Chibueze Njimogu V. The State (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

ITA GEORGE MBABA, J.C.A.

Appellant was the 1st accused person in an information filed at the High Court of Abia State in Charge No. HU/53C/2011, presided over by Hon. Justice A.O.K. Ogwe. The learned trial Judge, after hearing the case and considering the evidence and addresses of Counsel, delivered judgment on 20/11/2013, convicted the Appellant for armed robbery and sentenced him to death by hanging on the neck until he be dead. The Court discharged the 2nd Accused person ? MR. OGBONNA UME.

Appellant (with another person), was charged for the following offence:
Count 1:
?ARMED ROBBERY, contrary to Section 1 (2) (a) of the Robbery and Fire Arms (Special Provisions) Act, Cap R 11, Vol. 14, Laws of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 2004, as applicable in Abia State.
Particulars of Offence:
Chibueze Njimogu, Ogbonna Ume, on the 6th day of April, 2011 at No. 36 Agbama Housing Estate, in the Umuahia Judicial Division, while armed with gun and matchet, robbed the household of Mrs. James Ifeakanwa of money and many valuable properties.
Count 2:
Armed

1

Robbery, contrary to Section 1 (2) (a) of the Robbery and Fire Arms (Special Provision) Act, Cap R11, Vol. 14, laws of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 2004, as applicable in Abia State.
Particulars of Offence:
Chibueze Njimogu, Ogbonna Ume, on the 6th day of April, 2011 at Plot No. UM/382/A.O. Agbama Housing Estate, Umuahia, in the Umuahia Judicial Division, while armed with gun and matchet robbed Grace Martains of many valuable properties.? See page 3 of the Records of Appeal).

Appellant and the other accused were arraigned on 30/11/2011 and they pleaded, individually, ?Not Guilty? to the charge. (See page 43 of the Records of Appeal).

The Prosecution called 5 witnesses to prove the charge, while the Appellant defended himself on oath and called no witness. The 2nd Accused person also defended himself on oath and called no witness. Making its findings and ruling, the trial Court said:
?The story of 1st Accused as to how he rejected the job offered to him and yet when he was called to come and take the money for the job he went to take the money he did not work for, does not make sense. It only shows he was

2

lying. The noose is too tight around his neck to escape the account he was nabbed. In pronunciation, there may not be any real difference between ?Sir Woo? and ?Sawo?. He owned up to that nickname. His identity was therefore no longer in issue, it was PW4 who recognized him with his height, because she had minimum contact with him at the beginning when he assaulted her. But PW1 was unequivocal in identifying the man who robbed and raped her. I believe and accept her evidence . . . She saw 1st Accused face . . . She heard the other robber call him his nickname Sirwoo or Sawo . . . PW3 captured his face in his phone camera and she identified him again as the man. At the Police Station, she picked him again as the man. PW1 struck me as a young intelligent and articulate young lady who never prevaricated throughout her evidence, even when the cross-examination was unpleasant. She maintained her composure and candor. She struck me as a witness of the truth who expressed herself in good English grammar. I am satisfied in my conscience on the evidence and as a reasonable man that (sic) the evidence against 1st Accused. I have no doubt,

3

whatsoever, in his favour. I resolve the 2 issues . . . against the 1st Accused. I therefore find him guilty as charged and convict him of the offence of armed robbery . . .? See pages 143 ? 144 of the records of Appeal.

That is the decision Appellant appealed against, as per the notice of appeal, filed on 7/1/2014 (pages 146 to 148 of the Records of Appeal), disclosing 3 grounds of Appeal. Appellant filed his brief of argument on 20/3/14 and distilled three (3) Issues for the determination of the Appeal, namely:
1) Did the learned trial Judge make any findings of possessions of any fire arm or weapon by the Appellant warranting his conclusion that the Appellant robbed one Mrs Ifekanwa James? Ground one
2) In view of the evidence of all the prosecutions witnesses and the defence set up by the Appellant, did the prosecution prove the guilt of the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt? (Ground 2)
3) Was the decision of the trial Judge not perverse in view of the fact that it took into account matters which ought not to have taken into account, shut his eyes to the obvious and thereby occasioned the miscarriage of justice?

The

4