Jimoh Ishola (Alias Ejigbadero) v. The State (1978).

Jimoh Ishola (Alias Ejigbadero) v. The State (1978).

(1978) 9-10 S.C. 81.

Name of the Court: Supreme Court of Nigeria.

Names of Judges:

• Sir Darnley Alexander             Chief Justice of Nigeria
• Atanda Fatayi-Williams           Justice, Supreme Court
• Ayo Gabriel Irekefe                 Justice Supreme Court
• Mohammed Bello                   Justice Supreme Court
• Chukwuweike Idigbe               Justice Supreme Court

Bench Type: Supreme Court Bench (Panel of Five Justices).

Judgement was delivered on: Thursday 26th October, 1978.

Parties Involved:

Jimoh Ishola – Appellant.

A wealthy and influential man in Lagos. He was accused of unlawfully acquiring land in Alimosho village and destroying the villagers’ crops. He was later charged with the murder of Raji Oba and appealed his conviction at the Supreme Court.

The State – Respondent.

The State serves as the prosecuting authority in criminal matters. In this case, it represents public interest and seeks justice for the victim, Raji Oba.

Legal Representation:

• For the Appellant: Chief Sobo Sowemimo (with him R.I. Clarke and G.O. Alatishe).
• For the Respondent: S.O. Ilori, Esq., Director of Public Prosecution, Lagos State  (with him 3. 0. Olowu, State Counsel and Miss C. Uweja, State Counsel, Lagos).

Facts Of The Case:

The Appellant, Jimoh Ishola (Alias Ejigbadero), claimed ownership of a vast area of land in Alimosho Village around 1970. In 1975, he proceeded to clear the land. The villagers, including the deceased, Raji Oba, argued that the land was theirs and that the Appellant was a trespasser who had cleared their crops without their consent. This land dispute led to several unpleasant incidents between both sides. Although reports were made to the police, the investigation was noticeably slow.

The Appellant escalated the conflict by bringing thugs, whom he claimed were workmen, to Alimosho village. They threatened and beat the villagers violently. The Appellant paid special attention to the deceased, who, according to prosecution witnesses, he had once stabbed near the eye-brow with a dagger or knife, and was heard on several occasions to say that he would kill him one day.

On the 22nd day of August, 1975, Sabitu Raji Oba, the wife of the deceased and P.W. (1), returned to the village from the market. She and her husband were sitting outside their building at about 8:00 p.m. She had just finished warning her husband about the presence of the Appellant and his thugs when she heard a gunshot. She turned towards the sound and saw six people running away into a nearby bush and recognized the Appellant. She immediately raised an alarm, shouting, “Ejigbadero has killed my husband!”

P.W. (2) came outside due to the alarm and also recognized Jimoh Ishola. The night was illuminated by a full moon so bright that “even a lost pin could be found.” P.W. (3) also testified that she came outside following the alarm and saw the deceased lying lifeless with blood oozing from his head. P.W. (6), Rafiu Latifu, claimed in his testimony that while returning to the village that night, he saw a white Peugeot 504 station wagon parked in a nearby bush and saw the Appellant and six other persons run towards the car.

P.W. (18), the Appellant’s security officer, testified that the Appellant had asked him to follow him, but he refused. When the Appellant and the six others returned to the factory a little after 9:00 p.m., the Appellant drew a gun from underneath his trousers and told the witness that he (the Appellant) had now killed the person he (the witness) had refused to kill. After this, they all left for the Appellant’s party.

Under cross-examination, P.W. (18) explained that he did not report the crime immediately because the police at Agege often arrested the villagers instead of the Appellant’s thugs, stating that the police there “belong to the accused.” He only went to the Panti C.I.D. to make his statement after he read about the Appellant’s arrest in the newspaper.

In his defence, the Appellant denied being at Alimosho Village that night, raising a defence of alibi. He maintained that he was at his infant child’s naming ceremony throughout the night of August 22, 1975, and that he did not leave the party between 8:00 p.m. and 9:30 p.m. He called witnesses to support his defence, but the learned trial judge justifiably rejected their evidence, and his plea of alibi failed.

The Appellant was subsequently tried in the High Court of Lagos State on a two-count charge of Conspiracy to commit murder and the Murder of Raji Oba.

Legal Issues Raised:

• The Federal Court of Appeal misdirected itself in law when it held that the 18th prosecution witness was not an accomplice, contrary to the finding of the learned trial judge, who held that the 18th prosecution witness was clearly a conspirator based on the evidence before the trial court.
• The Court of Appeal erred in law by holding that the trial judge’s admission of highly prejudicial evidence did not affect his evaluation of the case, and that he relied on such evidence only for identification purposes.
• The Court of Appeal misdirected itself in law and on the facts by holding that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence identifying the accused at the scene of the murder, despite the appellant’s argument that the evidence adduced at trial was unsafe and unsatisfactory.
• The trial judge failed to warn himself of the dangers of relying solely on circumstantial evidence for identification when convicting the accused.
• The Court of Appeal failed to consider the appellant’s submission that the trial judge did not judicially evaluate the circumstantial evidence presented during the trial.

