In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Holden at Abuja
On Friday, the twenty seventh day of March, 2026
Before their Lordships
Helen Moronkeji Ogunwumiju
Adamu Jauro
Moore Aseimo Adumein
Habeeb Adewale Olumuyiwa Abiru
Abubakar Sadiq Umar
Justices, Supreme Court
SC/1411c/2019
Between
Imo Denis Akpan Obot Appellant
And
The State Respondent
(Lead Judge delivered by Honourable Abubakar Sadiq Umar, JSC)
Facts
The Appellant was engaged in an argument with one Aniefon Patrick Umoh (the deceased) in entrance of the deceased’s residence, about whose home is greater. Following the argument, the Appellant returned to his residence, armed himself with a machete and proceeded to the deceased’s residence, the place he attacked the deceased as he emerged from the lavatory, inflicting a deadly damage to his neck. The deceased consequently, died from the damage sustained.
Following the incident, the Appellant was arrested and arraigned earlier than the High Court of Akwa Ibom State, Ikot Ekpene, on a one-count cost of homicide opposite to Section 326(1) of the Criminal Code, Cap. 38, Vol. 11, Laws of Akwa Ibom State, 2000. At the trial, the Appellant pleaded not responsible to the cost. In proof of its case, the prosecution known as 5 witnesses and tendered documentary displays, together with the Appellant’s extra-judicial statements, the deceased’s autopsy report and pictures of the deceased’s corpse. The Appellant testified in his defence, as the only defence witness. In its judgement, the trial court docket held that, the prosecution had proved the cost of homicide past affordable doubt. Consequently, the court docket convicted the Appellant and sentenced him to demise by hanging.
Dissatisfied with the judgement, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, Calabar Division, which affirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court docket. Still dissatisfied, the Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issues for Determination
The Supreme Court thought-about the next three points for willpower of the enchantment:
i. Whether the discovered Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in legislation, after they held that medical proof was irrelevant to ascertain the guilt of the Appellant within the circumstances of this case?
ii. Whether the decrease court docket was mistaken to depend on the proof led by the Respondent’s witnesses?
iii. Whether PW1 was a tainted witness, and his proof ought to not be relied upon.
Arguments
On difficulty one, the Appellant contended that medical proof was vital to ascertain past affordable doubt, that the damage inflicted on the deceased triggered his demise. He submitted additional that the Court of Appeal erred in treating the problem to the competence of PW5 to provide medical proof as a contemporary difficulty requiring depart of court docket, when he had raised the difficulty in his ultimate written tackle earlier than the trial court docket, on the bottom that PW5 was not a pathologist. The Appellant argued that the competence of PW5 to provide medical proof beneath Section 55(1) of the Evidence Act was a considerable query of legislation, which may very well be raised with out depart of court docket.
Responding to the submissions, the Respondent argued that medical proof was not vital to ascertain the trigger of the demise of the deceased, because the testimonies of PW1 and PW2, along with the Appellant’s confessional statements, sufficiently established that the deceased died instantly after being attacked by the Appellant with a machete. The Respondent argued additional that, the problem to the competence of PW5 to provide medical proof should have been raised earlier than the trial court docket. Having failed to take action, the Appellant couldn’t increase the difficulty for the primary time earlier than the Court of Appeal, with out acquiring depart.
In his reply, the Appellant maintained that solely a authorities pathologist was competent, to tender a autopsy report in a felony trial. The Appellant relied on STATE v AJIE (2000) FWLR (PT. 16) 2031 and reiterated that, the competence of PW5 was a considerable query of legislation requiring no additional proof or depart of court docket.
Regarding difficulty two, the Appellant submitted that the requisite intention to commit homicide was not established, because the Appellant neither supposed to kill the deceased nor trigger him grievous bodily hurt. He argued that PW1 was not an eyewitness to the incident, having neither witnessed the assault nor seen the Appellant inflict the deadly damage on the deceased. He posited that merely listening to the deceased’s cry and subsequently seeing the Appellant holding a machete, wasn’t enough to ascertain the Appellant’s culpability; submitting additional that the Appellant acted within the warmth of ardour following the damage inflicted on him by the deceased, with out enough time for his mood to chill, and was subsequently, entitled to the defence of provocation. The Appellant argued that the contradictions within the testimonies of PW1 and PW4 relating to the time of the incident undermined their credibility, and rendered their proof unreliable.
Reacting to the submissions, the Respondent argued that an individual is presumed to mean the pure penalties of his actions, notably having regard to the character of the weapon used, the half of the deceased’s physique struck, and the severity of the damage inflicted. The Respondent submitted that the defence of provocation was unavailable to the Appellant, as enough time had elapsed between the alleged provocative act and the Appellant’s retaliation. Further, that any discrepancy within the witnesses’ accounts relating to the time of the incident was immaterial, and didn’t have an effect on the substance of the prosecution’s case.
On difficulty three, the Appellant argued that PW1, being a blood relative of the deceased, was a tainted witness whose testimony should have been handled with warning. He contended that the trial court docket did not train the requisite warning or search corroborative proof, earlier than counting on the testimony of PW1. He submitted that reliance on the testimony of PW1 by the decrease courts was perverse, and occasioned a miscarriage of justice.
The Respondent posited contra-wise, arguing that the Appellant failed to ascertain any foundation for treating PW1 as a tainted witness, as no proof was adduced to display that PW1 had any private curiosity or ulterior motive in testifying in opposition to the Appellant. It maintained that the mere incontrovertible fact that PW1 was the deceased’s brother didn’t, with out extra, render him a tainted witness.
Court’s Judgement and Rationale
In resolving difficulty one, the Supreme Court reiterated the settled precept of legislation that, in felony proceedings, the prosecution bears the burden of proving past affordable doubt that the deceased died consequently of the act or omission of the Defendant. Although medical report or post-mortem is the usual scientific technique for establishing the hyperlink, such reviews are usually not all the time indispensable. The court docket held that essentially the most distinguished exception to the requirement of medical proof relies on the precept of apparent trigger of demise, such that even a layperson can moderately infer it, with out scientific experience. The precept is commonly utilized, in instances the place the deceased was wholesome earlier than and died after sustaining the damage from a deadly weapon – SANSANI v STATE (2023) 3 NWLR (PT. 1871) 259.
The Supreme Court held that the court docket, in meting out with medical report, can depend on cogent and credible confessional, direct or circumstantial proof, to deduce the trigger of demise. The court docket will even have a look at the character of damage, if the accidents are so extreme for which demise is the logical final result. Further, Pursuant to Section 40(1) of the Evidence Act as amended, a press release made by an individual as to the trigger of their demise is admissible. If a sufferer in peril of demise, identifies their attacker or describes the occasions resulting in their deadly damage, this “dying declaration” can be utilized to show the trigger of demise with out absolutely the necessity of a corroborating medical report, offered the assertion is credible. Therefore, the testimony of PW1 in regards to the dying declaration of the deceased that “Imo Denis has killed me” is cogent and admissible.
Deciding difficulty two, the Supreme Court held that for the defence of accident to avail a Defendant, he should present the next (a) that the act was done by chance; (b) that there was no felony intention or data; and (c) that the act was done within the course of doing a lawful means and with correct care and warning. The defence of accident doesn’t avail an act done unlawfully, wilfully, recklessly as within the on the spot case, whereby the Appellant claimed he supposed to stab the fingers of the deceased.
