Can a Witness be Further Cross-Examined if New Matters are Introduced During His Re-Examination?

CASE TITLE:  JABI v. STATE (2025) LPELR-81176(SC)

JUDGMENT DATE: 9TH MAY, 2025

PRACTICE AREA: CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE

LEAD JUDGMENT: IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA, J.S.C.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:

This appeal borders on criminal law and procedure.

FACTS:

This appeal is against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Ilorin.

The Appellant and one other person were arraigned before the trial High Court, upon a four-count charge for the offences of Conspiracy, Unlawful Possession of fire arms, Armed robbery and Culpable homicide punishable with death.

According to the respondent, the Appellant conspired to rob and robbed Tanimu Inuwa and Zuwairat Abdulkarim of their Baja motorcycle and unspecified amounts of money while armed with a locally made shotgun. In the process they caused the death of Tanimu Inuwa by shooting him to death with a gun.

The trial Court delivered judgment and sentenced each of them to six years in prison for the offences of conspiracy and unlawful possession of a firearm and sentenced them to death for the offences of armed robbery and culpable homicide. Dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Court of Appeal which dismissed the appeal.

Further dissatisfied, the Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:

In determination of the appeal, the Court considered the three issues raised by the Appellant, thus:

1. Whether the lower Court was right when they affirmed the decision of the trial Court that it is not on record that the Appellant was denied his right to cross-examine the Respondent’s main witnesses.

2. Whether the lower Court was right when they affirmed the decision of the trial Court that admitted and subsequently relied on the Appellant’s extrajudicial statements made in the Hausa language when it is on record that the Appellant only understands Fulfulde.

3. Whether the lower Court was right when they affirmed the decision of the trial Court that convicted and sentenced the Appellant to six (6) years imprisonment and death for the offence of criminal conspiracy, being in unlawful possession in firearms and culpable homicide punishable with death.

DECISION/HELD:

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the appeal.

RATIOS:

• APPEAL- INTERFERENCE WITH CONCURRENT FINDING(S) OF FACT(S): Instances where the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact(s) made by Lower Courts
• CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE- RIGHT(S) OF AN ACCUSED PERSON: Rights of an accused person in a trial
• CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE- DEFENCE(S) OF ACCUSED PERSON(S): Duty of court to consider all defences available to an accused person
• CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE- GUILT OF AN ACCUSED PERSON: How to establish/prove the guilt of an accused person
• CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE- OFFENCE OF CONSPIRACY: How the offence of conspiracy can be inferred
• EVIDENCE- CROSS-EXAMINATION: Whether a witness can be further cross-examined if new matters are introduced during his re-examination

To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol