CHIEF N. P. UGBOAJA VS SODOLAMU AKITOYE-SOWEMIMO & 3 ORS
May 28, 2025JOYLAND V. WEMABOD ESTATES LTD
May 28, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2008) Legalpedia (CA) 05458
In the Court of Appeal
Wed Jul 2, 2008
Suit Number: CA/C/102/2006
CORAM
THERESA N. ORJI-ABADUA
PARTIES
EDET ASUQUO BASSEY APPELLANTS
THE STATE RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellant and five persons were arraigned before the Robbery and Firearms Special Tribunal on a two count charge of armed robbery contrary to Section 1 (2) (a) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Decree No.5 of 1984. The Tribunal was later informed of the death of the 1st, 2nd and 4th accused persons and their names were consequently struck off the charge. A fresh plea was taken and no guilty pleas were entered for the surviving accused persons. In a considered judgment the learned trial judge found that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced both accused persons to death. The Appellant lodged an appeal at the Court of Appeal which affirmed the judgment of the tribunal but reduced the sentence to 21 years imprisonment. Dissatisfied, he has further appealed to this court.
HELD
Appeal dismissed
ISSUES
Whether exhibit 7, the appellant’s confessional statement was direct and voluntary, and whether the identity of the appellant as one of the robbers was not in doubt.Whether the trial at the Robbery and Firearms Tribunal and the subsequent appeal at the court of Appeal, Calabar in this case are a nullity considering the fact that the appellant/applicant was not tried on any charge as the Record of Appeal at the Court of Appeal, Calabar does not disclose any information or charge or statement of offence and particulars thereof against the appellant.?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT – ATTITUDE OF THE APPELLATE COURT WITH CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT OF LOWER COURTS
“This court will not disturb concurrent findings of fact of the courts below unless there is a substantial error apparent on the record of proceedings. See Ibode V. Enarofia (1980) 5-7 SC 42 AT 56; Enans V. Adu (1981) 11-12 SC 25 at 41; Igwe V The State (1982) 9 SC 174 at 176; Kate V. Coker (1932) 12 SC 252 at 272.” PER MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE, JSC
RECORD OF APPEAL – PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY IN COMPILING THE RECORD OF APPEAL
“There is a presumption that the Record of Appeal compiled by counsel is correct and that presumption becomes irrebutable when counsel who prepared the Record never challenged it. It is desirable and to be expected that the amended charge is in the Record of Appeal but there has been no miscarriage of justice because the amended charge was read and explained to the appellant before he entered a not guilty plea.” PER RHODES-VIVOUR JSC
CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – EFFECT OF CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT IN EVIDENCE
“Once a confessional statement is in evidence, it becomes part of the case of the Prosecution which the court is bound to consider provided that it admits all the essential elements of the offence charged and when tested against proven facts will show that the Accused person or persons committed the offence. I rely on Akpan V. The State (2001) 15 NWLR (PT.737) 145.” PER MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE, JSC
ARRAIGNMENT – PROPER PROCEDURE ON ARRAIGNMENT OF AN ACCUSED PERSON
“The well laid down position of the law is that an accused person is arraigned under section 187(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (applicable in the North) and Section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Act (applicable in the South). Both legislations stipulate that:
1. The accused person shall be brought before the court unfettered unless the judge otherwise directs (e.g. if the accused person becomes violent the judge may direct that he be brought before the court fettered).
2. The charge shall be read and explained to the accused person in the language he understands
3. The accused person shall then be called upon to plead instantly.
Failure to comply with any of the above renders the entire proceedings no matter how well conducted a nullity. See Kajubo V. State 1988 1 NWLR PT.73 P.721, Eyoyokoromo V. State 1979 6-9 SC P.3.” PER RHODES-VIVOUR JSC
CONTRADICTION – MEANING OF CONTRADICTION
“Evidence contradicts another evidence when it says the opposite of what the other evidence has stated, and not when there is just a minor discrepancy between them. See Gabriel V. State 1989 5 NWLR PT.122 P.460. Two pieces of evidence contradicts one another when they are themselves inconsistent on material facts.” PER RHODES-VIVOUR JSC
CONTRADICTION – DEFINITION OF CONTRADICTION
“Contradiction has been defined as a lack of agreement between facts related by two persons.” PER FABIYI, JSC
DOUBT – RESOLUTION OF DOUBT IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDING
“In law it is settled that where there is some element of doubt in a criminal proceeding the doubt inevitably has to be resolved in the accused favour. This is moreso as in cases as in the instant matter where the inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution eye-witnesses have reached a stage of leaving inconclusive an important requirement/ingredient of the said crime. PER CHUKWUMA-ENEH, J.S.C
AMENDED CHARGE – REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 164 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT
“Once the charge is amended section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Act stipulates, that the amended charge must be read to the accused person and a plea must be entered to the amended charge. Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Act is mandatory and failure of the accused person to plead to the amended charge renders the proceedings a nullity. See R. V. Eronini 1953 14 WACA p.366 Princent v. State 2002 12 SC (pt.1) p.137”. PER RHODES-VIVOUR JSC
CONFESSION -WHEN IS CONFESSION RELEVANT
“A confession is relevant if it proves beyond reasonable doubt the ingredients of the crime for which the accused person in charged, and the identity of the accused person. See Igbinovia V. State 1981 2 SC P.5.” PER RHODES-VIVOUR JSC
ARMED ROBBERY AND ROBBERY- DISTINCTION BETWEEN ARMED ROBBERY AND ROBBERY
“Armed Robbery simply means stealing plus violence used or threatened while robbery is stealing without violence. Before there is a robbery the suspect must steal something capable of being stolen. Any person in company of a person armed, or aiding or abetting in the commission of the offence is also guilty of armed robbery. See Okosun V. A.G. Bendel State 1985 3 NWLR PT.12 P.283 NWACHUKWU V. STATE 1985 3 NWLR PT.11P.218.” PER RHODES-VIVOUR JSC
PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT – MEANING OF PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
“Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all doubt, or all shadow of doubt. It means the prosecution establishing the guilt of the accused person with compelling evidence which is conclusive. It means a degree of compulsion which is consistent with a high degree of probability. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is not achieved by the prosecution calling several witnesses to testify, rather the court is only interested in the testimony of a quality witness. If the court convicts on the extra judicial confessional statement of an accused person, proof beyond reasonable doubt would be achieved if and only if the statement was made voluntary and the a accused person did not retract from his confessional statement when he gave evidence in court on oath.” PER RHODES-VIVOUR JSC
CASES CITED
NONE
STATUTES REFERRED TO
