CaseLaw
Akinlolu V. The State (2015) CLR 12 (b) (SC)
Judgement delivered on 11th December, 2015
Brief
Facts
At the High Court of Akwa Ibom State, the appellant in this appeal [as first accused person] and two other persons were charged with the murder of Okon Uyeh of Udesi Akai Ati, an offence punishable under section 319 (1) of the Criminal Code, Vol 2, Laws of Cross River State of Nigeria, as applicable in Akwa Ibom State.
The Prosecution's case was woven around the testimonies of two witnesses, namely, PW1, Edward Agabi, the Investigating Police Officer [IPO]; PW2, Bassey John Effiong and two exhibits, viz, exhibits 1 and 2. On their part, each of the accused persons testified at the trial in a spirited attempt to vindicate his innocence. The appellant was the DW1. Persuaded by the testimonies of the Prosecution's said two witnesses, the court (hereinafter referred to as "the trial court," Coram Ikpe J), in a well-articulated judgement delivered on October 27, 2009, found the appellant and the second accused person guilty as charged. It, accordingly, convicted and sentenced them. In passing, it may be noted that, well-ahead of the said judgement, the third accused person had died in Police custody.
Aggrieved by the outcome of his trial, the appellant proceeded to the Court of Appeal, Calabar Division (hereinafter, simply, called "the lower court") where he agitated for the reversal of the trial court's conviction and sentence on him. By a plurality decision [Tur and Uzo-Anyanwu JJCA), the lower court dismissed the appellant's complaint against his conviction and sentence. However, the minority judgement [Coram Garba JCA] allowed his appeal and set aside his conviction and sentence.
Dissatisfied with the Majority decision of the lower court [which constituted the judgement of the said court], the appellant approached this court with an entreaty to resolve the sole issue for determination in this appeal in favour of the affirmation of his innocence by upturning the said Majority judgement of the lower court.
Issues
Whether the Court of Appeal was right in holding that the respondent proved the...