May 25, 2025
Legalpedia Citation: (2010) Legalpedia (CA) 71876 In the Court of Appeal HOLDEN AT JOS Sun Jun 27, 2010 Suit Number: CA/J/50C/2006 CORAM PARTIES 1. STEPHEN JOHN2 MAXWELL […]
CORAM
PARTIES
1. STEPHEN JOHN2 MAXWELL IDI APPELLANTS
THE STATE RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellants as accused persons were arraigned before the High Court of Plateau State, with 7 other accused persons on an eight count charge. By a motion on notice dated 17th April, 2001 the prosecution sought and was granted the leave of the court to amend the charges as a consequence of which the names of the 4th – 9th accused persons and counts 3 – 8 in the charge were struck out. The plea of the three accused persons on the amended charge was taken by the court and they all pleaded not guilty. The matter thereafter proceeded to trial, thereafter learned respective counsels addressed the court and in a considered judgment, the learned trial judge found them guilty as charged, convicted them for the offence of armed robbery and sentenced them to death. The 1st and 2nd accused persons dissatisfied with their conviction and sentences filed two separate notices of appeal.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed.
ISSUES
Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants of the offence of armed robbery punishable under Section (1)(2)(b) of the Robbery and Firearms Act 1984 (as amended)? Whether the learned trial judge was right in law in admitting Exhibits 3 and 5 the 1st and 2nd appellants” confessional statements, and using same principally to find the appellants guilty of the offence of armed robbery punishable under Section 1(2)(b)of the Robbery and Firearms Act 1984 (as amended)?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
APPEAL, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
GROUND OF APPEAL – STATUS OF A GROUND OF APPEAL FROM WHICH NO ISSUE IS FORMULATED
“It is trite that where no issue is formulated from a ground of appeal it is deemed abandoned and liable to be struck out. Mamudere Vs. Okafor 1996 4 SCNJ 73.”
LAW OF EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE – WHEN IS CONTRADICTION IN THE EVIDENCE OF A WITNESS MATERIAL?
“Inconsistence or contradiction in the evidence of a witness or witnesses may be said to be material if they relate to an issue of fact which has to be determined before a proper verdict can be returned or where in the circumstances in which they occurred they may cast doubt on the credibility of the witness or witnesses. Onubogu Vs. State 1974 9 NSCC 358. However the determination of such contradiction and inconsistence is primarily the duty of the trial court having regard to the evidence adduced and take them into account in the evaluation of the credit of the witnesses.”
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – WHETHER AN ACCUSED PERSON CAN BE CONVICTED ON HIS CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT
“By virtue of the provisions of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, an accused person can be convicted on the confessional statement made by him once it is properly proved and admitted in evidence. Ogoala Vs. State 1991 2 NWLR (Part 175) 509; Egboghonome Vs. State 1993 7 NWLR (Part 306) 383.”
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN A CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT MAY BE ADMISSIBLE
“Where such a confessional statement was voluntarily made and it is positive and unequivocal and amounts to an admission of guilt regardless of the fact, that the maker resiled from it or retracted it altogether at the trial, it becomes admissible and an accused may be convicted on it. Akirife vs. State 1988 3 NWLR (part 85) 279; Onwumere Vs. State 1991 4 NWLR (Part 186) 428; Egboghonome Vs. State (supra).’
LAW OF EVIDENCE, APPEAL, COURT, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE – CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN APPELLATE COURT MAY NOT INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT
“It is trite, that where a trial court properly evaluates the evidence led before it and comes to the right conclusion such that no miscarriage of justice is occasioned, an appellate court cannot interfere. Adeye Vs Adesanya (2007) 6 NWLR (Pt 708) 1; Igago Vs The State (1999) 14 NWLR (Pt 637) 1 and Abisi & Ors Vs Ekwealor & Anr (1993) 6 NWLR (Pt 302) 643.”
CASES CITED
Not Available
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Evidence Act|