Abiodun Adekoya V. The State (2010)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

MODUPE FASANMI, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the Judgment of Ogun State High Court of Justice, Ijebu Ode Judicial Division, delivered by Hon. Justice N. I. Agbelu on 14th July, 2008. The Appellant was charged, arraigned and tried on a two count charge of conspiracy to commit Armed Robbery and armed robbery contrary to Section 6(b) and 1(2)(a) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provision) Act Laws of the Federation of Nigeria,2004.

The brief facts of the case as presented by the prosecution witnesses are that on 11th of February, 2005 at about 2.00 p.m, two armed robbers attacked Mrs. Cecelia Olufunke Onanuga and her two daughters in their residence at 176, Luba Eruwon Road, Ijebu-Ode. During the robbery incident, a sum of N39,000,00, three Nokia handsets, a Sagem My X5 handset and a still photograph camera were stolen from them. Precisely three days after the incident, the Appellant was sighted at Oke-Aje market by P.W.4 one of the victims of the robbery and he (Appellant) was consequently arrested. A case of conspiracy to commit armed robbery and armed robbery was incidented against the Appellant. The prosecution called six witnesses at the trial and tendered eight exhibits. Appellant gave evidence on his own behalf and called no other witness. This led to his trial and he was subsequently convicted for the offences of conspiracy to commit armed robbery and armed robbery.

It is against the judgment, conviction and sentence that the Appellant Abiodun Adekoya appealed to this Court and filed a notice of appeal dated 17th July 2008.

Pursuant to the order of this Court, the Appellant’s amended notice of appeal containing one ground of appeal was filed on the 8th of June 2009. In compliance with the rules of this Court, parties exchanged their briefs. Appellant’s brief was filed on the 2nd of November, 2009 whilst the Respondent’s brief of argument was filed on the 9th of February 2010 but deemed properly filed and served on the 29th of March, 2010.

From the sole ground of appeal contained in the amended notice of appeal, two issues are distilled on behalf of the Appellant for the determination of this appeal and they read as follows:

(1) Whether the prosecution established all the ingredients of the offence of armed robbery in this case and

(2) Whether the learned trial Judge was right in holding that the prosecution proved a case of Conspiracy and armed robbery against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

The Respondent adopts the two issues formulated by the Appellant in his brief of argument as slightly amended thus:

Whether from the totality of the evidence adduced at the trial, the prosecution has proved the charge against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt in accordance with Section 138 of the Evidence Act Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.

The issues formulated by both parties are identical but I shall adopt the sole issue as amended formulated by the Respondent for the determination of this appeal. The amended issue goes thus:

Whether from the totality of evidence adduced at the trial, the prosecution has proved the charge against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt in accordance with Section 138 of the Evidence Act, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.

Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that in proof of criminal charges, the prosecution must successfully establish the intention of the Appellant to commit the wrongful act and the wrongful act itself, Learned Counsel placed reliance on the case of BABALOLA VS. THE STATE (1989) 4 N.W.L.R Part 115 page 264 at 292 where the Apex Court per the learned jurist Oputa J.S.C had this to say:

“In dealing with statutory offences therefore great care should be taken to analyze the elements required by the particular statute to constitute the offence it creates. Each statutory offence implies a course which it is the policy of the law to prohibit under pain of punishment. This course of conduct may then constitute that actus reus of the offence charged. It is however not in all cases that the statute prescribes a mens rea. There are cases of absolute prohibition. But when a mental element becomes an essential ingredient of a statutory offence, words like “with intent to ‘knowingly” “fraudulently” etc are used”