Olugbenga Amodu V. The State (2009)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI, J.C.A.

The Appellant was arraigned before High Court Idah, Kogi State on 3rd July, 2003 on a two count charge of criminal conspiracy and armed robbery contrary to Sections 97(1) and 298 of the Penal Code. The Appellant was on the 21st December, 2006 convicted and sentenced to five years imprisonment each on both the first and second count charges without the option of fine and the sentences to run concurrently.

The facts as adduced by the prosecution was that on or about the 2nd November, 2002, the Appellant in company of others at large, armed with guns and other dangerous objects robbed the occupants of Lana Estate, Idah, stealing their money, materials and injuring the complainant one Inspector Ogbaka Ochigbo when he was allegedly fired at by one “Omo boy” on the instruction of the Appellant. The said Inspector Ogbaka Ochigbo was alleged to have been dispossessed of the sum of N11,800,00, a video machine valued at N9,500,00 and other house hold items. The prosecution called two witnesses while the appellant testified for himself and called no witness.

Being dissatisfied with his conviction and sentence, the Appellant has appealed to this court upon four Grounds of Appeal vide a Notice of Appeal dated 16th February, 2007. The grounds of appeal without their particulars are hereby reproduced:

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

GROUND 1

The decision/judgment is unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence GROUND 2

The trial court erred in law when it convicted the Appellant who had set up a plea of Alibi that was never investigated by the prosecution nor disproved by evidence given at the trial thus occasioning a miscarriage of justice.

GROUND 3

The trial lower court exhibited undue bias in failing to avoid (sic) itself of every opportunity available to discontinue with the trial when there was application to strike out the case and discharge the appellant.

GROUND 4

The trial lower court erred in law when it convicted the Appellant in a case where the proof did not meet the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

In compliance with the rules and practice of the court, parties filed and exchanged briefs of argument. In the Appellant’s brief settled by Akin Adewale, Esq., the following three issues were formulated for determination, to wit:-

1) Whether from the evidence before the lower court, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt to warrant the conviction of the Appellant.