Ojolade V. State (2022)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, J.S.C.

This is an appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal, Kaduna Division Coram: M.A. Oredola Daniel O. Kalio and James Gambo Abundaga JJCA. Which affirmed the conviction of the appellant by the High Court of Jigawa State by Ahmed M. Abubakar J. on 3/3/17 for the offence of rape contrary to Section 282(1)(e) of the Penal Code. The judgment of the Court of Appeal being appealed against was delivered on the 18th day of April, 2019. Aggrieved by the judgment affirming his conviction, the appellant has appealed to this Court vide a notice of appeal filed on the 9th of May, 2019.

The facts that led to this appeal are as follows:

The appellant was arraigned before the High Court of Jigawa State for the offence of rape contrary to Section 282(1)(e) which is punishable under Section 283 of the Penal Code. Hajara Sanusi; the Prosecutrix while testifying as PW4 stated that the Appellant lured her with monetary gift to a secluded area around his shop while on her way to school and had carnal knowledge of her. The Prosecution in proof of its case called 5 witnesses and tendered 4 exhibits. The appellant on his part testified for himself and called one witness. At the end of trial, the High Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to life imprisonment.

Aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal which after due consideration of the appeal, allowed the appeal in part by affirming the appellant’s conviction but reduced his sentence from life imprisonment to 15 years’ imprisonment.

The Appellant’s brief was filed by O. Ben-Whyte Esq on 25/11/2019. The Respondent’s brief was filed by Dr. Musa Adamu Aliyu on 19/2/2020. In the Appellant’s brief, the following issues were settled as follows:

i. Was the Court of Appeal right in affirming the appellant’s conviction despite the material contradictions in the prosecution’s case? (This issue is distilled from ground 1)

ii. Was the appellant’s conviction based on his confessional statement, proper? Without a jurat or compelling corroborative evidence. (This issue is distilled from grounds 2 and 3)

The Respondent equally settled two issues for determination as follows:

1. Whether from the available record the Learned Justices of the lower Court were right to have affirmed the trial Court’s conviction of the appellant for the offence of Rape.
2. Whether the confessional statement of the appellant tendered before the trial Court needs a jurat for it to be admissible.

The grounds of appeal herein in the notice filed on 9/5/2019 and the particulars are set out as stated on Pg. 219-222 of the record.

​GROUND ONE

The learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law when it affirmed the conviction of the appellant despite the material contradictions that were evident in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses.

PARTICULARS OF ERROR

1. There were material contradictions in the evidence of PW2 and PW3 who were the star prosecution witnesses.
2. The contradiction in the prosecution’s case rendered the evidence unreliable and unworthy of sustaining the conviction of the appellant.
3. The Court of appeal in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, exceeded its adjudicatory role by attempting to justify the material conflict in the prosecution’s case rather than resolving same in favor of the appellant who was the accused
4. There was material conflict between the 4 Exhibits relied upon by the prosecution i.e. Exhibits R1, R2, R3 and R4 and the testimony of the prosecution witnesses.
5. There was recurring and unexplained contradiction in the prosecution’s evidence as to the exact date when the offence was committed which is sufficient to cast a doubt on the guilt of the accused/appellant

GROUND TWO