Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

Kamila V. State (2018) CLR 1(r) (SC)

Judgement delivered on January 19th 2018

Brief

  • Concurrent finding of fact
  • Burden of proof in Criminal Cases
  • Proof in Criminal cases
  • Trial within Trial
  • Confessional statement – Meaning of
  • Confessional statement – Propriety of conviction based solely on
  • Confessional statement – Effect of retraction of
  • Witness - Whether party bound to call a particular witness
  • Identification parade
  • Hearsay Evidence
  • Section 27 of the Evidence Act
  • Section 28 of the Evidence Act
  • Section 76 of the Evidence Act 2004
  • Section 28 of the Evidence Act 2011 as amended
  • Section 138(1) of the Evidence Act 2011 as amended

Facts

This appeal is against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Lagos division (“The lower Court” for short) delivered on the 16th day of May, 2014 which affirmed the judgment of the Lagos State High Court (Trial Court) delivered on 13th December, 2007.

The appellant herein, who was the 2nd accused person at the trial Court, was charged along with three other co-accused persons before the trial Court on four counts charge of conspiracy to commit armed robbery, murder and receiving stolen goods, contrary to Sections 403A, 402(2) (A),319(1) and 427 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Cap 32,Vo1.2 Laws of Lagos State of 1999 respectively. In proof of its case, the prosecution (now respondent) called three witnesses and tendered eight (8) exhibits i.e. Exhibits A to H, while the 2nd accused/appellant did not call any witness but testified on his behalf.

During the trial, the prosecution sought to tender a confessional statement which it alleged was voluntarily made by the accused/appellant and the appellant herein, objected to the admissibility of the said confessional statement on the ground that it was not made voluntarily by him. In compliance with the law, the trial Court conducted a trial within trial in order to determine the voluntariness of the said confessional statement.

At the end of the mini-trial, the Court held that the statement was made voluntarily and admitted it in evidence and marked it as Exhibit D. The trial thereafter proceeded in earnest and in the end, the trial Court found or held that the prosecution/respondent had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant and the three other co-accused persons committed all the offences as charged and convicted them accordingly.

Piqued by the judgment of the trial Court, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal (the lower or Court below), albeit without success. Miffed by the judgment of the Court below affirming the conviction and sentences passed on him by the trial Court, the appellant further appealed to this Court.

Issues

  • 1.
    Whether the Justices of the Court of Appeal ought to have upheld the...
    Read More