CHIDI ELEM V. THE STATE
April 19, 2025WEMA BANK PLC v. ALHAJI ASANI AWOTUNDE & ORS
April 19, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2025-02) Legalpedia 05798 (SC)
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Feb 21, 2025
Suit Number: SC.CR/408/2020
CORAM
Helen Moronkeji Ogunwumiju Justice Supreme Court of Nigeria
Emmanuel Akomaye Agim Justice Supreme Court of Nigeria
Haruna Simon Tsammani JusticeSupreme Court of Nigeria
Obande Festus Ogbuinya Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Mohammed Baba Idris Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
PARTIES
FIDELIS UGWU
APPELLANTS
THE STATE
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
CRIMINAL LAW, APPEAL, EVIDENCE, ARMED ROBBERY, BURDEN OF PROOF, CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT, CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, CONTRADICTIONS IN EVIDENCE, JUDGMENT, PROCEDURAL ERROR, CONCURRENT FINDINGS
SUMMARY OF FACTS
This case revolves around an armed robbery that took place on January 15, 2015, at about 9:30-10:00 pm at F-Layout Area, by Yusuf Datti Road, Minna, Niger State. Three armed men approached Arch. Umar Muhammed Bawa (PW2) who was having a discussion with his friend, Maimuna Yusuf Datti, in his Toyota Camry Muscle Vehicle with Registration No. KNT 43 HD valued at N6.2 million. One of the men pointed a gun at Arch. Bawa and ordered him to move to the back seat while another held a knife to Maimuna’s neck. The third person drove the car to Three Arms Zone by Western By-pass, Maitumbi, where they tied up both victims and left them in the bush before driving away with the vehicle, which contained several valuables including handsets and the sum of N17,000.00.
The following day, January 16, 2015, the stolen vehicle was recovered in Kaduna, where the Appellant, Fidelis Ugwu, along with one of his co-accused, Jemilu Shehu, were arrested while attempting to sell it. The Appellant subsequently made a confessional statement (Exhibit C) implicating the third accused, Abubakar Yakubu, who was later arrested.
All three were charged with armed robbery under Section 1(2)(a) and (b) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act, 2010. They were convicted by the Niger State High Court sitting in Minna, delivered by A.L.B. Bwari, J. on June 22, 2018. The Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, which affirmed the conviction on May 29, 2020. Dissatisfied, the Appellant further appealed to the Supreme Court.
HELD
1. The appeal was dismissed.
2. The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of the Niger State High Court and the Court of Appeal, affirming the Appellant’s conviction for armed robbery.
3. The Court held that the error made by the trial Court in stating that Exhibit C (Appellant’s confessional statement) was admitted without objection did not occasion a miscarriage of justice.
4. The Court also held that the alleged contradictions in the prosecution’s case regarding who held the gun during the robbery and where the case was first reported were immaterial and did not affect the validity of the conviction.
5. The Court concluded that the prosecution had sufficiently proved the essential ingredients of armed robbery beyond reasonable doubt.
ISSUES
1. Whether the Court of Appeal was right when it held that the trial Court’s heavy reliance on exhibit “C” did not occasion a miscarriage of justice on the Appellant?
2. Whether from the facts and circumstances of this case, the guilt of the Appellant as affirmed by the Court of Appeal, was proved beyond reasonable doubt as required in criminal cases?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
SUPREME COURT’S ATTITUDE TO CONCURRENT FINDINGS – WHEN SUPREME COURT WILL INTERFERE WITH CONCURRENT FINDINGS
“The attitude of the Supreme Court to concurrent findings of facts is that, it will not interfere with such findings where the findings are reasonably justified and supported by evidence and where no special circumstances why the Supreme Court should interfere with the findings is shown by the substantial error apparent on the record of proceedings, such as miscarriage of justice or violation of some principles of law or procedure.” – Per HARUNA SIMON TSAMMANI, J.S.C.
PRESUMPTION OF VALIDITY OF COURT JUDGMENTS – BURDEN ON APPELLANT TO DEMONSTRATE INVALIDITY
“By Section 168(1) of the Evidence Act, 2011, there is a presumption of validity in favour of the judgment of a Court. It is stated therein that: “168. (1) When any judicial or official act is shown to have been done in a manner substantially regular, it is presumed that formal requisites for its validity were complied with.” That being so, the onus is on the Appellant who challenges the validity of such decision to demonstrate to the appellate Court why or how the decision is wrong or invalid.” – Per HARUNA SIMON TSAMMANI, J.S.C.
EFFECT OF ERROR IN JUDGMENT – WHEN ERROR WILL LEAD TO REVERSAL OF JUDGMENT
“It is the law that it is not every mistake that will lead to the reversal of a judgment. It is only where such mistake is substantial and has occasioned a miscarriage of justice, that it becomes fatal to the judgment. See Onajobi v Olanipekun (1965) 4 SC (Pt. 2) 156 at 163; Oje v Babalola (1991) 4 NWLR (Pt. 185) 267 at 282.” – Per HARUNA SIMON TSAMMANI, J.S.C.