The Supreme Court held additional held that dying declaration is an exception to rumour proof. Under Section 39 of the Evidence Act as amended, statements made by individuals who can’t be known as as witnesses (together with those that are useless) are admissible beneath particular circumstances. The justification for this exception, is rooted within the solemnity of the event. For a press release to be admitted as a dying declaration beneath the Nigerian Law, sure circumstances have to be met, these embrace: (a) The declarant should have died, earlier than the assertion is obtainable in proof; (b) the assertion should relate to the trigger of the declarant’s demise, or the circumstances resulting in it; (c) the trigger of the declarant’s demise, have to be the topic of the inquiry; (d) the declarant, on the time of making the assertion, should have believed himself to be in peril of approaching demise – IDAHOSA v IDAHOSA (2020) LPELR – 52018 (SC).
The Supreme Court, counting on its earlier determination in IGENTI v STATE (2025) LPELR-80111 (SC) held that, the defence of provocation doesn’t exonerate or exculpate the accused particular person. Instead, it acknowledges that the accused acted beneath a brief loss of self-control triggered by the deceased’s motion. Where the defence succeeds, it has the impact of mitigating the offence to manslaughter. For the defence of provocation to avail an accused particular person, particular conjunctive components have to be confirmed: (a) grave and sudden provocation; (b) warmth of ardour and loss of self-control; (c) absence of cooling time. From the assertion of the Appellant, the defence of provocation can now not avail him, as a result of he didn’t retaliate on the spur of the second; he needed to run to his home to seek out machete, earlier than heading to the deceased’s home. Within that interval, there’s sufficient time for the boiling ardour to have cooled. It follows that the decrease courts had been proper, in holding that the defence of provocation couldn’t avail the Appellant within the circumstances.
With regard to the submission on contradiction of proof, the court docket held that for a contradiction to invalidate the proof of a witness or be deadly to the prosecution’s case, it have to be materials and contact upon the important components of the offence charged. In OLANREWAJU v STATE (2022) LPELR-57788 (SC), it was emphasised {that a} human being just isn’t a supernatural being, and the human college might miss minor particulars as a result of lapse of time and errors in narration. If each trial contradiction or put otherwise, minor discrepancies had been to vitiate a trial, almost all prosecutions would fail. Consequently, the defences of accident and provocation and the discrepancy in time the crime was dedicated raised by the Appellant, are usually not substantial to create an inexpensive doubt within the thoughts of the court docket.
Deciding difficulty three, the Supreme Court held that the legislation doesn’t disqualify a witness, just because they share a familial or organic bond with a sufferer or Defendant. Instead, the main target of the court docket stays on competence, relevance, and credibility of the testimony offered – Section 175(1) of the Evidence Act. Their Lordships held additional that there isn’t a legislation prohibiting a blood relation from testifying for the prosecution, offered the proof is cogent sufficient to rule out the chance of deliberate falsehood or bias. Blood relations of a sufferer are competent witnesses, and their proof doesn’t require corroboration. It can be unjust to categorise them as automated “tainted witnesses”, who’ve their very own functions to serve. Relying on its earlier determination in ILIYASU V STATE (2024) LPELR-62971 (SC), the court docket held that proof of a blood relation is admissible and might be relied upon for conviction, however the court docket have to be “wary and cautious”. Once the court docket warns itself of the connection and is glad that the witness is talking the reality, it could actually safely convict primarily based on that testimony. It just isn’t sufficient that PW1 is a blood relative, the Appellant ought to point out that PW1 is certainly, a tainted witness with information and materials proof, earlier than the proof of PW1 might be discountenanced.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the enchantment for lack of advantage, and affirmed the concurrent judgements of the trial court docket and the Court of Appeal, convicting the Appellant for homicide and sentencing him to demise by hanging.
Appeal Dismissed.
Representation
Chief Paul C. Obi, SAN and Luke Okpalike for the Appellant.
Godwin Udom, Assistant Director (Legal) M.O.J. Akwa-Ibom State for the Respondent.
Reported by Optimum Publishers Limited, Publishers of the Nigerian Monthly Law Reports (NMLR)(An affiliate of Babalakin & Co.)
