n Compulaw - 1st Indigenous Digital Law Library
Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

Opayemi V. State (1985) CLR 6(k) (SC)

Judgement delivered on June 28th 1985

Brief

  • Witness(es)
  • Duty of prosecution and court in criminal proceedings

Facts

At the trial the prosecution's case was as follows: Sometime in October, 1979 one David Folarin Sofola (P.W.1) who was complainant in this case, decided to perform the final funeral ceremonies in honour of his deceased father. The ceremony came up at Ilishan on 5th November, 1979. As part of the ceremony was being performed by a group of masquerades at the Ilishan market square a commotion broke out between two rival groups. Two persons - Jeje Soniran and Musafau Awayade were allegedly injured by one Olusegun Adekoya, who was seen running away from the scene with a double-edged knife and an iron rod in his hand. The gathering at the market square panicked and dispersed as a result of the commotion. P.W.1 left for his house. On the way he saw Segun Adekoya and Adekunbi whom he said belonged to the group that caused commotion at the market square. P.W.1 said that these two men were members of the proscribed political party - the N.P.N. He arrested one Sule Awolesi near his (P.W.1) house as one of those responsible for causing the commotion and took him to the police station. While on his way back to his house. P.W.1 said the accused chased him with a matchet in his hand. The accused aimed the matchet at his head. P.W.1 raised his left arm to protect his head. The matchet struck the left hand and severed it from the arm at the wrist. The hand fell off on the ground.

The accused who was married to the niece of P.W.1 apologised to P.W.1 saying he was not aware that it was the P.W.1 that he attacked. Meanwhile blood was gushing out from the affected part of the arm. After walking for about 50 feet from the scene of the incident P.W.1 saw Abudu Arogundade (P.W.4) and asked for his help. P.W.4 held the arm to stop it bleeding and then hailed a taxi cab which took P.W.1 to the State General Hospital at Sagamu, where he was admitted.

Dr. Oluremilekun Oke (P.W.6), the consultant who treated P.W.1 at the hospi¬tal, testified that he performed operation on P.W.1 which led to the amputation of the left arm.

In his defence the accused gave evidence to the effect that on the day in ques¬tion at about 6 p.m. he was in his uncle's compound playing cards with one Bashiru. He saw P.W.1 in company of many others enter the compound. P.W.1 poured petrol on the wall of the house and attempted to set the house on fire. The accused held P.W.1 and said to him that he (P.W.1) should not burn the house. A struggle ensued between the accused and P.W.1. The accused was knocked on the ground and P.W.1 was on him when Ademola Idowu who was one of those in the company of P.W.1 attempted to cut the accused's head with a matchet. The accused dodged and the matchet struck the hand of P.W.1 cutting it off. The accused escaped and ran away to Ikenne.

In the course of the prosecution's case the statement (Exhibit D) made by the accused to the police under caution was put in evidence. In part of Exhibit D the appellant stated:

  • "Later Fatai carried a gallon of petrol and poured it to (the) roof of the house, I told him that they could not set my brother's house ablaze. Folarin brought out a cutlass with intent to cut my head off, I started to fight with him until he got to the frontage of the house and we fell down during the scuffle, one Ademola said in Yoruba language "Atoto, ka gbohun ekun" the Oba has ordered that all one nation (that is members of the N.P.N.) in the town should be killed, as a re¬sult of this Ademola cut off the hand of Folarin. I quickly stood up and ran away, I trekked to Ikenne............... I am not the one who cut Folarin (sic) hand it was Ademola who cut it."
  • At the end of the trial, the learned trial judge rejected the accused's defence. He convicted him as charged. The accused appealed from the decision to the Court of Appeal. There were also material discrepancies between the prosecution witnesses' evi¬dence as to the circumstances of the encounter between the defendant and the complainant. These material discrepancies were not resolved by the trial court. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal whereupon the accused appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues

  • 1
    Whether the prosecution is bound to call all known material witnesses...
Read More