Gbenga Osho V. The State (2011)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

The Applicant, one Sunday Awe and other person at large were arraigned, charged and tried for offences of conspiracy and armed robbery punishable under Sections 97(1) and 298(c) of the Penal code respectively before the High court of Kogi state. At the close of the case by both the prosecution and the defence, the Attorney General of Kogi State withdrew the charges against Sunday Awe, through the prosecuting counsel who informed the High court of the directive to do so. The learned counsel who appeared for the two accused persons at the trial did not object to the withdrawal of the charges and so the High court terminated the case against Sunday Awe and struck out his name from the case.

The High Court in its judgment delivered on the 2/7/09 found the Appellant guilty of the offences charged and convicted him accordingly.

He was sentenced to a term of three (3) years imprisonment without the option of fine for the offence of conspiracy and 4 years for armed robbery, the sentences to run concurrently.

Being dissatisfied with the conviction, the Appellant caused a notice of appeal dated the 29th August, 2009 to be filed on the 1/9/09 against the judgment. Because there is a preliminary objection on all the four (4) grounds of appeal contained on the said notice of appeal, it is expedient to set them as they appeal thereon. They are as follows:-

“GROUND 1

The learned trial Judge erred in law by convicting the Appellant for the offence of conspiracy when he had earlier discharged the co-accused of the same offence.

GROUND 2

The learned trial Judge erred in law by convicting the Appellant of the offence of armed robbery on the uncorroborated confessional statement of the Appellant.

GROUND 3

The learned trial fudge erred in law by convicting the Appellant of the offence of armed robbery on the hearsay evidence of the only prosecution witness who is the investigating police officer.

GROUND 4

The judgment of the trial court is unreasonable and unwarranted having regards to the weight of evidence.”

In line with the requirements of the rules of practice in the Court, briefs of argument were filed by the learned Counsel representing the parties to the appeal. The Appellant’s brief settled by Rotimi Ojo, Esq. was filed on the 22/3/10 but deemed properly filed and served on the 17/6/10 when time was extended for the Appellant to file it. Mr. Ayodele Akintunde Esq. prepared the Respondent’s brief of argument which was filed on the 16/7/10 and in which the notice of preliminary objection filed on the same date, was argued.