Legalpedia Citation: (2024-09) Legalpedia 30461 (SC)

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Fri Jun 21, 2024

Suit Number: SC.1017/2017

CORAM

Uwani Musa Abba Aji Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Helen Moronkeji Ogunwumiju Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Chidi Nwaoma Uwa Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Stephen Jonah Adah Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Abubakar Sadiq Umar Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

PARTIES

OLADELE AYODELE

APPELLANTS

THE STATE

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE LAW, APPELLATE PROCEDURE, PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT, PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE, DOCTRINE OF RECENT POSSESSION, STATUTORY INTERPRETATION

SUMMARY OF FACTS

On August 13, 2007, Arthur Didem (PW1) was robbed of his black Toyota Avensis at gunpoint along Ugborikoko Road, Delta State. On August 5, 2007, the Appellant received a call from Yerindideke Moses and Osamudiamen Enahoro about a car for sale. The Appellant traveled from Lagos to Benin, meeting them at Iyaro Park around 8 pm. He fueled the car and drove it to Lagos that night. The car was later discovered by police parked at Dolphine Estate in Lagos. The Appellant claimed he discovered discrepancies in the registration numbers and traveled to Warri to verify the car’s particulars when he was arrested. He was subsequently charged with receiving stolen goods, convicted at trial, and his appeal at the Court of Appeal failed.

HELD

1. The appeal was dismissed.
2. The Supreme Court affirmed the concurrent decisions of the lower courts.
3. The Court held that the prosecution proved all elements of receiving stolen property beyond reasonable doubt.
4. The circumstances of the transaction raised sufficient red flags to establish guilty knowledge.

ISSUES

Whether the Court of Appeal was right in affirming the decision of the learned trial judge and confirming the conviction and sentence of the Appellant when all the ingredients for establishing the offence of receiving stolen (robbed) property have not been established by the prosecution as required by law in this case.?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

ELEMENTS OF RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY – INGREDIENTS TO BE PROVED

“In order to establish the offence of receiving robbed property, which the Appellant is charged with, contrary to Section 5 of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act Cap. R11, Volume 14, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004, pari materia with the offence of receiving stolen property contrary to Section 427 of the Criminal Code, the prosecution must establish that: (a). There must be proof of stealing the goods in question, (b). There must be proof that the person charged received the said goods dishonestly, (c). There must be evidence of guilty knowledge that at the time the stolen goods were received the recipient knew or had reason to believe that the goods were stolen property.” – Per Uwani Musa Abba Aji, J.S.C.

PROOF OF RECEIVING – SUFFICIENCY OF POSSESSION

“It is undoubtedly the law that a person found in possession of property reported to have been recently stolen, with or without violence from another person, may be convicted for the theft of the property. Resort is normally made by the prosecution to the doctrine of recent possession, statutorily provided for under Section 167(a) of the Evidence Act 2011.” – Per Uwani Musa Abba Aji, J.S.C.

DOCTRINE OF RECENT POSSESSION – APPLICATION

“It is undoubtedly the law that a person found in possession of property reported to have been recently stolen, with or without violence from another person, may be convicted for the theft of the property. Resort is normally made by the prosecution to the doctrine of recent possession, statutorily provided for under Section 167(a) of the Evidence Act 2011.” – Per Uwani Musa Abba Aji, J.S.C.

GUILTY KNOWLEDGE – INFERENCE FROM CIRCUMSTANCES

“The law is settled that guilty knowledge may be inferred from the surrounding circumstance such as: (a) The manner of receipt or delivery of the goods allegedly stolen; (b) The time of delivery (c) The actions upon delivery and (d) The price paid for the goods.” – Per Helen Moronkeji Ogunwumiju, J.S.C.

BURDEN OF PROOF – BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT

“While it is settled that proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond the shadow of a doubt, where there is any doubt in the case presented by the prosecution, such doubt must be resolved in favour of the accused person.” – Per Chidi Nwaoma Uwa, J.S.C.

PRESUMPTION OF RECENT POSSESSION – STATUTORY PROVISION

“a man who is in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen unless he can account for his possession” – Per Chidi Nwaoma Uwa, J.S.C.

SUSPICIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES – INDICATORS OF GUILT

“The speed with which the appellant took to the road on receiving a call that there was a vehicle available at Warri for sale and the fact that the vehicle was brought to him at night and he moved in that late hour of the night to Lagos for the purpose of selling the vehicle among others are enough indication of his knowledge of the fact that the vehicle was a stolen vehicle.” – Per Stephen Jonah Adah, J.S.C.

DEFENSE OF INNOCENT RECEIVER – BURDEN OF PROOF

“The prosecution in the instant case established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant knew or had deliberately shut his eyes to the obvious that the Toyota Avensis with Registration No. DR 755 WWR was a stolen vehicle. In the circumstance of that strong case, the appellant would only escape conviction if he established a successful defence of being an innocent receiver which the appellant failed to do.” – Per Stephen Jonah Adah, J.S.C.

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE – PROVING GUILTY KNOWLEDGE

“The spurious actions of the Appellant coupled with the compellation of travelling all night from Benin to Lagos to evade and erase the scene of the crime, all by himself and not another person, is greatly suspicious. The rushed and hasty nature of the transaction by the Appellant has much to reveal a dishonest intent.” – Per Uwani Musa Abba Aji, J.S.C.

EVALUATION OF SUSPICIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES

“Naturally, every person would like to defend his actions but the law can make inferences of intentions, whether they are honest or dishonest by the circumstances of the case. The shortness and briefness of the transaction crafted and worked out by the Appellant to execute the deal exposes dishonesty.” – Per Uwani Musa Abba Aji, J.S.C.

REBUTTAL OF PRESUMPTION – REQUIREMENT OF CREDIBLE EXPLANATION

“The learned trial Judge doesn’t need to be convinced of the truth of the explanation before the presumption is rebutted. What is important is that the explanation was not controverted by the prosecution and so it remained unchallenged.” – Per Chidi Nwaoma Uwa, J.S.C.

STANDARD OF PROOF – PROSECUTION’S BURDEN

“It is necessary to reiterate the settled position of the law that in criminal proceedings, the prosecution must establish its case against the accused person beyond reasonable doubt.” – Per Chidi Nwaoma Uwa, J.S.C.

GUILTY KNOWLEDGE – INFERENCE FROM CONDUCT

“The key ingredient of the offence of receiving stolen goods is that the prosecution among others must prove that the receiver knows or ought to know that the property he was receiving was a ‘stolen property.'” – Per Stephen Jonah Adah, J.S.C.

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

1. Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act Cap R11, Volume 14, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004
2. Evidence Act 2011
3. Criminal Code
4. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)
   

   CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGEMENT