Joseph Udoh John V. The State (2015)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

ONYEKACHI AJA OTISI, J.C.A.(Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Cross River State, sitting in the Akamkpa Judicial Division Coram M. O. Eneji, J. delivered on October 29,2012, wherein the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the Appellant and two others to life imprisonment for the offence of armed robbery.

The Appellant was charged with two others on a one count charge for the offence of armed robbery contrary to Section 1 (2) (a) and (b) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provision) Act Cap R.11 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004. The Appellant was the 3rd Accused person. The particulars of offence stated that Michael Monday, Francis Dominic Clement and Joseph Udoh John, the Appellant, on the 17th day of March, 2006 at about 3.00 a.m. at Nyaji Village, Akamkpa in the Akamkpa Judicial Division whilst armed with offensive weapons did rob one Mr. Simon Agbor Simon of the sum of N150, 00.00.During trial, the Respondent called two witnesses, being the victim of the robbery incident and the Investigating Police Officer. The Appellant and the other two accused

1

persons testified for themselves and called no other witnesses. In his defence, the Appellant denied any involvement in the armed robbery incident. He also denied making any statement to the Police. The trial was concluded on February 16, 2012. On that date, the learned trial Judge ordered parties to file and exchange their final addresses with each party given 10 days to file their address. None of the parties filed a written address. Seven months thereafter, the learned trial Judge on October 29, 2012, delivered a considered judgment in wherein he held inter alia that: “there is no rule of Court that stipulates that Counsel for the parties must address the Court before the Court can proceed to deliver her judgment”. The learned trial Judge proceeded to convict the Appellant and his co-accused for the offence they were charged and sentenced them to life imprisonment. Dissatisfied with the judgment, the Appellant invoked the appellate jurisdiction of this Court by a Notice of Appeal filed on 8/12/2014 upon orders of this Court granted on 4/12/2014, extending time for that purpose. The Notice of Appeal was filed on three grounds of appeal. The Appellant seeks an

2

order of this Court setting aside the conviction and sentence of the Appellant to life imprisonment.

The Appellant and the Respondent exchanged Briefs of Argument, including a Reply Brief filed on 16/4/2015 but deemed on 4/11/20l5. On 4/11/2015, Julius O. Idiege, Esq. of Counsel for the Appellant adopted the Appellant’s Brief and Reply Brief. The Respondent’s Brief was also adopted on 4llll20l5 by B.U. Bassey, Esq., Director, Ministry of Justice, Akamkpa Zonal Office, Cross River State.

The Appellant had in his Brief formulated two Issues for determination as follows:

1. Whether the learned trial Judge was correct when he held that there is no rule of Court that stipulates that Counsel for the parties must address the Court before the Court can proceed to deliver her judgment.
2. Whether the judgment of the trial court was not against the weight of evidence placed before the court.

The Respondent adopted these issues; which shall now be considered.

Issue No1

Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the final phase of any trial is the final address, which purpose is to enable parties bring forth the facts established

3

by evidence adduced and apply the law to buttress those facts. The ultimate aim of the party addressing Court is to discredit the facts adduced by the other party, so that the Court would find in his favour. Reliance was placed on Anyaebosi v. R. T. Briscoe (1987) 2 NSCC Vol. 18, 805; Obodo v Olomu (1987) 2 NSCC 824 at 838. The provisions of Order 33 Rule 2 (ii) of the Cross River State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2008 was also relied upon to submit that the learned trial judge erred in holding that there was no rule of Court that parties must address Court before judgment is delivered.