OLUBUMI OLADIPO ONI v CADBURY NIGERIA PLC
April 26, 2025CHIEF GODWIN UKAH & ORS. VS CHIEF CHRISTOPHER A. ONYIA & ORS
April 26, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2016) Legalpedia (CA) 16122
In the Court of Appeal
HOLDEN AT LAGOS
Thu Jan 21, 2016
Suit Number: CA/L/1126/2011
CORAM
PARTIES
EZENWA ONWUZURUIKE APPELLANTS
DAMIAN EDOZIEM & ORS RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellant was arraigned alongside others before the High Court of Justice of Lagos State on a charge of conspiracy to commit armed robbery and armed robbery contrary to sections 403(a) and 40(2)(a), respectively, of the Criminal Code Law Cap C.17 vol.2 Laws of Lagos State (Criminal Code). The case of the complainant was that the Appellant with some men in mask fully armed with gun and sharp objects invaded his house beat his family members and went away with mobile phones and unascertainable amount of money. The complainant gave evidence that when the Appellant spoke he was able to recognize his voice as the labourer he employed to work on his soak-way while he was building a house. The Appellant claimed that he was arrested by the police along with other persons for clashing with the members of the Odua Peoples’ Congress (OPC) and subsequently charged to court. The trial court upon hearing parties, convicted the Appellant for armed robbery and sentenced him to death. Dissatisfied, the Appellant has appealed to the Court of Appeal.
HELD
Appeal Allowed
ISSUES
– Whether the trial and conviction of the Appellant without any form of arraignment by the trial court was a nullity?- Whether the incompetent information upon which the Appellant was tried robbed the trial court of its jurisdiction to entertain the case?- Whether the extrajudicial statements of the Appellant tendered as exhibits D2 upon which Appellant’s conviction was based on is legally admissible?- Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
COURT PROCEEDINGS – PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY OF COURT PROCEEDINGS
”In Nwizuk & Ors. V. Eneyok & Ors. (1953) 14 WACA 354 at 355 thus; “In the present case we consider that statements such as these by a Judge in a solemn judgment of the Court must be taken to be a correct account of what occurred and therefore final. ….. The presumption therefore is that the proceedings before the Court were conducted formally, correctly and honestly”. See also section 168(1) of the Evidence Act 2011 on the presumption of the regularity of judicial act and proceedings read with the cases of Blessing V. F.R.N. (2015) 13 NWLR (pt.1475) at 39 – 40, 44 – 45, Daniel V. F.R.N. (2015) 13 NWLR (pt.1475) 119 at 138 – 140, Mohammed V. State (2015) 10 NWLR (pt.1468) 496 “. PER. J. S. IKYEGH, J.C.A CHARGE – ELEMENTS OF A VALID CRIMINAL CHARGE FOR THE OFFENCE OF STEALING
“I believe one of the key elements of a charge such as the one under discussion must have the item or moveable property that was stolen by force of arm by the appellant as one of the indispensable ingredients of the charge. In this respect, I gratefully endorse/adopt the illuminating passage from the valuable work titled: Criminal Procedure in Nigeria, Law and Practice (First Edition) in page 175 by Mrs. Oluwatoyin Doherty as follows – “The name of the thing in respect of which the offence was committed must also be stated in the charge. For example, for the offence of stealing, the thing allegedly stolen must be clearly stated in the charge sheet….” .PER. J. S. IKYEGH, J.C.A CHARGE FOR AN OFFENCE OF ARMED ROBBERY- CONTENT OF A CHARGE FOR AN OFFENCE OF ARMED ROBBERY
“Since the offence of armed robbery is aggravated form of stealing by threat or violence, the charge sheet must contain the item(s) or movable(s) stolen by force of arm by the defendant or accused vide section 401 of the Criminal Code which defines the offence of robbery thus – “Any person who steals anything, and, at or immediately before or immediately after the time of stealing it, uses or threatens to use actual violence to any person or property in order to obtain or retain the thing stolen or to prevent or overcome resistance to its being stolen or retained is said to be guilty of robbery”. (My emphasis). See also Abdullahi v. The State (2008) 17 NWLR (pt.1115) 203 at 222 per the judgment of Onnoghen, J.S.C., to the effect that to constitute the offence of robbery there must be theft by an accused. And, the phrase ‘theft’ presupposes the crime of stealing something from a person or place, vide Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, 7th Edition, page 1532; while stealing itself is the taking of something from a person without permission and without intending to return it vide Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (supra) page 1447. (My emphasis).” PER. J. S. IKYEGH, J.C.A SECTION 9(3) ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE LAW OF LAGOS – APPLICABILITY AND ESSENCE OF SECTION 9(3) ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE LAW OF LAGOS
“Section 9(3) of the Law complements the provisions of the Evidence Act on confessional statements. Both are not in conflict. They are partners in the administration of criminal justice. Being a State law it is junior partner of the relevant provisions on confessional statements contained in the Evidence Act, a Federal enactment. Viewed closely, section 9(3) of the Law applies where an accused has volunteered a confessional statement to the police. It helps to eliminate instances of coerced confessions extracted from defendants by the police on the one hand. While on the other hand it estops a defendant from sudden and unexpected retraction of voluntary confessions at the trial. Section 9(3) of the Law will, therefore, save the day by making the time consuming procedure of trial-within-trial to ascertain the status of confessional statement challenged at the trial by a defendant on the ground of voluntariness unnecessary.” PER. J. S. IKYEGH, J.C.A INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES – PROCEDURAL LAWS ARE CONSTRUED IMPERATIVELY
“In my modest opinion, procedural laws of the sort like section 9(3) of the Law (supra) are of immense benefit to a defendant and, as stated in the case of Okegbu v. The State (1979) 12 NSCC 151 at 174 per the judgment of Idigbe J.S.C., (of blessed memory) such procedural laws are – “… usually construed as imperative; and that is the cardinal principle of interpretation of statutes especially where procedural provisions … are inserted for the protection of accused person”. See also the apt English case of The Secretary for Defence v. Warn (1968) 3 W.L.R. 609 at 614 per the speech of Lord Hudson which was cited with approval in Okegbu v. The State (supra) at 174. Section 9(3) of the Law (supra) is thus a useful tool for the administration of criminal justice. It will apply only to voluntary confessions made by an accused, in my view”.
OFFENCE OF CONSPIRACY – DEFINITION AND SCOPE OF CONSPIRACY
“The offence of conspiracy which is the meeting of the minds of an accused with another or others pursuant to which they embark on a criminal venture is often inferred from the criminal activities and the circumstances of the case vide Novens & Others V. The State (1973) N.N.L.R. 76 at 96 – 97 thus “The gist of the offence of conspiracy is the meeting of the minds of the conspirators. This is hardly capable of direct proof for the offence of conspiracy to do the act or make the omission complained about. Hence, conspiracy is a matter of inference from certain criminal acts of the parties concerned done in pursuance of an apparent criminal purpose in common between the them and in proof of the conspiracy the acts or omissions of any of the conspirators in furtherance of the common design may be and very often are given in evidence against any other or others of the conspirators” See Tanko v. State (2008) 16 NWLR (pt.1114) 567 at 637, Usufu V. State (2007) 1 NWLR (pt.1020) 94 at 113.”
CASES CITED
Not Available
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Administration of Criminal Justice Law 2011Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria1999 (As Amended)Criminal Code Law Cap C.17 vol.2 Laws of Lagos State (Criminal Code)Evidence Act 2010|
