Sunday Onuoha & Ors. V. The State (1989)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

OPUTA, J.S.C. 

The four appellants and one Nlemuwa Amaefule were arraigned before Chianakwalam, J. charged with the offence of murder contrary to Section 319(1) of the Criminal Code Cap. 30, Laws of Eastern Nigeria 1963 applicable to Imo State. The Particulars of offence alleged:-

Particulars of Offence Sunday Onuoha, Gabriel Egbunugwu, Okekenwa Kalu, Godwin Egbunugwu, Nlemuwa Amaefule on the 21st day of March, 1981, at Umuoparafor Umunoha, murdered Nwadike Ezealor.

The prosecution called a total of four (4) witnesses and closed its case. Each accused person also gave evidence in his own defence and closed his case. At the close of the defence the learned trial Judge then called two witnesses Nwezesi Onu Ezealor and Joel Iheanacho. After a review of the evidence on both sides and of the two witnesses called by the court suo motu, the learned trial Judge found the 5th accused “Not Guilty” and acquitted and discharged him. He however found the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th accused persons guilty of the offence of murder, convicted them accordingly and sentenced them to death.

The four – the present appellants – dissatisfied and aggrieved by the above judgment of Chianakwalam, J. appealed against same, to the Court of Appeal Enugu Division. In the Court of Appeal the two fundamental issues calling for a decision in this appeal were raised namely:

i. It was argued that at the time of complaint P.W.2 did not mention the name of any particular person even though all the Appellants were very well known to him (p.153 of record)

ii. It was also argued that the evidence of Nwezesi Onu Ezealor and Joel Iheanacho – both witnesses called by the court threw big doubt on the prosecution’s case-

Inspite of these two serious structures the Court of Appeal nonetheless was content with the fact that P.W.2 was believed, in any event, by the trial Judge and that the two witnesses called by the courts were more in support of the defence and that they did not make a case for the prosecution where none had been established.

Ultimately therefore the court below dismissed the appellants’ appeal to it and affirmed both the judgment and sentence of Chianakwalam, J.

The appellants still dissatisfied and aggrieved have now appealed to the Supreme Court of Nigeria, the country’s final Court. A Brief was filed by Chief Akinrinsola for the 1st Appellant while a separate Brief was filed by Mr. Onumajulu for the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Appellants. Chief Akinrinsola’s 4th Issue for Determination was framed as follows:-

(4) Whether on the totality of the evidence before the trial High Court the Respondent discharged the onus of proof beyond reasonable doubt as required by Section 137 of the Evidence Act, Laws of the Federation.

Mr. Onumajulu in his Brief had as his 4th Issue for Determination the question:-

3.4 In the light of the evidence before the trial court, can it be said that the prosecution established with that degree of certainty required in criminal cases the guilt of the Appellants

The two Issues listed above amount to the same thing. Both deal with the Issue of Proof. Now the ways of proving a criminal case are: