The court held that the first and second appellants were properly identified at the scene of crime and could not have been elsewhere at the material time as they claimed. The court was satisfied that the witnesses and the deceased saw and recognised the first and second appellants with the aid of the torchlight because he was a cousin.    The court accordingly concluded that the trial court adequately considered and disposed of the appellants’ defences of alibi and upheld their convictions.

As for the third appellant, the court held that although an empty cartridge was recovered from the scene of crime and a gun was recovered from the third appellant, no expert evidence was led to establish that the empty cartridge was fired from his gun to connect him to the scene of the crime. The court was satisfied, further, that none of the witnesses who testified in court mentioned the third appellant as having been identified as one of the attackers. The court accordingly concluded that it was very un-safe to uphold the conviction against him.