SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellant and the 1st Accused person were tried on a two count charge of conspiracy and Armed Robbery contrary to section 5(b) and 1(2)(a) of the Robbery and Fire arms (Special Provisions) Act Cap 398 Laws of the Federation. They both pleaded not guilty to each of the charge. At the end of the trial, the trial court found the Appellant and the 1st accused guilty as charged, convicted and sentenced them. On appeal, the Court of appeal affirmed the decision of the trial court, hence the instant appeal.
HELD
Appeal dismissed
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
Whether the lower court was right in deciding that despite the provisions of Section 36(11) of the 1999 Constitution and Section 160(a) of the Evidence Act, the confessional extra-judicial statement said to be made by the Appellant which she resiled from, was still admissible in law. (Derived from Ground One of the Grounds of Appeal.)
Whether the lower court’s decision in striking out the issues before it relating to the marriage between Appellant and 1st Accused Person, on the ground that the trial court’s pronouncement on same was obiter, is correct. (Derived from Grounds Two and Three of the Grounds of Appeal).
Whether the lower court was right in its decision that Exhibits 1, 2, 5 and 6 properly corroborated Exhibit 7 and together proved the guilt of the Appellant of the offence charged. (Derived from Ground Four of the Grounds of Appeal).”
RATIOS
EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE-DUTY OF THE TRIAL COURT THERETO
“In evaluating the evidence of the witnesses, the trial court is expected to make full use of the opportunity it had of seeing and observing the witnesses in the course of their testimonies and having regard to applicable law and common sense arrive at the conclusions a reasonable tribunal in that circumstances will arrive at”. PER MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMED JSC
EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE-WHEN AN APPELLATE COURT CAN RE-EVALUATE EVIDENCE
“Where however, the trial court failed to use the opportunity afforded it to properly evaluate the evidence adduced at a trial, the appellate court is competent to re-evaluate the evidence on record in order to obviate miscarriage of justice”. PER MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMED JSC
CONFESSION-VOLUNTARY CONFESSION-WHEN IT CAN SUSTAIN A CONVICTION
“A free and voluntary confession which is direct, positive and properly proved is sufficient to sustain a conviction. Though desirable, corroborative evidence is not necessary. Once the court is satisfied with its truth, it can safely convict on the basis of the confessional statement of an accused alone”. PER MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMED JSC
OBITER DICTUM-MEANING OF
“An obiter dictum is a by the side remark made or expressed by a judge in his decision upon a case which remark or opinion is incidental or collateral and not directly upon the question before the court”. PER MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMED JSC
DEFENCES-DUTY OF A COURT TO CONSIDER ANY DEFENCE RAISED BY AN ACCUSED
“Although a judge or court is not obliged to fish for defences not borne out by the evidence on record, it has long been settled that the court has the duty to fairly and impartially consider any defence raised by a person charged with crime however weak, foolish, unfounded or conflicting the defence is. Any defence to which an accused is, on the evidence entitled to, should be considered however stupid, unreasonable or for whatever it is worth”. PER MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMED JSC
ERRORS IN A JUDGMENT-WHEN WILL ERRORS IN A JUDGMENT RESULT IN THE SETTING ASIDE OF THE JUDGMENT
“Not all errors in a judgment appealed against, however, result in the setting aside of the judgment and allowing the appeal. Only those errors that have caused miscarriage of justice entitle the appellant to real success in the appeal”. PER MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMED
CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT-DUTY OF AN ACCUSED PERSON WHERE HE RESILES THEREFROM
“It is trite that if the accused person resiles from his confessional statement, it is his duty to explain to the court as part of his evidence, the reason for the inconsistency but the Appellant in this case could not convince the trial court that his confessional statement was not voluntarily made. PER J.I.OKORO JSC
CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT-WHEN A COURT CAN CONVICT AN ACCUSED PERSON ON HIS CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT
“It is well settled that a court can convict an accused person on the confessional statement made by him provided it is direct, positive and unequivocal about his committal of the crime”. PER J.I.OKORO JSC
CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT-ADMISSIBILITY OF
“Thus, a confessional statement, if it is true, positive and direct becomes proof of an act. Also, where it is voluntarily made stating or suggesting the inference that an accused committed an offence for which he is charged, it is relevant and admissible against him provided the statement was not made as a result of any threat, promise or inducement from a person in authority. It has to be noted that any voluntary information given by the accused at any time during investigation which leads to the discovery of any fact material to the charge against him is equally admissible”. PER J.I.OKORO JSC
CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF LOWER COURTS-ATTITUDE OF THE SUPREME COURT THERETO
“The Supreme Court is slow to review such evidence unless there is proof of miscarriage of justice, or violation of some principle of law or procedure, or the finding is perverse”. PER BODE RHODES VIVOUR JSC
CONSPIRACY-REQUIREMENT FOR CONVICTION
“In a charge of conspiracy all that is required is evidence of agreement of the parties express or implied before there can be conviction. The offence is complete when there is established an agreement to do an unlawful thing and not in doing the thing. Reasonable inferences from the acts of the parties would suffice”. PER BODE RHODES VIVOUR JSC
CASES MENTIONED
Adeye v. Adesanya (2001) 6 NWLR )(Pt 708) 1
Adejobi & anor. V. State 2011 6-7SC (pt. iii) p.65
Anthony Odiba V. Tule Azege (1998) 7 SCNJ 119)
Arowolo v. Olowookere & 2 ors. 201111-12SC (pt.ii) p.98
Bright v. State 2012 I SC (pt.ii) p.47
Cameroon Airlines v. Otutuizu 20111-2SC (pt.iii)p.200
CSS Bookshops Ltd V. The Registered Trustees of Muslim Community in Rivers State & Ors. (2006) 4 SCNJ 310
Elijah Ukoh v. The State (1972) 5 and 6 SC 89
Fatai Olayinka v. The State (2007) 4 SCNJ 53
Fatilewa V. The State (2008) 12 NWLR (pt. 1101) 518, (2008) 4 – 5 SC (pt. 1) 191
Iragunima v. R.S.H.P.D.A (2003) 12 NWLR (Pt 834) 427
Iwoha v Nipost (2003) 8 NWLR (Pt 822) 308 343- 344
Kareem V. Federal Republic of Nigeria (NO. 2) (2002) 4 SC (pt. 11) 42, (2002) 8 NWLR (pt. 770) 664
Kim V. The State (1992) 4 SCNJ 81 @ 110
Mohammed & anor v State (2007) 4 SCNJ 117
Nwachukwu V. State (2007) 7 SC 1, (2007) 17 NWLR (pt. 1062) 31,
Nwarga Nwuzoke v. The State (1988) 2 SC (Pt 11) 272
Okon Osung v The State (2012) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1332) 256
Onwubuariri & 3 ors. v. Igboasoiyi & 4 ors. 2011 1-2SC (ptiii) p.109
Peter V. State (1997) 12 NWLR (pt. 531) I at 22,
Soleh Boneh Overseas Nig. Ltd. V. Agboola Ayodele & Anor (1989) 2 SC (Pt. 1) 108;
State v. Olashehu Salami 2011 12 SC (pt.iv) p.191
Yusufu V. The State (1976) 6 SC 167 at 173,
STATUTES REFERRED TO
The Evidence Act
The 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria