Adeniyi Adekoya V. The State (2010)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

STANLEY SHENKO ALAGOA, JCA (Delivering the lead Judgment)

At the High Court Ota in the Ijebu Ode Ogun State, the Appellant as accused was following offences-

COUNT 1 – That you ADENIYI ADEKOYA and one other now at large on or about the 8th day of November 1999 at Erunwon Junction Ijebu Ode in the Ijebu-Ode Division conspired together to commit the offence of Armed Robbery and thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 5(b) and punishable under section 1(2)(a) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act 1990 as Amended by the Tribunal (Certain Consequential Amendments etc.) Act 1999,

COUNT 2 – That you ADENIYI ADEKOYA and one other now at large on or about the 8th day of November 1999 at about 7.30 p.m. at Erunwon Junction Ijebu Ode in the Ijebu Ode Judicial Division while armed with firearms to wit: Knife robbed one Tajudeen Amuda of a Suzuki motorcycle with Registration No. OG 1305Z valued N47,000 (Forty seven thousand Naira) and thereby committed an offence contrary to section 1(2)(a) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act 1990 as Amended by the Tribunal (Certain Consequential Amendments etc.) Act 1999.

The Appellant pleaded not guilty to the two count charge and the case proceeded to trial with the prosecution calling five witnesses while the Appellant called two witnesses. A number of Exhibits\were admitted. At the close of evidence for the prosecution and defence, Counsel on both sides addressed Court and in a considered judgment delivered on the 8th April 2003, the learned trial Judge A. O. Ogundepo J, found the Appellant guilty on each of the two count charge and accordingly sentenced him to death. It is this judgment that is the subject of appeal.

The facts of the case as presented by the prosecution are that on the 8th November 1999, PW1 who was a commercial motorcyclist carried the accused person (now Appellant) and another person now at large as passengers from Talbot road towards Erunwon Ijebu-Ode, in the course of the ride, PW1 was robbed of his motorcycle, clothes and some money by his passengers who were then armed with a knife. The Motorcycle was recovered the next day being the 9th November 1999 at Ilese without its two side mirrors. The two side mirrors of the motorcycle were same day 9th November 1999 recovered from the Accused/Appellant in company of two others now at large while the three persons were trying to sell the said side mirrors to PW3 a vulcanizer. The accused person denied the charge hence the trial, conviction and sentence.

The Appellant’s Notice of Appeal dated the 15th April 2003 is contained at page 92 of the Record of Appeal and consists of a sole ground which is that the decision of the High Court is unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the weight of evidence. The Appellant subsequently by his motion on Notice dated the 20th February 2009 and filed on the 23rd February 2009 and brought pursuant to Order 4 Rule 1, Order 7 Rule 10, Order 16 Rule 3(3), Order 17 Rule 11 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2007 Section 16 of the Court of Appeal Act and under the inherent jurisdiction of this Court, sought for the following orders which were granted on the 28th April 2009.

The said orders are –

1. An order granting leave to the Appellant to file and argue Additional Grounds of Appeal.
2. An order deeming the Additional Grounds of Appeal already filed as properly filed.
3. An order extending time within which the Appellant would file his Brief of Argument.
4. An order deeming the Appellant’s Brief of Argument already filed as properly filed,

The Additional Grounds of Appeal deemed properly filed by this order of Court are reproduced hereunder viz –

GROUND 2

The learned trial judge erred in law by holding that the confessional statement of the Appellant, Exhibit “E” are direct, unequivocal and positive to ground the conviction and sentence of the Appellant.

PARTICULARS OF ERROR

(i) Exhibit “E” is contradictory in its content. Thus, in one breath the Appellant confessed to have committed the offence whilst in another breath he denied committing the offence.

(ii) The content of Exhibit “E” is inconsistent in itself and therefore doubtful.