Cyril Ogujuba V. The State (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, J.C.A. 

This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Anambra State delivered on 3/6/13 by Hon. Justice C.E.K. Anigbogu wherein His Lordship convicted the appellant and one other accused person.

The appellant was arraigned before the trial Court along with 2 other persons; Livinus Mgbechita and Camilius Ikenso on information and proof of evidence containing a two count charge as follows:
a) Wounding with intent to maim, disfigure or disable or do some grievous bodily harm to one Chinedu Otih and Leornard Udensi, an offence punishable under Section 495 (a) of the Criminal Code Cap 36 Revised Laws of Anambra State 1991
b) Conspiracy contrary to Section 288 of the Criminal Code.

The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge. To prove its case, the prosecution called six witnesses (PW1 to PW6) at the trial. The first accused person at the trial had absconded after he gave evidence and was cross-examined on 15/11/07. The 2nd and 3rd accused persons now appellants gave evidence on oath in their own defence but called no witnesses. The

1

3rd accused person is the appellant in this appeal. The uncontroverted facts at the trial Court were that the appellants and others including the 1st accused at trial were members of the Onyido Gorillas Security Services engaged to guard the town of Ubulu-Isiuzor at night. A locally imposed curfew or restriction of movement was imposed with effect from 9pm or 9:30pm. On 29/11/1998, the appellant with others saw P.W.1 and P.W.3 walking towards the house of a man who just got married. The appellant and others challenged the P.W.1 and P.W.3, a full scale fight ensued between the security outfits? members and the 1st and 3rd P.W. P.W.3 was severely beaten up, dragged on the floor with a severe machete cut on his leg. The leg was later amputated as a result of the injuries.

At the end of trial, the learned trial judge found the appellants guilty as charged, convicted them and sent them to 7 years imprisonment each on the count of conspiracy. On the count of wounding with intent to maim, disfigure or disable, both were each sentenced to life imprisonment.

Dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial Court, the appellant initiated this appeal by a

2

Notice of Appeal dated 31/07/13 filed on 1/8/13 containing 13 grounds of appeal and transmitted records on 25/10/13. Appellant?s brief was filed on 13/12/13. Respondent?s brief was filed on 29/4/16 and deemed filed on 16/11/15.

In the appellant?s brief settled by O.J Nnadi, SAN, seven issues were identified for determination as follows:
1) Whether the proceedings and judgment delivered based on the evidence of the 1st accused relied upon by the trial judge and the conviction of the appellant based on the crime of the 1st accused is not a nullity.
2) Whether on the facts of Charge No: HIH/4C/2004, the trial judge was right in holding that the prosecution proved that the appellant is guilty of conspiracy contrary to Section 495(a) of the Criminal Code Cap 36 Revised Laws of Anambra State, 1991 moreso by relying on alleged previous misunderstanding between the complainants and defendants and malice resulting therefrom.
3) Whether the trial Court was right in holding that the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt the offence of assault occasioning harm (wounding with intent) and therefore was right in convicting the

3

appellant.
4) Whether the trial Court was right in holding that as at the time of the incident leading to the fight, the identity of the complainants was not in issue and there was corroboration that the issue of identity was not in dispute and thereby convicted the appellant.
5) Whether the trial judge properly invoked Sections 4,5 and 6 of the Criminal Code Cap 36 of the Revised Laws of Anambra State 1991 on the facts of the charge to find the appellant guilty.
6) Whether on the totality of the statements of the appellant and other accused persons was an admission for which the prosecution was held to have proved the case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant.
7) Assuming that the trial judge was right in finding the appellant guilty and in convicting the appellant, whether the sentence by the trial judge on the 2 counts on the facts is not too harsh, unjust and must be reduced.

In the respondent?s brief settled by G. C. Emenike Esq, three issues were identified for determination to wit:
1) Whether the lower Court was right in holding that the prosecution proved the offences of conspiracy and wounding with intent