CORAM

---

Biobele Abraham Georgewill Justice of the Court of Appeal

Ebiowei Tobi Justice of the Court of Appeal

Kenneth Ikechukwu Amadi Justice of the Court of Appeal

---

PARTIES

---

SEYI ADEBAYO

APPELLANTS 

---

THE STATE

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE, ARMED ROBBERY, CONSPIRACY, CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS, IDENTIFICATION OF SUSPECTS, BURDEN OF PROOF, EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY, APPEAL, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant was charged along with two co-defendants on a four-count charge alleging conspiracy to commit armed robbery and three counts of armed robbery. The charges related to incidents that occurred on February 28, 2015, at Odojagbidi Quarters, Itele, Ijebu-Ode, where armed men allegedly robbed three victims: Julius Olaiya Sonibare (N130,000 and gold trinkets), Omotayo Dada Adefuye (N49,000), and Moses Lawal (plasma TV worth N65,000 and N170,000 cash).

The prosecution called five witnesses (PW1-PW5), including the three victims who testified that they were robbed by the appellant and his co-defendants while armed with guns and cutlasses. The police witnesses testified about the investigation, arrest of the defendants, and recovery of weapons and stolen items. The prosecution tendered confessional statements (Exhibits C and G) allegedly made by the appellant.

The appellant testified in his defense, denying the charges and claiming he was a shoe maker who was wrongfully arrested while buying materials for his business. He denied making the confessional statements attributed to him. His co-defendants also denied the charges.

The trial court convicted the appellant on all four counts, sentencing him to death for armed robbery and 14 years imprisonment for conspiracy to commit armed robbery. The appellant appealed, challenging the competence of the charges and arguing that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

 

---

HELD

---

1. The appeal was dismissed.

2. The Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction and sentence of the High Court.

3. The court held that the charges filed against the appellant were competent and contained all requisite elements required by law.

4. The court found that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through eyewitness testimony and confessional statements.

5. The court held that the trial court properly applied the test for retracted confessional statements and found them to be true based on corroborating evidence.

6. The conviction for both conspiracy to commit armed robbery (14 years imprisonment) and armed robbery (death sentence) was upheld.

 

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether the lower Court was justified in convicting and sentencing the Appellant for Conspiracy to commit Armed Robbery and Armed Robbery when the charges proffered against the Appellant as reflected in the judgment itself are lacking in contents known to law?

2. Whether the lower Court was right in its decision that the Respondent proved its case beyond reasonable doubt as to justify the conviction and sentence of Appellant for Conspiracy to commit Armed Robbery and Armed Robbery as handed down by the lower Court?

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

COMPETENCE OF ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION – DERIVATION FROM GROUNDS OF APPEAL

---

In appellate litigation, an issue for determination must arise or derived or emanate from any of the Grounds of Appeal, and never in vacuo. I have looked at the Appellant’s two Grounds in the Amended Notice of Appeal, and it does appear to me that the Respondent’s issue two for determination does not emanate from any of the Appellant’s two Grounds of Appeal in the Amended Notice of Appeal, and there being no cross-appeal, the Respondent must confine its issues for determination within the ambit of the Appellant’s two Grounds of Appeal in the Amended Notice of Appeal. – Per BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.

 

---

INCOMPETENT ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

---

Therefore, in law, an issue for determination not founded upon or derivable or distilled from a competent ground or grounds of appeal is utterly incompetent and must be discountenanced. It follows, therefore, such an issue for determination is simply dead on arrival, incompetent and liable to be struck out. – Per BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.

 

---

CHARGES – COMPETENCE AND ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS

---

It is true in law that there are certain mandatory contents a charge must have, namely: the names of the Defendant; the date and time of commission of the offence, not necessarily the exact date and time, save where the time is of essence; the place of the commission of the offence; the statement of the offence; the name of the person and of the thing against whom or in respect of which the offence was committed; the relevant provisions of the law under which the Defendant is charged; and the signature of the requisite Charging Official.– Per BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.

 

---

BURDEN OF PROOF – ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF CONSPIRACY

---

Now, in relation to the offence of Conspiracy, in order to establish same against the Appellant, the Respondent must prove by credible evidence, and beyond reasonable doubt, the following essential elements, namely: i. An agreement between two or more persons to do or cause to be done, some illegal act or some act which is not illegal but by illegal means. ii. Where the agreement is other than an agreement to commit an offence that some act besides the agreement was done by one or more parties in furtherance of the agreement. iii. Specifically, that each of the Conspirators individually participated in the conspiracy. – Per BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.

 

---

BURDEN OF PROOF – ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF ARMED ROBBERY

---

In relation to the offence of Armed Robbery, in order to establish same against the Appellant, the Respondent must prove by credible evidence, and beyond reasonable doubt, the following essential elements, namely: i. That there was a robbery or series of robbery; ii. That the robbery was an armed robbery, that is the robbers were armed during the robbery; iii. That the Defendant was one of those who took part in the armed robber.- Per BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.

 

---

BURDEN OF PROOF – STANDARD AND METHODS

---

However, in proving its case against a Defendant, the Prosecution has open to it one or all of three ways to do so, to wit: by direct evidence of an eyewitness, by the confession of the Defendant or by circumstantial evidence. – Per BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.

 

---

NATURE OF CONSPIRACY – AGREEMENT AND INFERENCE

---

Generally, conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to do an unlawful act or to do a lawful act by an unlawful means. There must be an agreement which is an advancement of an intention conceived in the mind of each person secretly mens rea. The secret intentions must have been translated into an overt act or omission or mutual consultation and actus Reus.- Per BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.

 

---

PROOF OF CONSPIRACY – INFERENCE FROM CONDUCT

---

It has long been accepted as the correct position of the law on the offence of Conspiracy that it is generally a matter of inference to be deduced from certain criminal acts of the Defendants, which were done in pursuance of an apparent criminal purpose in common amongst them, and, in reality, it is always very difficult, though not impossible in some very rare cases, to prove actual agreement of the Defendants. – Per BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.

 

---

CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS – DEFINITION AND EVIDENTIARY VALUE

---

In law, a confession is an admission made at any time by a person charged with a crime suggesting that he committed that crime, and subject to certain conditions, a Defendant in a criminal trial can be convicted on his confession alone even where the confession is retracted at the trial once the confession is direct, positive, and voluntarily made and satisfactorily so proved. – Per BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.

 

---

RETRACTED CONFESSIONS – TEST FOR TRUTHFULNESS

---

However, where the Defendant retracted the confessional Statement on the ground that it was not read to him before he signed it or that he never made it at all as in the instant Appeal, then there would be no need for a trial – within – trial. In the latter scenario, the Court should take into consideration the following factors, namely: i. Is there anything outside of the confession to show that it is true? ii. Is the Statement corroborated? iii. Is the statement or confession consistent with other facts which have been ascertained and proven? iv. Did the Defendant have an opportunity of committing the offence? v. Is the confession possible? and vi. Whether the facts stated in the confession are true so far as they can be tested? – Per BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.

 

---

IDENTIFICATION PARADE – WHEN NECESSARY

---

It is settled law that identification parade is very essential and useful whenever there is doubt as to the ability of a victim to recognize the suspect who participated in carrying out the crime or where the identity of the said suspect or Defendant is in dispute. However, where there is certainty or no dispute as to the identity of the perpetrator of a crime, or where the Defendant was apprehended during the commission of the crime, there will be no need for an identification parade to further identify the offender. – Per BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.

 

---

EYEWITNESS EVIDENCE – RELIABILITY AND ACCEPTANCE

---

Now, before the lower Court, PW1 and PW2 gave vivid eyewitness account of the incident of 28/2/2015, narrating the harrowing experience they went through in the hands of the Appellant and his co – Defendants and they were not in any way discredited under their cross – examination. In law, eyewitness account is very acceptable because it is always, or should I say, usually, a reliable form of evidence provided however, that the witness is telling the truth. – Per BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.

 

---

STANDARD OF PROOF – BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT

---

In law, the conviction of a Defendant in a criminal trial, once supported and founded upon credible evidence, creating no room for speculation or reasonable doubt, must be upheld since the burden on the Respondent is to prove by credible evidence the guilt of the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt as required by law and not beyond all doubts or fanciful doubts!- Per BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.

 

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

1. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)

2. Evidence Act 2011

3. Prohibition of Forcible Occupation of Landed Properties, Armed Robbery and Other Related Offences Law of Ogun State

4. Criminal Code

5. Court of Appeal Rules 2021

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT