CORAM
PARTIES
ADESINA KAYODE APPELLANTS
THE STATE
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellant and two other persons were arraigned before the High Court of Justice of Ogun State sitting in Ijebu-Ode for conspiracy to commit armed robbery contrary to Section 6(b) and punishable under Section 1 (2)(a) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act, (Cap. R. 11), Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 and armed robbery contrary to Section1 (2) (a) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provision) Act, Cap, R11, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.The Appellant and co-accused persons pleaded not guilty to the offence. It was the prosecution’s case that one Osiyemi Rafiu Niyi, the Managing Director of FAO Petroleum filing station, llese via Ijebu-Ode, was on his way home from work in company of one Samson Agbo a petrol attendant when he was accosted by three men who dragged him out of the car and took him to a nearby bush where he was stabbed with a broken bottle. The attendant ran away while the assailants took away the sum of 357,150.00 (Three Hundred And Fifty- Seven Thousand, One Hundred and Fifty Naira) being the proceeds of that day’s sale and two handsets. The 1st Accused person was later arrested in connection with the crime; he made confessional statement to the police admitting the attack and also gave details of his cohorts. The High Court of Ogun State before whom the Appellant and co-accused persons were arraigned ordered that a trial within trial be conducted to ascertain the voluntariness of the confessional statement. At the conclusion of the trial, the Appellant and other accused persons were found guilty of the offence of conspiracy to commit armed robbery and armed robbery and sentenced to death by hanging. Dissatisfied with the judgment, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, Ibadan where the Court found his appeal unmeritorious and dismissed same. Still aggrieved, the Appellant has appealed to the Supreme Court.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed
ISSUES
1. Whether the Justices of the Court Appeal were right, in view of the findings of fact and the circumstances of the case, in affirming the conviction and sentence of the appellant by the trial court (Grounds 2 and 4)?
2. Whether the Justices of the Court of Appeal were right in the circumstances of this case, to have endorsed the trial court’s reliance on Exhibits C and G in convicting and sentencing the appellant (Grounds 1 and 6)?
3. Whether the Court below was right in affirming that the prosecution in the circumstance of this case proved the offences of conspiracy to commit armed robbery and armed robbery, against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt as required by law. (Ground 3)?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION – PURPOSE FOR FRAMING ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
“In Unity Bank Plc & Anor Vs Edward Buhari (2008) 2 SCM193 at 240, this court had stated as follows;
“It is now firmly settled that the purpose of framing issue or issues is to lead to a more judicious and proper determination of an appeal. In other words, the purpose is to narrow the issue or issues in controversy in the interest of accuracy, clarity and brevity,”
See also; Musa Sha (Jnr) & Anor Vs Da Ray Kwan & 4 Ors (2000) 8 NWLR (Pt 670) 685; (2000) 5 SCNJ 101.” PER O. ARIWOOLA, J.S.C
CONSPIRACY- MEANING AND NATURE OF PROOF REQUIRED FOR THE OFFENCE OF CONSPIRACY
”Generally, conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to do an unlawful act. Therefore, failure to prove a substantive offence does not make conviction for conspiracy inappropriate, as it is a separate and distinct offence, in itself, independent of the actual offence conspired to commit. See; Segun Balogun Vs. Attorney General of Ogun State (2002 4 SCM 23; (2002) 2 SCNJ 196; (2002) 2 SC (Pt.ll) 89. Osetola & Anor Vs The State (2012) 12 SCM (Pt.2) 347; (2012) 17 NWLR (Pt1329) 251; (2012) 6 SC (Pt.lll) 148 (2012) 50 (2) NSCQR 598.” PER O. ARIWOOLA,,J.S.C
CONSPIRACY-WHAT SHOULD BE PROVED BY THE PROSECUTION IN OTHER TO SECURE A CONVICTION ON A COUNT OF CONSPIRACY
”In other words, in order to secure conviction on a count of conspiracy, the prosecution must establish the elements of agreement to do something which is unlawful or to do something which is lawful but by unlawful means. Conspiracy has been held to be an offence which is difficult to prove by direct evidence as it is often hatched in secrecy. However, circumstantial evidence and inference from certain proved facts are enough to ground conviction for the offence. See;. Omotola & Ors Vs. The State (2009} 78 NWLR (Pt.1139) 148; (2009) 2-3 SC 7; (2009) LPELR -2663 SC, Obiakor Vs. State (2002) 10 NWLR (Pt.774-776) 612 at 625.”PER O. ARIWOOLA, J.S.C
MISTAKE OR ERROR IN A JUDGMENT- NATURE OF MISTAKE OR ERROR IN A JUDGMENT THAT WILL WARRANT AN UPTURN OF THE JUDGMENT
