CASE TITLE: UMAR v. STATE (2026) LPELR-84662(SC)
JUDGMENT DATE: 10TH JULY, 2026
PRACTICE AREA: EVIDENCE
LEAD JUDGMENT: JOSEPH OLUBUNMI KAYODE OYEWOLE, J.S.C.
SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:
INTRODUCTION:
This appeal borders on the offence of culpable homicide punishable with death.
FACTS:
This is an appeal against the unanimous judgment of the Court of Appeal, Kaduna Judicial Division coram Hon. Justice H.A.O. ABIRU, (JCA as he then was), presiding, Hon. Justice A. O. Adefope-Okojie JCA (wrote the leading judgment) and Hon. Justice Amina A. Wambai (JCA).
The Appellant was arraigned before the High Court of Hadejia in Jigawa State as the 2nd Accused person in a two-count charge of conspiracy, and the substantive charge of culpable homicide punishable with death. They both pleaded not guilty. His co-accused was his father who later died in the course of the trial, upon which the charge was amended to delete the name of the deceased as well as the count of conspiracy.
Two witnesses testified for the prosecution, comprising PW2, a child of 15 who witnessed the assault on the deceased, his father, and saw the Appellant hit him with a stick repeatedly until the deceased became motionless. He then ran to inform his uncle PW1 who reported to the Village Head, and on getting permission, took the deceased from the scene to the hospital and was present when the deceased died about five minutes after getting to the hospital.
The Appellant testified in his own defence from the witness box that he went to the residence of the deceased to warn him to desist from bewitching his father when the deceased attacked him with a stick, which he wrested from him and hit him on the shoulder with. He claimed that he went away and only later heard that the deceased died about a month after the incident.
In its judgment delivered on the 23rd June, 2013, the trial Court found corroboration for the testimony of PW2 that the Appellant physically assaulted the deceased with a stick. It equally found that the necessary legal ingredients for the alleged offence of culpable homicide punishable with death were duly established, upon which it found the Appellant guilty, convicted, and sentenced him accordingly.
The Appellant appealed to the Court of appeal and in a judgment delivered by that Court on the 4th of December, 2015, the grievances of the Appellant were found to be devoid of merit, and his appeal was dismissed. Still aggrieved, the Appellant approached the Supreme Court.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:
The Court considered the following issues:
1. Whether the Court below was right to have affirmed the conviction and sentencing of the Appellant by the trial Court based on the testimonies of PW1 and PW2 only.
2. Whether, having regard to the totality of the evidence adduced at trial, the Court below was right to have affirmed the judgment of the trial Court to the effect that the Respondent has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt in establishing the offence of culpable homicide punishable with death.
DECISION/HELD:
The Court dismissed the appeal.
RATIOS:
- CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE- DEFENCE OF PROVOCATION: Essential elements/ingredients required to estabish the defence of provocation
- EVIDENCE- BURDEN OF PROOF/STANDARD OF PROOF: Presumption of innocence in favour of an accused person; burden and standard of proof in criminal proceedings
- EVIDENCE- PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT: When can it be said that the prosecution has proved his case beyond reasonable doubt
- EVIDENCE- COMPETENCE OF A CHILD: Whether a court can convict based on unsworn evidence of a child
- EVIDENCE- CAUSE OF DEATH: Circumstances where medical evidence would be dispensed with as to the cause of death
- EVIDENCE- CROSS-EXAMINATION: Effect of failure to cross-examine a witness on material point
To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol
