Legalpedia Citation: (2023-12) Legalpedia 88364 (CA)

In the Court of Appeal

Holden At Lagos

Thu Dec 7, 2023

Suit Number: CA/LAG/CR/741/2020

CORAM

Jimi Olukayode Bada Justice, Court of Appeal

Frederick Oziakpono Oho Justice, Court of Appeal

Abdullahi Mahmud Bayero Justice, Court of Appeal

PARTIES

IBUCHI OKONKWO

APPELLANTS

THE STATE

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

APPEAL, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE, JUDGMENT, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

SUMMARY OF FACTS

One Samuel Aduku Okolo, a Legal Practitioner living at Plot 3 behind Afijunu Block Industry, Onbanna, Phase II, Ibeju, Lekki, Lagos, and his family were the victims of armed robbery by the Appellant and 5 others on the 25th January, 2013 at night. They accosted them at gun point and inflicted blows on Samuel when he and the family got home after work. The armed robbery was between 11pm – 3am.

The armed robbers tried to cart away their Plasma TV, DVD Player, Venellenes, and Monies. They loaded everything in his vehicle in an attempt to make away around 3am but fortunately the OPC were patrolling with their whistles and the thieves attempted to get away but one of them (the Appellant) was apprehended and handed over to the Police at Elemoro. The Police then came to the house to investigate the scene of the crime and took what they needed as evidence I identified the defendant as he held me whilst I was being punches.

The Appellant was convicted and sentenced to 21years imprisonment and death for the offences of conspiracy to commit Robbery and Armed Robbery contrary to Section 297 and 295 (2) of the Criminal Law of Lagos State 2011.

The Appellant who is dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial Court appealed to this Court.

HELD

Appeal dismissed

 

ISSUES

1. Whether on the totality of the evidence adduced before the trial Court, the ingredients for the offences of conspiracy to commit Robbery and Armed Robbery contrary to Sections 297 and 295 (2) respectively, of the Criminal Law of Lagos State 2011 were proved beyond reasonable doubt?
2. Whether the learned trial Judge erred in law and occasioned a miscarriage of Justice when she convicted and sentenced the Appellant without considering the defence of alibi put up by the Appellant?
3. Whether the judgment of the learned trial Judge is a nullity having regard to the delivery of the Judgment outside the constitutionally mandatory 90 days period after the adoption of final written addresses?

 

RATIONES DECIDENDI

BURDEN OF PROOF – BURDEN AND STANDARD OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL TRIALS

It is trite that the Prosecution in a Criminal Trial is required to prove its case against the accused person beyond reasonable doubt. The proof beyond reasonable doubt simply means that there is sufficient admissible evidence that all the essential ingredients constituting the offence an accused was charged with were established to justify the conviction of the accused person by the trial Court. See the following cases: –

– Bakare vs. The State (supra).

– Smart vs. State (2016) 9 NWLR Part 1517 Page 447.

– Hassan vs. State (2017) 5 NWLR Part 1557 Page 1. – Per J. O. Bada, JCA

 

PROSECUTION – WAYS THE PROSECUTION CAN PROVE THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME

There are three ways by which the Prosecution can prove the commission of a crime.

(a) By confessional statement.

(b) By evidence of an eye witness or witnesses.

(c) By circumstantial evidence.

See the following cases: –

– Ogidi vs. State (2003) 9 NWLR Part 834 Page 1.

– Adelaja vs. The State (2020) LPELR-50275 (CA).

– Abirifon vs. State (2013) 13 NWLR Part 1372 Page 587. – Per J. O. Bada, JCA

 

ARMED ROBBERY – INGREDIENTS OF THE OFFENSE OF ARMED ROBBERY

It is the law that wherever a person is charged with the offence of Armed Robbery, the Prosecution must prove the following ingredients of the offence of Armed Robbery.

(a) That there was a robbery or series of robberies.

(b) That the said robbery was an armed robbery.

(c) That the Appellant was one of those who took part in the armed robbery.

See the following cases: –

– Osuagwu vs. State (2016) 16 NWLR Part 1537 Page 31.

– Seun vs. The State (2019) LPELR-47549 (SC). – Per J. O. Bada, JCA

 

ARMED ROBBERY – WHEN A PERSON CHARGED WITH ARMED ROBBERY IS CONVICTED

In Osung vs. The State (2012) 18 NWLR Part 1322 Page 256, it was held among others that: –

“By virtue of the Provisions of Section 1 of the Armed Robbery and Firearms Special Provisions Act –

(1) Any person who commits the offence of Robbery shall upon trial and conviction under the Act be sentenced to imprisonment for not less than 21 years…

(2) If – (a) any offender mentioned in Subsection (1) of this Section is armed with any firearms or any offensive weapon or is in company with any person so armed or

(b) at or immediately before or immediately after the time to the Robbery, the said offender wounds or uses any personal violence to any person, the offender shall be liable upon conviction under this Act to be sentenced to death”

By the above provision, it is not necessary that the person charged under the above provision be armed with any firearm or any offensive weapon himself. Once he is in the company of any person who is so armed when the offence was committed, it will suffice to find him guilty of the offence of armed robbery.” – Per J. O. Bada, JCA

 

ALIBI – WHERE AN ACCUSED RAISES THE DEFENSE OF ALIBI

The defence of Alibi is open to any person standing trial for any crime. An accused person who raises the defence of Alibi is in effect denying participation or taking part in the commission of the offence on the ground that as at the time when the alleged crime occurred, he was somewhere other than the scene of the crime and could not consequently have been involved in the commission of the crime with which he is charged.

The burden is on the Prosecution to investigate and disprove the Alibi where it is raised on time. The failure to investigate and check the reliability of the Alibi would raise reasonable doubt in the mind of the Court or Tribunal and lead to the quashing of a conviction imposed in disregard of this requirement.

See the following cases: –

– Ochemaje vs. The State (2008) 15 NWLR Part 1109 at Page 57.

– Udo vs. State (2018) 8 NWLR Part 1622 Page 462.

– Sheu vs. The State (2010) 8 NWLR Part 1195 Page 112. 

 

But as in this case where the Prosecution is able to show that the accused was at the scene of crime when the offence was committed by unquestionable evidence, then the defence of Alibi will not avail him. See – Egwumi vs. State (2013) 13 NWLR Part 1372 Page 525. – Per J. O. Bada, JCA

ALIBI – DUTY OF AN ACCUSED IN RAISING THE DEFENSE OF ALIBI

In Ochemaje vs. State (supra) it was held thus: –

 

“A defence of Alibi to be worthy of investigation should be precise and specific in terms of the place that the accused was and the person or persons he was with and possibly what he was doing at the material time.” – Per J. O. Bada, JCA

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

1. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)
2. Criminal Law of Lagos State 2011
3. Evidence Act 2
   

   CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGEMENT