Effect of Circumstantial Evidence that has Two Possible Interpretations

CASE TITLE: NIELSEN v. STATE OF LAGOS (2024) LPELR-62573(CA)
JUDGMENT DATE: 18TH JULY, 2024
PRACTICE AREA: CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE
LEAD JUDGMENT: MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM SIRAJO, J.C.A.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:

This appeal borders on criminal law and procedure.

FACTS:

This appeal is against the decision of the High Court of Lagos State.

The facts of the case according to the Appellant reveal that the Appellant, a foreigner from Denmark, came to Nigeria on business, fell in love, got married, started a family, and lived happily with his family until the morning of 5 April 2018 when he found his wife and daughter, Zainab (the wife) and Petra Nielsen (the child), respectively, lying motionless and breathless in the kitchen. Pipi, Zainab’s 14-year-old half-sister, ran downstairs to report to Bella Vista Estate security that the Appellant had killed his wife and daughter. The Bella Vista facility manager called the Ikoyi Police Division to report that two (2) people were dead in their apartment complex and the deceased’s husband was said to have been responsible. The police arrived at the apartment of the Appellant and, without proper investigation, placed the grieving husband and father under arrest.

Further to the arrest of the Appellant, the Respondent via an information dated 30 April 2018, preferred a two-count charge of murder contrary to Section 223 of the Criminal Law of Lagos State, 2015, against the Appellant. The Appellant was arraigned on 13 June 2018 on a two-count charge of murder, to which he pleaded not guilty.

The Respondent’s version of the facts of the case is that on the morning of the 5th of April, 2018, Zainab Nielsen and Petra Nielsen were found dead in the kitchen of Flat 17, 8th Floor, Block 34 Bella Vista Apartments, Banana Island, Lagos. The flat was occupied by the Appellant (only male adult), the decedents (deceased) (Zainab and Petra Nielsen), Mimi Madaki (Favour Madaki), and Pipi Madaki (Gift Madaki), while Evelyn Gimba (the housekeeper) lived in the boys-quarter attached to the flat.

By the evidence of the prosecution, in the early morning of 5th April 2018, Pw1 woke up to start her chores but could not gain access through her usual entrance into the flat, which was the door that led to the kitchen from her quarter. According to Pw1, she tried using her key but the door could not open; hence, Pw1 had to go down to take the lift to come in through the main front door on the 8th floor, which was locked. She knocked on the door and nobody answered until about 7 a.m. when Pw6 (Pipi Madaki) came to open the door. Shortly afterward, the Appellant was sighted going to the kitchen with a cup he took from his office (he used one of the rooms as his office) and when he opened the door to the kitchen, he was heard to have screamed ‘Jesus’ which attracted Pw1, who got to the kitchen and saw the bodies of both Zainab and Petra on the floor. Pw1 and Pw6 went downstairs to call the security guards while the Appellant carried the body of Zainab to the living room and also directed Pw5 to carry the body of Petra to the living room. The police were invited and upon investigation, the appellant was arrested for the murder of Zainab and Petra Nielsen.

The common denominator in the two narratives is that on the morning of 05/04/2018, the lifeless bodies of Zainab Nielsen, wife of the Appellant, and Petra Nielsen, daughter of the Appellant, who stayed in the same house together with the Appellant and two other girls, were found in the Kitchen of the said house. The trial Court found the Appellant guilty of the offence of murder and convicted and sentenced him accordingly.

Aggrieved with his conviction and sentence, the Appellant approached the Court of Appeal.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:

The Court considered the following issues:

1. “Whether the learned trial Judge properly evaluated the evidence adduced by parties at the trial prior to the decision reached thereon and whether the same did not breach the right of the Appellant under Section 36 (6)(b).”

2. “Whether the prosecution proved its case against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt and the conviction justifiable.”

DECISION/HELD:

In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed.

RATIOS:

• APPEAL- REPLY BRIEF: Purpose of a reply brief; whether a reply brief is meant to re-argue the case of the appellant
• APPEAL- INTERFERENCE WITH EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE: Duty of trial Court to evaluate evidence; instance(s) in which an appellate Court will/will not interfere
• CONSTITUTIONAL LAW- RIGHT OF AN ACCUSED PERSON: Nature of the right of a person charged with a criminal offence to adequate facilities for his defence
• CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE- OFFENCE OF MURDER: Ingredients of the offence of murder; Ways of proving the offence of murder
• CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE- GUILT OF AN ACCUSED PERSON: Duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt of an accused person; effect of failure thereof
• 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- DEFENCE(S) OF ACCUSED PERSON(S): Proper time for an accused person to raise his defence
• EVIDENCE- PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT: When can it be said that the prosecution has proved his case beyond reasonable doubt
• EVIDENCE- BURDEN OF PROOF/STANDARD OF PROOF: Burden and standard of proof in criminal cases and whether proof beyond reasonable doubt means proof beyond a shadow of doubt
• EVIDENCE- CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE: Effect of circumstantial evidence that has two possible interpretations
• EVIDENCE- CAUSE OF DEATH: Principles of law on cause of death
• EVIDENCE- CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE: Conditions that must be met before a conviction can be sustained by circumstantial evidence
• EVIDENCE- PRIMARY EVIDENCE: Position of the law as regards primary facts and conclusions drawn therefrom

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