Arguments Of The Parties:

• The Respondent, which is the State, claimed that Jimoh Ishola forcefully took over land belonging to the Alimosho villagers. When they tried to resist, his “thugs” brutalised them. Raji Oba was one of the few who stood up to Jimoh Ishola, ignoring the fact that he was wealthy and influential. It was recorded that Jimoh Ishola had once stabbed Raji near his eyebrow with a dagger or knife, and on several occasions had threatened him, saying, “I will kill you one day.” On 22nd August, 1975, Raji Oba was sitting with his wife outside their house after a long day at the market. While his wife was warning him about Jimoh Ishola’s presence in the village and telling him to be careful, she suddenly heard a gunshot. Raji Oba had been shot in the head and blood was oozing out. Based on the testimonies of witnesses and the evidence presented, the State argued that Jimoh Ishola was the most likely person responsible for the murder.
• The Appellant, Jimoh Ishola, denied all the allegations. He raised a defence of alibi, claiming that at the time of the alleged murder, he was at home hosting a naming ceremony. He said he was busy celebrating with friends and other guests and called some of them as witnesses to confirm his presence at the event.

Judgement/ Final Decision:

The Supreme Court delivered its decision on September 22, 1978, and subsequently dismissed the appeal on October 26, 1978 (the date the full judgment was delivered). The key holdings were as follows:

1. Status of P.W. 18

The court held that P.W. 18 was not a tainted witness (or an accomplice), as argued by the Appellant’s counsel, and found no substance in the arguments adduced to support that contention.

2. Admissibility of Prejudicial Evidence (Motive)

Regarding the second ground of appeal concerning the admissibility of evidence (prior threats and assaults), the Supreme Court agreed with the relevant observation made by Lord Atkinson in R. v. Ball (1911) A.C. 47 at page 68, which states:

 “Surely in an ordinary prosecution for murder you can prove previous acts or words of the accused to show he entertained feelings of enmity towards the deceased, and that is evidence not merely of the malicious mind with which he killed the deceased, but of the fact that he killed him. You can give in evidence the enmity of the accused towards the deceased to prove that the accused took the deceased’s life. Evidence of motive necessarily goes to prove the fact of the homicide by the accused, as well as his ‘malice aforethought,’ inasmuch as it is more probable that men are killed by those who have some motive for killing them than by those who have not.”

The Court held that, in the circumstances of this case, much of the evidence forming the subject of the complaint on the second ground of appeal was relevant and admissible both under the Evidence Act (or Evidence Law, Lagos State) and within the principle of law stated in Makin v. Attorney-General for New South Wales. Consequently, the second ground of appeal failed.

3. Dismissal of Other Arguments

The Court further held that the decision of ⁴George Kuree (Supra) did not avail the submission of the learned counsel, and they considered the argument to be devoid of any merit.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on the 22nd day of September, 1978 (the date the final order was made).

Legal Reasoning/ Ratio Decidendi.

At this stage in the proceedings, the court formulated the following principal questions, which guided its determination:

Accomplice Status: Whether the eighteenth witness for the prosecution (P.W. 18, Kehinde Yekinni) was an accomplice whose testimony required corroboration from an independent witness.

Admissibility of “Similar Facts”: Whether the court of first instance erred in law by admitting evidence of ‘similar facts’ (prior threats and assaults) whose prejudicial character far outweighed their probative value in the circumstances of this case.

 Visual Identification and Warning: Whether the evidence of visual identification of the Appellant at the time and scene of the murder as given by the first, second, third, and sixth prosecution witnesses, and based on a “fleeting glance” at night was sufficient; and whether the learned trial judge’s failure to warn himself of the need for independent corroborating evidence amounted to an error in law.

Consequences of Failure to Warn: Whether, in light of the foregoing, the failure of the learned trial judge (Oluwa J.) to specifically warn himself:

On the need for independent evidence corroborating the evidence of the accomplice, Kehinde Yekinni (P.W. 18); and

On the need for independent evidence corroborating the “fleeting” visual identification of the Appellant by P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3, and P.W. 6;

[And] whether the admission by the learned trial judge of the evidence referred to in the third question has, in the circumstances of this case, occasioned such a miscarriage of justice as to warrant the acquittal of the Appellant by the High Court of Lagos State.

Error by Court of Appeal: Finally, whether the Federal Court of Appeal was in error of law in failing to allow the appeal from the said decision of the High Court of Lagos State.

Final Determination:

For the reasons given, the Supreme Court answered each of the foregoing questions in the negative on the 22nd September, 1978, and consequently dismissed the appeal.

Conclusion/ Observation:

The case of Jimoh Ishola (Alias Ejigbadero) v. The State is an important authority in Nigerian Criminal Law, especially in the law of evidence. It stands as a landmark decision that is eye-opening, demonstrating to the “high and mighty” that the law is above everyone, a principle established in Section 1(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999. This case successfully applied various angles of the law, ensuring that the guilty person did not go unpunished.

Bibliography.

Cases:

• Jimoh Ishola v The State (1978) 9-10 S.C. 81
• R v Ball [1911] AC 47 (HL)
• Makin v Attorney-General for New South Wales [1894] AC 57 (PC)
• Rex v George Kuree (1941) 7 WACA 175

Legislation:

• Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999.