Legalpedia Citation: (2025-08) Legalpedia 20850 (CA)

In the Court of Appeal

Holden at Benin

Fri Jun 27, 2025

Suit Number: CA/B/143C/2021

CORAM

Bitrus Gyarazama Sanga Justice of the Court of Appeal

Yusuf Alhaji Bashir Justice of the Court of Appeal

Lateef Adebayo Ganiyu Justice of the Court of Appeal

PARTIES

EGUAKUN CHRISTIAN

APPELLANTS

THE STATE

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE, IDENTIFICATION OF SUSPECTS, CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS, ARMED ROBBERY, CONSPIRACY, APPEAL, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant was arraigned on October 9, 2018, and charged with 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 II, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004, and two counts of armed robbery punishable under Section 1(2)(a) of the same Act. The Appellant pleaded not guilty to all charges.

The complainant, Mr. Jolly Osemwengie (PW1), his wife Mrs. Joyce Osemwengie (PW2), and one Osazuwa Omoregie were robbed by three armed men on May 31, 2017, along Upper Sakponba Road. The armed robbers carted away his Mercedes Benz C Class, Infinix phone, Nokia torchlight phone, bunch of keys, wallet containing cash, and other personal effects. They also took his wife’s handbag containing cash and other items.

On June 5, 2017, the Appellant was arrested at Tips Bar along Ekenwan Road, Benin City, while attempting to steal an unregistered Mercedes Benz car and was taken to Evbuotubu Police Station for interrogation. The investigation led police to his residence where the Mercedes Benz C Class belonging to the complainant, which was snatched on May 31, 2017, was recovered. The complainant was contacted, rushed to the Police Station, and identified the Appellant as one of the three men who robbed them.

During trial, the prosecution called four witnesses: PW1 (Jolly Osemwengie), PW2 (Joyce Osemwengie), PW3 (Kadiri Babatunde – Police Officer), and PW4 (Sergeant Uwaifo Lucky). Both PW1 and PW2 testified that the street lights were on during the robbery and their vehicle’s headlights were on full capacity, making the area bright enough to identify the robbers. The prosecution tendered the Appellant’s confessional statements as Exhibits A and B, a bond releasing the car as Exhibit C, and a battle axe and knife recovered from the Appellant’s house as Exhibits D1 and D2.

The Appellant denied the charges, claimed the confessional statement was not his, denied that the Mercedes Benz was recovered from his house, and stated he was not a member of the robbery gang. The trial judge found the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and convicted the Appellant, sentencing him to death by hanging.

HELD

1. The appeal was dismissed.
2. The Court of Appeal held that an identification parade was not necessary in the circumstances of the case.
3. The judgment of the High Court of Justice Edo State delivered on May 25, 2021, wherein the appellant was convicted and sentenced for conspiracy to commit armed robbery and armed robbery, was affirmed.
4. The court found that the victims clearly identified the accused during the commission of the crime and again at the police station only five days after the robbery.
5. The confessional statements of the appellant made conducting an identification parade absolutely unnecessary.

ISSUES

1. Whether the lower Court was right in its decision that an identification parade was unnecessary when prosecution did not lead credible evidence of identification parade of the appellant as one of the robbers that attacked PW1 and PW2?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

IDENTIFICATION PARADE – WHEN IDENTIFICATION PARADE IS NECESSARY

The trite position of the law is that identification parade can be conducted in cases where the Accused Person is arrested a long time after committing the crime. – Per BITRUS GYARAZAMA SANGA, J.C.A.

IDENTIFICATION PARADE – CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN NOT REQUIRED

In the instant case, the crime (armed robbery) was committed on 31st May, 2017. The victims of the crime, PW1 and PW2 clearly identified the Accused/Appellant during the commission of the crime where he and his co-conspirators snatched the Mercedes Benz ‘C’ Class of PW1. – Per BITRUS GYARAZAMA SANGA, J.C.A.

