John Ido V. The State (2011)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

STANLEY SHENKO ALAGOA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the judgment of Oduntan J. of the High Court of Justice Abeokuta, Ogun State of Nigeria in Charge No. RFT/5/96 delivered on the 28th April, 2000 convicting the Appellant and sentencing him to life imprisonment for Attempted Armed Robbery under Section 2(2) (a) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act Cap 398 Laws of the federation of Nigeria 1990.

The case for the prosecution briefly is that on the 21st September, 1993, one Adeyemi Adetoro, a driver with a Company known as Sundere (Nigeria) Ltd. Lagos Nigeria was driving his employer’s trailer with registration number LA 2808 SF loaded with about one thousand six hundred crates of stout from Lagos to Ado Ekiti in the company of a motor attendant by name Edun when along the Lagos/Ibadan Expressway at a point after Ogere toll gate their trailer was stopped by the Appellant and two other persons now at large. All three persons were dressed in army and mobile police uniforms. The driver Adeyemi Adetoro henceforth, referred to as PW1 as he indeed was in the trial High Court said he noticed that they carried guns. Upon inquiry by them as to what he was carrying in his trailer, he informed them that it was Guinness stout which they said was rice. They demanded the waybill of the consignment of Cargo he was carrying and he showed it to them. The Appellant then opened the door of the trailer where the motor attendant was sitting and pulled him down. At that point in time PW1 saw a Danfo bus reversing towards them which stopped as it got to them.

The Appellant who was dressed in Army uniform began to beat his attendant and ordered him to lie face down. While this was going on PW1 said he managed to put on the security device in the trailer to immobilize it and had hardly finished doing this when the Appellant and the others pounced on him and pulled him down from the trailer. The other two who were dressed in army and mobile police uniforms held PW1 and started to push him around. They bundled him into the Danfo bus where three other men were seated. He pleaded with them to allow him to go and get the ignition key inside the trailer removed and they allowed him to do so. When he got out of the Danfo bus, he started to run away and succeeded in reaching a nearby toll gate without being caught where he raised an alarm.

Later the Appellant and the others also arrived at the toll gate and told the police man at the toll gate that they were after PW1 for drenching them with water at Ojota earlier that day which allegation was denied by PW1 as he did not go through Ojota. PW1, Appellant and the other two persons with him were then taken to Iperu station. PW1 stated further that while the Appellant and his companions travelled in the police vehicle to Iperu, he was allowed to drive his own vehicle to Iperu police station. That was the evidence of PW1 in court. Two other witnesses PW2 and PW3 also gave evidence for the prosecution. The Appellant gave evidence in self defence.

After addresses of counsel, the learned trial Judge in its considered judgment delivered on the 28th April 2000 found the Appellant guilty of Attempted Armed Robbery and accordingly sentenced him to imprisonment for life. It is against this conviction and sentence that the Appellant has appealed to this court. To the sole ground in the original Notice of Appeal that the decision of the High Court is unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the weight of evidence, the following additional grounds of appeal have by leave of this Court been added viz –

GROUND 2: ERROR IN LAW

The learned trial Court erred in law when it held that the prosecution has proved the essential ingredients of Attempted Armed Robbery against the Appellant.

PARTICULARS OF ERROR

(i) The prosecution failed to show that the act of the Appellant was sufficiently proximate to the crime with which he was accused of.

(ii) There is no evidence before the learned trial Judge to show that the accused person had the intention to rob manifested by clear cut acts.

(iii) The prosecution failed woefully to show that the accused person was trying to rub.

GROUND 3: ERROR IN LAW

The learned trial Judge erred in law and fact by failing to properly evaluate and pronounce on the material evidence of the Appellant which created doubt in the evidence of the prosecution and the failure has occasioned a miscarriage of justice to the Appellant.