Udeh Kingsley Emeka V. The State (2014)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

SULEIMAN GALADIMA, J.S.C.

This appeal is against the judgment of the court of appeal, Calabar Division delivered on the 13th day of July, 2011, affirming the conviction and sentence of the trial court presided over by HON. JUSTICE GODWIN J. ABRAHAM of Uyo High Court who sentenced the appellant herein to death, for the offence of armed robbery.

The appellant’s appeal to the court of appeal was not successful hence he has now further appealed to this court. In the brief of the appellant and pursuant to the rules of this court, the following four issues are posed for determination:

“3.01. Whether the lower court did not fail in its legal duty to consider and resolve all the issues placed before it particularly issues No. 3 and 4 in the appellant’s brief of argument –

3.02. Whether by failing to consider all the issues placed before it the lower court did not breach the constitutional right of the appellant to fair hearing.

3.03 Whether the decision of the lower court upholding the conviction and sentence of the appellant was not perverse having been reached without any judicial reasoning –

3.04 Whether the lower court was right to have held that there were no material contradictions in the prosecution’s case when it did not even consider what the contradictions were.”

On the part of the respondent the following four issues are submitted for determination:

“1 Whether or not the lower court failed in its legal duty to consider and resolve all the issues placed before it particularly issues No. 3 and 4 in the appellant’s brief of argument.

2. If issue No.1 is answered in the negative, whether or not the lower court breached the constitutional right of the appellant to fair hearing.
3. Whether or not the decision of the lower court upholding the conviction and sentence of the appellant was perverse and reached without any judicial reasoning.
4. Whether the lower court was right to have held that there were no material contradictions in the prosecution’s case and thereby rightly upheld the conviction of the appellant.

Before I go into the consideration of the issues raised in the briefs of the respective parties, it is necessary to set out the facts of the case, as can be gleaned from the records of appeal and particularly the prosecution witnesses.

The appellant was a member of the National Youth Service Scheme posted to Comprehensive Secondary School, Ukpom in Ikono Local Government Area of Akwa Ibom State.

On the 13th August 2005, he was arraigned before the High Court of Akwa Ibom Ikono Judicial Division on four count charge of armed robbery, contrary to Section 1(2) (G) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act. Cap. 398 laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990. The charge against him was that on the 31st November, 2004 one Dr. Clement Adolf Bassey (who later testified in this case as PW1) travelled with one Pius Akpan (who later testifies as PW2) from Uyo to Ukpom Ita. At Edet Ukpom market, PW1 who was driving his official car, a Peugeot 504 saloon Car Bestline 2000 series, turned into the premises of Edet Community bank. It was at this point a Mercedes Benz car with three occupants, which had apparently been trailing him, overtook his car. Two of the three occupants in the Mercedes Benz car alighted and fired their automatic rifles sporadically and ordered PW1 and PW2 out of their car. The attackers robbed them of the Peugeot car, valued N2,000,000, driving licence, 3 cheque books, 2 GSM handsets valued N75,000.00 and numerous official documents, properties of PW1.

In the course of the robbery, one of the robbers, (discovered later to be the appellant) dropped a wallet, which PW 2 retrieved after the robbers had driven off. The wallet contained an ID Card issued from the Institute of Management Technology, Enugu (IMTE).

PW1 and PW2 reported the matter to the police at Ukpan Uwana and made statements to the police; and after thorough investigations; the appellant was arrested and subsequently arraigned before the trial court. At the trial Prosecution called 5 witnesses and tendered 10 exhibits, to prove its case. On his part, the appellant who denied the charges against him gave evidence in his defence and called two witnesses, and tendered 4 exhibits.