IDENTIFICATION PARADE – TIME FACTOR IN IDENTIFICATION

From the facts narrated above the offence of armed robbery was committed on 31/5/2017. Five days later, on 5/6/2017, PW1 went to the Evboutubu Police Station where he identified the accused as one of those that robbed them and snatched his car. So the need for identification parade to identify the accused does not arise as it was only five days after the robbery of 31/5/2017 that the complainant -PW1- identified the accused. Per BITRUS GYARAZAMA SANGA, J.C.A.

IDENTIFICATION PARADE – WHEN NOT NECESSARY DUE TO CLEAR IDENTITY

An identification parade should never be conducted for purely cosmetic reasons. It should be limited to cases of real doubt or dispute as to the identity of the accused person or his connection with the offence charged. To insist that it must be conducted where the identity is clear and corroborated by other uncontroverted evidence and the accused has confessed to his complicity in the crime, is to make a mockery of justice.- Per BITRUS GYARAZAMA SANGA, J.C.A.

CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS – EFFECT ON IDENTIFICATION PARADE

The evidence of the prosecution coupled with appellant’s confessional statement, Exhibit A5, provided convincing, cogent and compelling evidence which made an identification or identification parade irrelevant. The identity of the appellant as one of the persons who robbed PW3 was proved beyond reasonable doubt.- Per BITRUS GYARAZAMA SANGA, J.C.A.

IDENTIFICATION PARADE – ESSENTIAL SITUATIONS FOR CONDUCTING

An identification parade is only essential in the following situations: – a) Where the victim did not know the accused previously; b) Where the victim was confronted by the offender for a very short period of time; c) Where the victim, due to time and circumstances, might not have had the opportunity to observe the features of the accused. – Per BITRUS GYARAZAMA SANGA, J.C.A.

IDENTIFICATION PARADE – CLARITY OF IDENTIFICATION DURING CRIME

In the instant appeal it is obvious that the need to conduct an identification parade does not arise for the obvious reason that both victims of the robbery, PW1 and his wife (PW2) saw the accused clearly because on the day of the robbery there was street light and the head lamps of their vehicle shone on the appellant and the other robbers. – Per BITRUS GYARAZAMA SANGA, J.C.A.

CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS – MAKING IDENTIFICATION PARADE UNNECESSARY

Exhibits ‘A’ and ‘B’, the confessional statements of the appellant which are ‘convincing cogent and compelling’ made conducting an identification parade absolutely unnecessary. – Per BITRUS GYARAZAMA SANGA, J.C.A.

IDENTIFICATION PARADE – PURPOSE AND NECESSITY

An identification parade is also necessary when there is need to establish the identity of a suspect. The aim is make sure that the actual offender is the one arrested. Such scenario does not arise in the instant case.- Per BITRUS GYARAZAMA SANGA, J.C.A.

IDENTIFICATION PARADE – ABSENCE OF MENTION DURING TRIAL

In fact there was no mention of the need for identification parade to be conducted throughout trial of this case before the trial Court.” – Per BITRUS GYARAZAMA SANGA, J.C.A.

APPEAL – LACK OF MERIT AND DISMISSAL

Upon resolving the sole issue formulated by learned counsel to the Appellant in favour of the Respondent, it is my finding that there is no merit in this appeal. It is hereby dismissed. – Per BITRUS GYARAZAMA SANGA, J.C.A.

CONVICTION AND SENTENCE – AFFIRMATION BY APPELLATE COURT

The judgment delivered by the High Court of Justice Edo State on 25/5/2021 in Charge No: B/CD/8C/2018 wherein the appellant was convicted and sentenced for the offence of conspiracy to commit armed robber and armed robbery is affirmed by me.- Per BITRUS GYARAZAMA SANGA, J.C.A.

APPELLATE COURT CONCURRENCE – CIRCUMSTANCES OF IDENTIFICATION

My noble brother, BITRUS G. SANGA, JCA had graciously served me the draft copy of this judgment with which I agree entirely that in the circumstance of this case, an identification parade was not necessary to determine the involvement of the Appellant with the robbery for which he was proceeded against and convicted by the lower Court.” – Per YUSUF ALHAJI BASHIR, J.C.A.

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

1. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)
2. Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act, Cap R II, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004
3. Court of Appeal Rules 2021

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT