Hussaini Samaila V. The State (2008)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

MARY U. PETER- ODILI, J. C. A.

The Appellant was on 26/3/02 arraigned on a three count charge of Criminal Conspiracy, Robbery and Culpable homicide on the 26/6/2004 the Hon. Trial court found the Appellant guilty and sentenced him accordingly, The Appellant not satisfied with his conviction has filed this appeal.

BRIEF FACTS

The Appellant was arraigned along with Emmanuel Oche and Samaila Umaru on a three count Charge of Criminal Conspiracy, robbery and culpable homicide on 26th March 2002 before the High Court of Justice Kontogora presided over by Hon. Justice M.J. Evuti.

The Appellant along with Emmanuel Oche and samaila Umaru were said to have conspired together and robbed one Saminu Sale at Kontogora on 28th July 2001 of his motorcycle Zuzuki and in the cause of the execution of their action the victim died.

At the conclusion of the trial, the Appellant was convicted and sentenced to 5 years imprisonment with hard labour on 1st count. On 2nd count the Appellant was convicted and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment while the Appellant was convicted and sentenced to twelve years imprisonment on 3rd count. Sentences were to run concurrently. Dissatisfied with the decision of the trial court, the Appellant filed his Notice of Appeal having obtained the leave of this Court which Notice of Appeal was flied with five grounds of appeal.

The Appellant on the 19/12/05 filed his Brief and in it formulated three issues:

1. Whether the erroneous conclusion of the Hon. Trial Judge that the Appellant never denied the committal of the three counts charge made against them, did not cause or occasion a miscarriage of justice.
2. Whether the offence of culpable homicide was proved against the Appellant.
3. Whether having regard to the totality of evidence before the Hon trial court the Trial Judge was right in have returned a verdict of guilty against the Appellant on the three counts.

The Respondent adopted the issues framed by the Appellant.

ISSUE NO 1:

Whether the Erroneous conclusion of the Hon trial court that the Appellant never denied the committal of the 3 counts charge made against them, did not cause or occasion a miscarriage of justice?

Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the learned trial Judge’s conclusion that the Appellant never denied the committal of the 3 counts charged made against him was a misstatement of fact leading to a miscarriage of justice. He cited R v. Cohen &. Bodeman (1909) 73 JP 352.

Mr. Ume of counsel for the Appellant said it was obvious that the Appellant was boxed to a corner wherein he had to enter into his defence without counsel. That Appellant had even in his statement to the police denied any involvement that led to the charge of homicide. That the wrong conclusion weighed heavily on the mind of the trial Judge that he did not properly consider the evidence of the prosecution as to discover the numerous lapses that could have worked in favour of the Appellant.

Learned counsel for the Respondent said that the trial court acted rightly in concluding that the Appellant never denied the committal of the 3 counts charge made against them and there was no miscarriage of justice. He referred to the evidence of PW5, Sgt. Shuaibu Sani and also Exhibit E, the confessional statement of the Appellant. He said the Appellant can safely be convicted based on his confessional statement alone. He cited Akpan v. The State (1990) 7 NWLR (pt. 160) 101 at 102; Akinmoje v. The State SCNQLR (2000) P. 90 at 91.

The learned trial Judge had in his judgment stated: