CHRISTOPHER DIBIA v. THE STATE

CORAM

MUDASHIRU N. ONIYANGI – JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL

PARTIES

CHRISTOPHER DIBIA APPELLANTS

THE STATE RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant and one Vincent Eze (m) were arraigned and prosecuted at the High Court of Justice of Ogun State sitting at-Ota, in Ota Judicial Division for the offences of conspiracy to commit armed robbery, and armed robbery contrary to Sections 6 (b) and 1 (2) (a) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act respectively. The offences were allegedly committed on 8th December, 2006 wherein  the Appellant and two others (including Vincent Eze) were said to have entered the house of PW l and PW 2 at No. 2, Ishola Ola Jesu Street, Ishashi, Akute in Ogun State on a false pretence and carried out violent attacks and harassments on the occupants of the house. In the course of their violent harassment, the assailants heard shouts “thief, thief” from the neighborhood and consequently retreated. The Appellant and Vincent Eze only, were caught and arrested. The Appellant made an extra-judicial statement to PW.4, a Police investigator. The statement was recorded by the PW.4, because the Appellant could not, himself, write as a result of the injuries he had on his right hand. At the conclusion of the trial, the Accused persons were found guilty on the lesser offence of attempted robbery. Aggrieved, the Appellant filed an appeal before the Court of Appeal and same was dismissed, hence a further appeal before this Court.

HELD

Appeal Dismissed

ISSUES

1. Whether, on a calm review of the totality of the evidence of the prosecution and the defence, juxtaposing of same with the evidence of the appellant on the other side of an imaginary scale reveals that the defence of the appellant is probable such that he is entitled to the statutory benefit of doubt without conviction for a lesser offence of attempted robbery?

2. Taking into consideration the entire circumstances of this case can it be equitably contented that “Facts and circumstances’’ outside Exhibit A did corroborate Exhibit A such that the appellant may be said to be the maker of Exhibit A in law and equity?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

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

2. Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act Cap R. 11 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004,

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT