Armed Robbery: How the crime is established: essential ingredients of same.

Alibi: How same is established and when the plea will be discountenanced by the court.

Identification Parade: When same is not essential to grant conviction.

Concurrent findings of  lower courts: when the Supreme Court will not tamper with same.


Alibi means elsewhere. It is the duty of an accused person who pleads it to furnish sufficient particulars of same .He must furnish his whereabouts and those present with him at the material time. It is then left for the prosecution to disprove same. Failure to investigate may lead to an acquittal” Per Akinbiyi JSC.

Proof beyond reasonable doubt should not be stretched beyond reasonable limit. Otherwise it will cleave” Per J.A. Fabiyi JSC.

Click Here to View Case



Criminal Law: Armed robbery; essential ingredient of same.

Alibi: Duty of the accused person to furnish particulars of same.


Confessional statements: The test for admissibility of a confessional statement.

Witness’ testimony: Effect where contradictory.

Conviction: when the court can convict upon the evidence of one witness.

Practice and Procedure:

Trial-within-trial: When it should be conducted-Failure to do so.

Burden of proof: Proof beyond reasonable doubt is not proof beyond all iota of doubt.

When admissibility of a statement is challenged on the ground that it was not made voluntarily, it is incumbent on the judge to call upon the prosecutor to establish that it was voluntarily made by conducting a trial-within-trial. Such a procedural step must be taken at the point when the objection is raised

–          per Mohammed J.S.C

Click Here to View Case

Olayinka Afolalu V. The State

Subject Matter:

Criminal  Law and Procedure – Armed  Robbery:

– Defence of Alibi: When it cannot stand


– Uncorroborated evidence of a single witness: When accepted

– Burden of Proof in criminal cases: Not beyond every iota or shadow of doubt

Appeal :

– Concurrent findings of facts of the courts below: when not disturbed

“The Law does not impose any obligation on the prosecution to call a host of witnesses to prove its case; all it needs to do is to call enough material witnesses to prove its case and in doing so, it has a discretion in the matter. The right of the prosecution to call witnesses required to prove its case is not a mere privilege but a prerogative.

It does not lie in the mouth of the defence to urge the prosecution to call a particular witness. Where the prosecution fails to call a particular witness, there is nothing stopping the defence from calling that witness”

– per Adekeye JSC

Click here to view case