CORAM
PARTIES
IKECHUKWU SUNDAY APPELLANTS
THE STATE
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellant along with three others were charged before the High Court of Kano State at the Kano Judicial Division on a two count charge of conspiracy and armed robbery contrary to section 5(b) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special provisions) Decree 1984 as amended by Decree No. 62 of 1999 and section 1(2)(a) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Decree 1984 as amended by Decree No.62 of 1999 respectively. At the trial, the prosecution called five witnesses, while the defence called four witnesses with each of the accused person. At the close of the trial, each of the accused persons was found guilty and accordingly sentenced to death. Dissatisfied with the decision of the trial court, the accused persons all appealed separately to the Court of Appeal which dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the trial Court. This court granted the Appellant an extension of time within which to appeal and leave to raise and argue fresh issues that were not argued at the lower courts.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed
ISSUES
1. Whether the discretion of the learned trial judge in granting the leave to prefer the charge against the Appellant was exercised in accordance with the law.?
2. Whether there was enough credible and admissible evidence before the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal for confirming and affirming the conviction and sentence of the Appellant.?
3. Whether the non-compliance of the judgment of the learned trial judge with the mandatory provisions of the section 269 (1) of the Criminal procedure Code did not vitiate the entire proceedings and thus rendering it a nullity.?
4. Whether having regard to the entire circumstances of the case the prosecution did not withhold evidence thereby denying the appellant fair trial?
5. Whether the Appellant’s defence of alibi was adequately considered and rightly rejected by the courts below.?
6. Whether having regard to the circumstances of this case the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right to hold that an identification parade was unnecessary.?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
1. Criminal Procedure Code
2. Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act cap 398 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990