Haruna Rafiu V. The State (2012)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

STANLEY SHENKO ALAGOA, J.C.A (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the judgment of Jibodu J. of the High Court of justice Abeokuta Ogun State in Suit No, AB/8R/2010 delivered on the 30th June 2011 convicting and sentencing the Appellant Haruna Rafiu to 21 years imprisonment for robbery. Dissatisfied the Appellant has appealed to the Court of Appeal.

It is instructive at this stage to say that two other persons were charged in Counts II and III with receiving stolen goods while the Appellant as 1st accused was charged in Count I with the offence of Robbery. The offence for which the Appellant stood charged reads as follows –

COUNT I

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE

Robbery contrary to section 1(1) of the Robbery and Firearms (special provisions) Act cap R 11 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004.

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE

Haruna Rafiu (M) on or about the 17th January 2007 at Oke-Ilewo along Government printing press, Abeokuta in the Abeokuta Judicial Division robbed Miss Aminat Olufade of her bag containing recharge cards valued at N370,000.00, the sum of N240, 000.00 VTU transfer on phone credit with N11,000.00 all totalling N633,000.00.

The case for the Prosecution was that on the 17th January 2007, the Complainant one Aminat Olufade who gave evidence in the court below as PW1, engaged the services of a motorcyclist to take her to Printing Corporation in Abeokuta and as she was about to alight from the motorcycle, the motorcyclist slowed down while another motorcyclist emerged beside her and forcefully picked her bag and sped off. Inside her stolen bag were the following items – MTN, GLO, V-Mobile lines as well as recharge cards of MTN, GLO, Multilinks v. Mobile and MTS. She also had phones viz: Nokia 1100 and Sagem MYX2 and a School Identity Card of Federal polytechnic, Ilaro and National Identity Card. Also in the stolen bag was a bunch of keys. The Nokia Phone contained a virtual top up

which is for buying from MTN directly to transferring to her phone so as to sell to Customers. The Complainant (pW1) was shouting “thief” “thief” and asked the rider of the motorcycle whose services she had engaged to ride faster so as to catch up with the other rider thief. When they got to CBN they lost sight of the other motorcyclist. The Mobile police at CBN helped PW1 to arrest the rider, of the motorcycle she had engaged because she (PW1) suspected that the rider of that motorcycle had planned the incident with the runaway motorcyclist. She (PW1) therefore took the rider of the motorcycle whose services she had engaged and handed him over to Ibara Police Station.

Continuing with her evidence PW1 said that two weeks after the incident, MTN brought an itemised bill which contained the list of calls, duration and numbers called. She (PW1) was able to check the last number she called and discovered that 15 minutes after her phone was stolen some calls were made. She then called the three numbers that had been called after her phone was stolen. The first two numbers did not go through but the third number went through. A lady who had picked the call informed her that she was at Isale-Ake which information she (PW1) passed on to the police. A police woman by name Sister Joy accompanied her to see the lady caller and fortunately she was arrested. At the police station the lady arrested said it was one Seyi that had called her. As the police were about to go in search of Seyi to arrest him, he (Seyi) was seen at the Police Station and was arrested. Seyi who was the 3rd accused in the court below informed the police that it was the Appellant that took PW1’s bag and that it was from the Appellant that he (Seyi) obtained the phone and the Appellant admitted collecting the bag from PW1.

Suffice it to say at this stage that the case went on to be fully heard in the court below, the Prosecution and the Defence calling evidence and tendering exhibits and at the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Judge in a considered judgment delivered on the 30th June 2011 held that the Prosecution had proved the offence of Robbery against the Appellant (then 1st accused) beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to 21 years imprisonment. It is this judgment that is the subject of this appeal.

The Notice of Appeal is contained at pages 104-106 of the Record of Appeal and consists of three grounds which are reproduced hereunder with attendant particulars –

1. The Learned Trial Judge erred in law when he held as follows:

“I am of the considered view, and I so hold, in agreement with the prosecution that the 1st accused used actual violence to obtain/or retain the properties of PW1 which he stole from her.”