Ado Masa Ogugu & Ors V. The State (1990)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

BABALAKIN, J.C.A. 

Before the Lagos State High Court the 5 appellants and others were charged with the offence of conspiracy to commit robbery punishable under Section 403(A) of Criminal Code (Amendment No.1) Law, 1980 and robbery of various persons contrary to Section 402 (2)(a) of the Criminal Code (Amendment No.1) Law, 1980. They all pleaded not guilty to the charges. The prosecution called 8 witnesses to prove the charges against the appellants. The Appellants gave evidence in their defence.

Summarily the facts of this case are that the appellants armed with guns went to the house boat of Julius Berger Company on Lagos Lagoon on 8/9/82 and with threat robbed the inmate of various articles among which were Coloured Television, Radio, Cassettes player, Cameras, Bottle of Charms and a calculator. In the process they shot at the watchman attached to the place known as PAPA who died as a result of the shot.

During investigation, the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 5th appellants made confessional statements in respect of the charges against them. After a review of the evidence adduced, the learned trial Judge convicted the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 5th Appellants on both charges.

The 4th appellant was convicted on the 2nd count of conspiracy only.

Dissatisfied with the judgment, the appellants have now appealed to this Court.

Briefs of arguments were filed and exchanged.

In the brief of argument filed on behalf of the 1st appellant the following issues were formulated for determination:-

“(i) Whether the learned trial Judge was correct when he convicted the 1st appellant for conspiracy when no shred of evidence was led before him to prove conspiracy.

(ii) Was his lordship the trial Judge right when he convicted the 1st appellant when the case against him was not proved to the hilt as required by the law?

(iii) Was his lordship right in convicting the 1st appellant on the various counts for armed robbery when there was no proof that 1st appellant was not merely a receiver of those goods which were found in his possession.”

In the Second appellant’s brief the following issues were formulated-

“(i) Whether there was sufficient evidence before the Court to warrant the conviction of the 2nd appellant on counts 1, 2 and 3 of the charge as the Honourable Court did.

(ii) Was the learned trial Judge right in convicting the 2nd appellant when the only witness who said he recognised him was the 1st P.W. who said that 2nd appellant was one of those who robbed the four (4) expatriates, whereas none of those four (4) was called to testify.