Judiciary-Poetry-Logo
JPoetry

A TRIAL COURT CAN SAFELY CONVICT ON THE DOCTRINE OF LAST SEEN

Dictum

“The doctrine of “last seen” relied upon by the trial Court to convict and sentence the respondent to death but which was set aside by the lower Court means that the law presumes that the person last seen with a deceased bears full responsibility for his death if it turns out that the person last seen with him has been found dead. Therefore, where an accused person was the last person to be seen in the company of the deceased and circumstantial evidence is overwhelming and leads to an irresistible conclusion that it was the accused that was last seen with the deceased and no other person, and then there is no room for an acquittal. A trial Court can safely convict on such evidence. It is the duty of an accused person who is faced with compelling and damnifying Circumstantial evidence to give explanation relating to how the deceased met his death and in the absence of such explanation, a trial Court will be justified to hold that it was the accused who killed the deceased being the person last seen with him. See Igabele v The State (2006) 6 NWLR (pt 975) 100, Gabriel v The State (1989) 3 NWLR (pt 122) 457, Igho v the State (1978) 3 SC 87, Madu v The State (2012) 15 NWLR (pt 1324) 405, Tajudeen Iliyasu v The State (2015) LPELR – 24403 (SC).”

— J.I. Okoro, JSC. State v Ifiok Sunday (2019) – SC.709/2013

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

THE DOCTRINE OF LAST SEEN – MURDER CASES

As stated in the lead judgment, the doctrine of “last seen” also applies in this case. It was held by this Court in Haruna Vs A.G. Federation (2012) 9 NWLR Pt.1306) 419, that the doctrine of “last seen” means that the law presumes that the person last seen with the deceased bears full responsibility for his death. It will apply where the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming and leads to no other conclusion than that the accused killed the deceased. It is also the law that in such circumstances, it is the duty of the appellant to give an explanation as to how the deceased met his death. Where no such explanation is forthcoming, the Court is entitled to draw the inference that the accused person killed the deceased.

— Kekere-Ekun, JSC. Bassey v State (2019) – SC.900/2016

Was this dictum helpful?