Haruna Timothy V. People Of Lagos State (2015)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

UZO I. NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Lagos State by Hon. Justice O.A. William delivered on 17th day of April, 2014. The Appellant was charged on a one count charge of Armed Robbery contrary to Section 402(2)(a) of the Criminal Code Law, Cap C17 Vol. 2, Laws of Lagos State 2003. The Appellant pleaded “not guilty”.

The State, in proof of its case, called four witnesses and tendered seven exhibits. In defence of the charge, the Appellant also called four witnesses (himself inclusive) and tendered two exhibits. At the end of the trial, the learned trial judge delivered its considered judgment, convicted and sentenced the Appellant to death for the offence of Armed Robbery.

Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal with seven (7) grounds. The Appellant also filed his Appellant’s brief on 21st day of November, 2014. In it, the Appellant articulated three (3) issues for determination. They are as follows:-

1. Having regard to the fact that the Appellant’s defence of alibi was not investigated by the Respondent and the Lower Court’s finding that the Appellant was not arrested at the scene of crime, whether the Lower Court was right to have convicted the Appellant of the crime of Armed Robbery – Grounds 1 and 2.
2. Given the fact that Nigeria’s Criminal Justice System is accusatorial and the finding of the Lower Court to the effect that the Appellant (as the accused) has the burden of adducing evidence to prove his alibi, whether the Lower Court was not wrong in finding the Appellant guilty and convicting him of the crime of Armed Robbery – Ground 3.
3. Considering the position of the law on the failure to conduct an identification parade where same is necessary in a criminal trial; the fact that the Respondent did not conduct an identification parade during the investigation of the crime of Armed Robbery for which the Appellant was convicted and wrongful reliance by the Lower Court on evidence not properly before it, whether the Lower Court was not wrong in holding that the charge was proved. – Ground 4, 6 and 7.

In response, the Respondent filed its brief on 19th day of March, 2015 and deemed filed on 29th day of April, 2015. In it, the Respondent articulated four issues for determination. They are as follows:-

i. Whether in the circumstances of this case the Honourable court was right to hold that the Respondent has discharged the onus of proof placed on it by law with regards to the offence of Armed Robbery for which the Appellant was convicted.

ii. Whether the Lower Court adequately addressed the issue of alibi raised by the Appellant. (Distilled from

2, 3 and 4).

iii. Whether the conviction of the Appellant based on his identification by the Respondent’s witnesses at the Lower Court was proper in law and whether the identification parade conducted in this case was adequate. (Distilled from ground).

iv. Whether the reliance placed on Exhibit P5 by the Lower Court has any effect on the conviction of the Appellant. (Distilled from ground 6).

The Appellant’s reply brief was filed on 7th day of April, 2015 and deemed properly filed and served on 30th day of April, 2015.

In his submission, counsel for the Appellant submitted that the trial judge wrongly disregarded the defence of alibi on the ground that sufficient particulars were not given by the Appellant to the police at the earliest possible time to enable the police investigate it.

He contended that the Appellant had, in his written statement, raised alibi and had also furnished the police with sufficient particulars. He made reference to lines 24-29 of page 17 and lines 1, 18, 19 and 20 of page 18 of the Record hereunder reproduced:

“…that very day I was in the office with BABO in charge of account his name is Sub/LT Aiyeoyeniko. They went with the staff car saloon at about 6. O’clock in the evening the men did not come back with the staff car, the car was later discovered at Mazamaza along the express. It was the drive [sic) O/S AYO whom the officer on duty call (sic) in the morning before he told him where the car was abandon.”