.

Issues

"Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt to warrant...

Read More