INDUSTRIAL TRAINING FUND GOVERNING COUNCIL v. WILLIE THOMAS AUGUSTINA
April 23, 2025HALLIBURTON WEST AFRICA LIMITED V. FEDERAL BOARD OF INLAND REVENUE
April 23, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2025-03) Legalpedia 31763 (SC)
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Holden at Abuja
Fri Jan 24, 2025
Suit Number: SC.CR/603/2021
CORAM
John Inyang Okoro -Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Adamu Jauro- Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Jummai Hannatu Sankey -Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Moore Aseimo Abraham Adumein- Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Abubakar Sadiq Umar – Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
PARTIES
RIDWAN OJEKUNLE
APPELLANTS
THE STATE
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
CRIMINAL LAW, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, EVIDENCE LAW, ARMED ROBBERY, CONSPIRACY, CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS, APPEAL, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
SUMMARY OF FACTS
This case revolves around the Appellant, Ridwan Ojekunle, and his co-accused who were arraigned on a two-count charge of conspiracy to commit Armed Robbery and Armed Robbery contrary to Sections 1(a), (b) and 6(b) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act, Cap. R11 LFN, 2004.
On February 2, 2015, the Appellant, his co-accused and others at large, allegedly conspired to and did enter the residence of one Taibat Adunni Orobiyi (PW1) located at Adeyemo Layout, Odo-Oba Ibadan to rob her. According to PW1's testimony, upon her return to her premises that night, just as she drove into her house, two assailants who had been waiting for her gained entrance into the house, locked the gates behind them, and dragged her into the house while threatening her with a gun and a cutlass. They tied her up and made away with her phones, jewelry, and approximately N260,000.00 (Two hundred and Sixty Thousand Naira).
The perpetrators escaped by jumping over the fence upon being alerted by their scout that some of PW1's neighbors were aware of the situation.
The co-accused, who had acted as the scout/lookout during the commission of the crime, was arrested the next day and led the Police to the Appellant’s house. At the Appellant’s residence,
some of the items stolen from PW1 were recovered, including her phones, jewelry, and cash.
The Police also recovered toy guns used during the operation (Exhibits A1 & A2). The Appellant was subsequently arrested and charged to court.
Upon arraignment, the Appellant and co-accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution called two witnesses: the victim (PW1) and the Investigating Police Officer (IPO) as PW2. Five exhibits were tendered, including the toy guns, the IPO's report, and the confessional statements of the Appellant and co-accused. The Appellant testified in his defense but called no other witnesses. The trial Court found the Appellant guilty and sentenced him to death by hanging.
Aggrieved, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, which unanimously dismissed his appeal and affirmed the trial Court's decision. Dissatisfied, the Appellant further appealed to the Supreme Court.
HELD
1. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding it to be wholly devoid of merit.
2. The Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered on the 2nd day of June, 2021, which had affirmed the conviction and sentence of the Appellant for the offences of Conspiracy to commit Armed Robbery and Armed Robbery.
3. The Court held that the Appellant’s confessional statement, coupled with the cogent and compelling evidence of PW1 and PW2, amply satisfied all the ingredients of the offences charged.
4. The Supreme Court found that there was a clear account of the robbery, with evidence that it was carried out while threatening PW1 with a gun and a cutlass, thus making it an armed robbery, and unmistakably fixing the Appellant to the crime committed as an accomplice, as the items stolen from PW1 and the guns used were recovered from his house.
5. The Court concluded that the Respondent proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the trial Court was on firm footing in its conviction and sentencing of the Appellant, as was the Court of Appeal in affirming the conviction and sentence.
ISSUES
1. Whether, considering the circumstances of this appeal, the Court of Appeal rightly affirmed the conviction and sentence of the Appellant despite the fact that the Respondent failed to establish the offence of conspiracy and armed robbery as required in law?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
FRESH ISSUES ON APPEAL – REQUIREMENT OF LEAVE FROM THE APPELLATE COURT:
“It goes without saying that an Appellant is not foreclosed from raising a new issue before an appellate Court. However, where he seeks to raise a fresh issue based on facts in an appeal, he is obligated to first seek for and obtain the leave of the Court before he can do so. The reason for this is not farfetched. It is simply because an appeal is not a new case but a continuation or re-hearing of the case commenced before the trial Court. Thus, parties to an appeal are expected to agitate the same issues that arose and were raised at the trial.”– Per JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY, J.S.C.
ROLE OF THE SUPREME COURT – NOT TO TRY NEW CASES BUT TO REVIEW DECISIONS OF LOWER COURTS:
“As a rule, an issue which has not been raised at the Courts below will not be entertained on appeal. The rationale for this is that this is the apex Court and an appellate Court. It is not the duty of an appellate Court to decide disputes by trying cases, but it is the duty of the appellate Court to see whether the trial Court has used correct procedure to arrive at the right decision.
Therefore, since the appellate Court does not inquire into disputes, it is desirable for the Court to have the benefit of the opinion of the trial Court on every point taken on appeal.”– Per JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY, J.S.C.
CHALLENGE TO CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS – TIMING OF OBJECTION:
“I wish to at this stage point out the fact that a challenge to a confessional statement must be made timeously and that means at the point of its tendering.”– Per JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY, J.S.C.
RETRACTED CONFESSION VS. INVOLUNTARY CONFESSION – DIFFERENT PROCEDURES FOR EACH:
“There are two possible scenarios and outcomes where an accused person objects to the tendering of 'his' confessional statement. Firstly, where the accused person denies or resiles from the confessional statement, that is, where the objection is that the accused never made that statement or contends that the signature therein was not his, etc., the Court is at liberty to admit such confessional statement. Nevertheless, it is obliged to conduct some tests to verify, ascertain and confirm the truthfulness and authenticity of the said confessional statement of the accused person in order to determine the weight to be attached to it.”– Per JUMMAI SANKEY, J.S.C.
SIX-WAY TEST FOR RETRACTED CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS:
“a) Is there anything outside the confession to show that it is true? b) Is it corroborated? c) Are the relevant statement made in it of facts, true as far as can be tested? d) Was the accused person one who has the opportunity of committing the crime? e) Is the accused person’s confession possible? f) Is the confessional statement consistent with other facts which have been ascertained and proved?” – Per JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY, J.S.C.
TRIAL-WITHIN-TRIAL – WHEN REQUIRED:
“Where however the accused person complains that he was forced or tortured to make a confession, then the outcome is different. In such a situation, a trial-within-trial must be conducted to determine if indeed the confessional statement was made under duress or undue influence or the like, contrary to Section 29(2) & (5) of the Evidence Act, 2011. If the statement is found to be voluntary, then it is admitted in evidence and the trial Court may proceed to convict the accused on the force of the voluntary confession. However, where the confessional statement is found to have been made involuntarily by reason of acts of compulsion inflicted on the accused, then it must be discountenanced.”– Per JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY, J.S.C.
DISTINCTION BETWEEN OBJECTIONS BASED ON INVOLUNTARINESS AND DENIAL OF MAKING STATEMENT:
“Where an accused person complains that he was forced or tortured to make a confession, what is attacked is the admissibility of the confession in evidence, and a trial-within-trial must be held to determine its voluntariness. But where the accused person contends that he did not sign a confessional statement, the trial Court is entitled to admit it in evidence. The question of whether the accused person made them or not and what weight to attach to the statement is decided at the end of the trial by the trial Court. Therefore, a trial-within-trial is not required in such circumstances.” – Per JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY, J.S.C.
WEIGHT OF RETRACTED CONFESSION – APPLICATION OF SIX TESTS:
“The Court only determines the weight to be attached to a retracted confessional statement; that is, where the accused person outrightly denies making the statement at the slightest opportunity. The Court in the circumstance is expected to test its truthfulness by examining the statement in the light of other credible evidence adduced. The Court would subject the statement to six tests for verification…”– Per JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY, J.S.C.
INGREDIENTS OF ARMED ROBBERY – PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT:
“It bears repeating that the ingredients of the offence of armed robbery, which must be established beyond reasonable doubt in tandem, are: (a) that there was a robbery or a series of robberies; and (b) that each robbery was an armed robbery, that is that the robbers or any of them was armed at the time of the robbery; and (c) that the accused was one of those who participated in the robbery or series of robberies.”– Per JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY, J.S.C.
CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT – SUPREME COURT’S RELUCTANCE TO INTERFERE:
“Consequently, I see no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below.
This appeal is wholly devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed.”– Per JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY, J.S.C.
GROUNDS FOR INTERFERING WITH CONCURRENT FINDINGS – PERVERSITY OR MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE:
“The appeal is against the concurrent findings of the two lower Courts. Howbeit, the Appellant has failed to demonstrate the perverseness in the judgment of the Court below which could sustain an invitation for this Court to interfere with same, a substantive or procedural error which if not corrected would occasion a miscarriage of justice against him.”– Per JOHN INYANG OKORO, J.S.C.
TOY GUN VS. CUTLASS – QUALIFICATION AS OFFENSIVE WEAPON:
“I need to state that notwithstanding the fact that a toy gun is not a firearm within the provision of Section 11(1) of the Robbery and Firearms Act, a cutlass constitutes an offensive weapon under the same Act.”– Per JOHN INYANG OKORO, J.S.C.
CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT ARMED ROBBERY – LIABILITY SAME AS PRINCIPAL OFFENDER:
“Again, under Section 6 of the Act, any person who conspires with another to commit the offence of armed robbery is deemed guilty of the offence as the principal offender and is liable to be punished accordingly.-” Per JOHN INYANG OKORO, J.S.C.
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
1.Constitution of the federal republic of Nigeria,1999(as amended)
2.Robbery and Firearms(Special Provisions) Act,Cap R11 LFN 2004
3.Evidence Act,2011
