Adalumo Agbeti v. The State (2024)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report – SUPREME COURT

UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI, JSC (Delivering the leading judgment)

The appellant with one Sunday Abiodun on the 1/3/2013, conspired to commit armed robbery.

While armed with a cutlass, he robbed one Saheed Ibrahim, a commercial motorcyclist of a motorcycle at Iju-Itaogbolu behind Alamo Grammar School, Ita-Ogbolu, Akure, Ondo State, hit him with a cutlass, beat him and tied him to a tree, leaving him half dead.

The appellant was apprehended by the Police after making attempts to sell the motorcycle to Rotimi Ezekiel. The appellant made extra-judicial statements to the Police, wherein he confessed to the charge brought against him.

The prosecution called five witnesses while the appellant gave evidence in his own defence and did not call any other witness.

At the close of evidence from both sides, the learned trial Judge delivered judgment on 7/4/2017, found the appellant guilty of conspiracy to commit armed robbery and armed robbery and convicted arid sentenced him to death.

On appeal to the lower court, the judgment of the trial court was affirmed, hence this appeal.

This issue has been formulated for determination by the appellant:

Whether or not the lower court was right when it affirmed the judgment of the trial court by holding that the prosecution clearly proved the charges of conspiracy to rob and armed robbery against the appellant without regard to the deluge of contradictions in the prosecution’s case.

The respondent on the other hand distilled a lone issue for determination:

Whether from the totality of the evidence on record as well as material evidence available, the lower courts were right when it held that the respondent (prosecution) had established the offences of conspiracy to commit armed robbery and armed robbery against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt?

Issue for determination

Whether or not the lower court was right when it affirmed the judgment of the trial court by holding that the prosecution clearly proved the charges of conspiracy to rob and armed robbery against the appellant without regard to the deluge of contradictions in the prosecution’s case.

It is the submission of the learned counsel to the appellant that the three ingredients of armed robbery must coexist and any contradictions with respect to time,date and place, is fatal to the prosecution’s case. That Iju-Itaogbolu and Ita-Ogbolu are 2 different and distinct locations.