EFFECT OF CONTRADICTIONS IN EVIDENCE – WHEN CONTRADICTIONS ARE MATERIAL
“It is also the settled law that for a contradiction to affect the evidential value of a case, it must be material and go to the root of the charge against the accused. The contradiction must touch on an important element or ingredient of the offence charged. Thus, contradictions that are peripheral and irrelevant to the prove of the offence charge are not material, therefore, where such is shown to exist in the evidence given by the witnesses it cannot affect the evidential value of the totality of the evidence adduced at the trial.” – Per HARUNA SIMON TSAMMANI, J.S.C.
IMMATERIAL CONTRADICTIONS – EFFECT ON JUDGMENT
“It is not every contradiction in the prosecution’s case that will result in upsetting a trial Court’s judgment. For a contradiction to upset a judgment, it must be of such magnitude as to warrant interference with the conclusion reached by the trial Court. In other words, for a contradiction to upset the judgment of trial Court, such contradiction must go to the root of the case and if allowed will lead to a miscarriage of justice…” – Per HARUNA SIMON TSAMMANI, J.S.C.
JOINT RESPONSIBILITY IN ROBBERY CASES – IRRELEVANCE OF SPECIFIC ROLE OF EACH PARTICIPANT
“The decision of the Court of Appeal that none of the witnesses actually identified or specifically pin point (sic) what the respondent did in Killing of the deceased show that the Court did not address its mind to the law on joint responsibility for an offence committed during a joint enterprise to carry out an unlawful purpose. The basis of responsibility for the crime is participation in the joint enterprise with the common intention to carry out a purpose that is unlawful. The specific role played in the commission of the offence that occurred in the joint enterprise is not a relevant consideration for joint responsibility by all members of the group for the crime.” – Per HARUNA SIMON TSAMMANI, J.S.C.
STANDARD OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL CASES – MEANING OF PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
“It is also settled law that proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean prove beyond shadow of doubt. It was held by this Court in Afolalu v The State (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1220) 584 that “proof beyond reasonable doubt “means proof to moral certainty, such proof as satisfies the judgment and conscience of a judge as a reasonable man, and applying his reason to the evidence before him that the crime charged has been committed by the defendant and so satisfies him as to leave no other reasonable conclusion possible. See also R v Lawrence (1932) 11 NLR 6 at 7; R v Mofor (1944) 10 WACA 251.” – Per HARUNA SIMON TSAMMANI, J.S.C.
INGREDIENTS OF ARMED ROBBERY – WHAT PROSECUTION MUST PROVE
“To succeed in the offence of armed robbery, the prosecution must establish that: (a) There was a robbery (b) The robbery was carried out with the use of offensive weapons; and (c) The accused person participated in the robbery. All the above must be proved beyond reasonable doubt before a conviction can be sustained. Proof beyond reasonable doubt entails producing enough evidence to justify the charge.” – Per HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, J.S.C.
METHODS OF PROVING CRIMINAL CASE – VARIOUS AVENUES AVAILABLE TO PROSECUTION
“The prosecution can prove the above ingredients either by confession of the Defendant which confession appears to the Court to be true, direct and unequivocal or by the positive evidence from eyewitness or witnesses that saw the Defendant in the actual commission of the crime or by circumstantial evidence so long as the evidence is cogent, unequivocal, and compellingly points to the Defendant as the man who committed the offence.” – Per HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, J.S.C.
PRESUMPTION REGARDING POSSESSION OF STOLEN GOODS – BURDEN ON ACCUSED TO EXPLAIN POSSESSION
“The law is firm as to the presumption under Section 167 of the Evidence Act of a person found in possession of recently stolen goods. In the instant case, the Appellant and his co-accused were found with the vehicle belonging to PW2 from the robbery. It is an record that he was arrested in Kaduna when trying to sell the stolen Vehicle a day after the incident was reported at the office of PW1 and PW3. Section 167(a) provides that “a man who is in possession of stolen goods soon after their theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession”.” – Per HARUNA SIMON TSAMMANI, J.S.C.
ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF ARMED ROBBERY – BURDEN ON PROSECUTION
“To secure a conviction for armed robbery, the prosecution is required to prove the following essential elements beyond reasonable doubt: a. There has been either a robbery or series of robberies, b. The robbery or each of the robberies was an armed robbery. c. The accused was either the robber or one of those who took part in the robbery or series of robberies.” – Per MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.S.C.
CONVICTION BASED ON CONFESSION – SUFFICIENCY OF VOLUNTARY CONFESSION
“Exhibit C was the appellant’s confessional statement. The law grants the Court the unfettered licence to convict an accused person solely on a confession provided it is free, direct, voluntary, cogent, positive and unequivocal, see Ekpemegbere v. State (2024) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1928) 203. The confession in exhibit C crippled the defence of contradiction invented by the appellant.” – Per OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA, J.S.C.
CORRECTION OF ERRORS IN JUDGMENTS – INHERENT POWERS OF COURT
“It is well-established that Courts have the inherent power to correct such errors arising from slips or accidental omissions in their orders or judgments, provided such corrections do not result in a miscarriage of justice. See OMOJU VS. FRN (2008) LPELR – 2647 (SC); GANO VS. STATE (1968) LPELR – 25436 (SC) and ALHAJI ISIYAKU YAKUBU ENTERPRISES LTD & ANOR VS. OMOLABOJE & ORS (2006) LPELR – 416 (SC).” – Per MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.S.C.
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
• Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended)
• Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act, 2010
