Chinedu Okudo V. The State (2010)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

AYOBODE OLUJIMI LOKULO SODIPE, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the judgment delivered on 22/1/2003 by Honourable Justice B.C. Nosike of the High Court of Justice, Enugu State in Charge No. E/14ART/98. The learned trial Judge in the judgment found the Appellant guilty of the offence of armed robbery and sentenced him to death by hanging.

The facts of the case as presented by the prosecution (hereinafter, simply referred to as “the Respondent”) are that at about 9 p.m. on 11/12/1995, some men armed with guns invaded and raided one Jide Supermarket situated at 38A, Nanka Street, New Haven, Enugu. The armed men robbed the Supermarket of some bottles of perfumes, tins of power steering oil or fluid, some knock-out fireworks and about N12,000.00. The Appellant was apprehended at the scene and later handed over to the police when they arrived at the scene of the incident. The Appellant made a confessional statement to the police in the course of their investigation into the case. After the conclusion of police investigation into the case, the Appellant and one other were charged before the Robbery and Firearms Tribunal, Enugu State, upon Information filed by the Attorney-General of the State.

The case against the Appellant and his co-accused having regard to the record of appeal first came up before the First Robbery and Firearms Tribunal, Enugu State (hereinafter, simply referred to as “the Tribunal”) on 3/5/1999 and was adjourned till 9/6/1999 due to the non-production before the Tribunal of the accused persons, On 9/6/1999 the Appellant and his co-accused were again not produced before the Tribunal and the case was adjourned till 6/7/1999 for “plea and hearing”. On 6/7/1999 the Appellant and his co-accused respectively, pleaded to the charge preferred against them.

They respectively pleaded not guilty to the said charge. The prosecution called 4 witnesses in the proof of its case and tendered the confessional statement of the Appellant and a toy gun recovered from the Appellant at the scene of the robbery. At the conclusion of the case of the prosecution, the Appellant defended himself. In his defence, the Appellant denied knowledge of the crime and claimed that he was arrested as he was walking along the street at New Haven, Upper Chime. He also alleged that he confessed to the commission of the crime due to the torture he suffered at the hands of the police. The learned trial Judge in his judgment delivered on 22/1/2003 convicted the Appellant of the offence of armed robbery and sentenced him to death by hanging. The Appellant’s co-accused was found not guilty by the learned trial Judge and accordingly discharged and acquitted.

The Appellant being dissatisfied with his conviction and sentence appealed against to the same to this Court by a Notice of Appeal dated 14/2/2003 and filed on 14/3/2003. The Notice of Appeal contains six grounds of appeal. This Notice of Appeal was superseded by the Amended Notice of Appeal dated 21/6/2007 and filed on 25/6/2007. The Amended Notice of Appeal contains four grounds of appeal and the said grounds shorn of their respective particulars read:-

“Ground No.1

The learned trial judge erred in law when he convicted the Appellant of armed robbery even though His Lordship lacked the necessarily (sic) jurisdiction to continue the hearing of the case pursuant to which the Appellant was tried and convicted.

Ground No.2

The Learned Trial Judge (sic) in Law when he convicted the Appellant even though the prosecution did not prove its case against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

Ground No.3

The Learned Trial Judge erred in law when in convicting the Appellant, he admitted and relied upon his confessional statement without giving any reason for disbelieving the evidence of torture before the trial Court.

Ground No.4

The Learned Trial Judged (sic) erred in law when he convicted the Appellant and discharged and acquitted his Co-accused even though the evidence against them was the same.”