”It is already established, that it is not every mistake or error in a judgment that necessarily determines an appeal in favour of an appellant or automatically results in the appeal being allowed. The error or mistake to result in the upturn of a judgment must be substantial and must have occasioned a miscarriage of justice. The appellate court is bound to interfere once the court is satisfied that such error has occasioned miscarriage of justice. See; Onajobi Vs Olaniyekun (1985J 4 SC (Pt.2) 156 at 168; Osafile & Anor Vs Odi & Anor (No.l) (1990) 3 NWIR (Pt.137) 130; (1990) 5 SCNJ 118; Anyanwu Vs. Mbara (1992) 5 NWLR (Pt.242) 386 at 400; A.G leventis Nig Ltd Vs. Christian Akpu (2007) 12 SCM (Pt.2) 1 at 17.” PER O.ARIWOOLA, J.S.C
CONSPIRACY- MEANING OF CONSPIRACY
”Generally, conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to do an unlawful act or to do a lawful act by unlawful means. It is ordinarily a matter of inference, deduced from certain criminal acts of the parties accused which are done in pursuance of an apparent criminal purpose in common between them. See; Folorunsho Alufoha Vs The State (2015) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1445) 172; (2015) All FWLR (Pt.765) 198. ”PER O. ARIWOOLA, J.S.C
CHARGES – DUTY OF THE COURT WHERE AN INDICTMENT CONTAINS A CHARGE OF CONSPIRACY ALONG SIDE THE SUBSTANTIVE CHARGE
”It has been settled that the appropriate thing to do when an indictment contains a charge of conspiracy along with the substantive charge is to deal with the main charge first and then proceed later to see how far the conspiracy count has been made out in answer to the fate of the charge of conspiracy.” PER O. ARIWOOLA,,J.S.C
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION – WHETHER THE COURT CAN REFOMULATE ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION FOR PARTIES
”It is already settled, that in a situation like this, the court is not only obliged but entitled to reframe or reformulate issues from the competent grounds of appeal filed by the appellant for the purpose of clarity and precision and to lead to proper determination of an appeal. See; Okoro Vs. The State (1988) 12 SC 191 Latinde & Anor Vs Bella Lajunfin (1989) 45 SC 59; (1989) 5 SCNJ 59. PER O. ARIWOOLA, J.S.C
CONSPIRACY- WHETHER THE EVIDENCE OF ONE CONSPIRATOR IS ADMISSIBLE AGAINST THE OTHERS
”It is the law, that in a trial for conspiracy, evidence of what one accused person says in the absence of the other conspirators is rendered admissible against such others on the basis that if they were all conspirators, what one of them says in furtherance of the conspiracy would be admissible evidence against them, even though it was said in the absence of the other conspirators. This is said to be an exception to the hearsay rule.” See; R Vs Luberg & Ors 19 CAR p,133; Wahabi O. Mumumi & Ors Vs The State (1975} 1 All NLR 294; (1975) 6 SC per Irikefe, JSC.” PER O. ARIWOOLA, J.S.C.
EXTRA- JUDICIAL CONFESSION – NATURE OF EXTRA-JUDICIAL STATEMENT SUFFICIENT TO GROUND A FINDING OF GUILT
”It is trite law and already settled in several decided cases by the court that, where an extra-judicial confession has been proved to have been made voluntarily and it is found positive and unequivocal and amounts to an admission of guilt, such confession will suffice to ground a finding of guilt, regardless of the fact that the maker has retracted at the trial in his evidence on oath in court. See; Egboghonome Vs. The State (1993) 7 NWLR (Pt.306) 383, Osetola & Ors Vs. The State (Supra).” PER O. ARIWOOLA, J.S.C
GROUND OF APPEAL – STATUS OF A GROUND OF APPEAL FROM WHICH NO ISSUE HAS BEEN DISTILLED
“It is trite law that any ground of appeal from which no issue has been distilled is deemed abandoned and no argument on such ground can be countenanced by the court. They are incompetent”. PER O. ARIWOOLA, J.S.C
OFFENCE OF ARMED ROBBERY-ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS THE PROSECUTION MUST ESTABLISH FOR THE OFFENCE OF ARMED ROBBERY
”It is trite law that for the prosecution to establish the offence of armed robbery as required by law, the following must be proved:-
(i) That there was in fact robbery;
(ii) That the robbery was an armed robbery; and
(iii) That accused person was the armed robber or one of the armed robbers.
See; Bozin Vs State (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt.8) 465 at 467; Alabi Vs, State (1993) 7 NWLR (Pt.307) 551; Olayinka Vs. State (2007) 4 SC (Pt. 1) 210; (2007) 9 NWLR (Pt.1040) 561; (2007) 8 SCM 193. ” PER O.ARIWOOLA, J.S. C
CONSPIRACY- ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT OF THE OFFENCE OF CONSPIRACY
”It is settled law that the essential ingredient of the offence of conspiracy lies in the bare agreement and association to carry out an unlawful act, which is contrary to or forbidden by law, whether that act be criminal or not and of course whether or not the accused persons had knowledge of its unlawfulness. See Ikechukwu Okon Vs The State (2014) Clark Vs The State (1986) 4 NWLR (Pt.35) 381.” PER O. ARIWOOLA, J.S.C.
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
2. Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act Cap 11, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004
CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT