ABOKI DIMKPA V. THE STATE (2026)

Background

This appeal arose from the conviction of Aboki Dimkpa and other accused persons in connection with the abduction and murder of Chief Godpower Odu Brown. The prosecution’s case was that Chief Odu Brown was abducted on 1 August 2007 and dragged away by the appellant and his co-accused. He was not seen alive thereafter, and his corpse was subsequently found floating in the Mbiama River on 7 August 2007. The High Court of Rivers State, Port Harcourt, in Charge No. PHC/522C/2009, convicted the appellant for murder and resisting lawful arrest and imposed sentences on both counts.

The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, Port Harcourt Judicial Division. That court upheld the murder conviction but allowed the appeal relating to resisting lawful arrest, thereby discharging and acquitting the appellant on that count. Dissatisfied with the affirmation of his murder conviction, the appellant brought a further appeal to the Supreme Court in Appeal No. SC/590/2015.

The Supreme Court judgment was delivered on 17 July 2026. The lead judgment was delivered by Emmanuel Akomaye Agim, JSC, with the other Justices concurring in the dismissal of the appeal.

Issues

1. Whether the Court of Appeal denied the appellant fair hearing by failing to consider his submissions challenging the credibility of prosecution witnesses before affirming the conviction.
2. Whether the concurrent decisions of the lower courts were based on hearsay evidence.
3. Whether the Court of Appeal misapplied the decision in Mamman Bande v. The State and the doctrine of “last seen” in affirming the murder conviction.
4. Whether the Court of Appeal relied on facts that were not proved at trial or contained in the record, thereby misconceiving the appellant’s case and occasioning a miscarriage of justice.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the allegation of denial of fair hearing was unsupported by the record. The appellant contended that his arguments concerning the credibility of PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW5 had not been considered. However, the Court found that the passages relied upon by the appellant were submissions made under an issue concerning the admissibility of Exhibit C and oral evidence based on that exhibit, rather than a distinct challenge to the credibility of the witnesses. The Court of Appeal could not be faulted for failing to address a submission that, in the relevant form, had not been made.

The Court further reaffirmed that a judgment does not have to respond mechanically or paragraph by paragraph to every argument advanced by a party. Where an issue has been considered in substance or is subsumed within another issue, a separate pronouncement is unnecessary. Consequently, the appellant’s constitutional right to fair hearing under section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution was not violated.

On the remaining issues, the Supreme Court held that they were vague and inappropriate challenges to concurrent findings of fact. An appeal against concurrent findings must identify a specific finding that is perverse, contrary to law, unsupported by evidence, or productive of a miscarriage of justice. The general complaints about hearsay, the last-seen doctrine and alleged reliance on extraneous facts did not satisfy that requirement.

Court Findings

The Court placed particular emphasis on the unchallenged finding that PW2 saw the appellant and the other accused persons abduct and drag Chief Odu Brown away to a secret place. The deceased was never seen alive after that incident, and his body was discovered six days later. The medical evidence confirming the death was not disputed. In the absence of a successful challenge to PW2’s eyewitness account, the appellant could not properly argue that the conviction was founded on hearsay.

The Court also declined to interfere with the application of the last-seen principle. The evidence linking the appellant to the deceased shortly before the deceased’s unnatural death was accepted by both lower courts and remained unshaken. The Supreme Court stressed that a complaint against a particular finding of fact must be raised as a substantive ground of appeal. It cannot be smuggled into an omnibus ground or inferred merely from particulars alleging another form of error.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court unanimously found the appeal to be without merit and dismissed it. The judgment of the Court of Appeal affirming the appellant’s conviction for murder was upheld. The decision therefore left undisturbed the concurrent findings of the High Court and Court of Appeal on the murder charge, while the Court of Appeal’s earlier acquittal of the appellant for resisting lawful arrest remained unaffected.

Significance

The decision reinforces the substantial threshold for overturning concurrent findings of fact in criminal appeals. It also clarifies that fair hearing is not denied merely because an appellate court does not separately reproduce or answer every argument in a brief. Courts may deal with arguments collectively or regard one issue as subsumed in another, provided the substance of the case has been judicially considered. In addition, the case illustrates the importance of clearly formulated grounds of appeal, especially where an appellant seeks to challenge factual findings or the evidential basis of a conviction. A general allegation that evidence was hearsay or that the last-seen doctrine was misapplied will not suffice without a precise challenge to the particular finding or legal conclusion said to be erroneous.