Iliyasu Sumaila V. The State (2012)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal from the Judgment of High Court of Justice, Okene, Kogi State in Charge No: HCO/01CR/2009 – The State vs. Iliyasu Sumaila delivered on the 13th day of November, 2009 wherein the Appellant was convicted of armed robbery contrary to Section 298(c) of the Penal Code and sentenced to twelve years imprisonment.

Dissatisfied with the Judgment the Appellant now appealed to this Court.

The learned Counsel for the Appellant formulated two issues for the determination of the appeal. The issues are set out as follows:-

(1) Whether on a calm and careful consideration of the legally admissible evidence adduced at the trial, the learned trial Judge was right to hold, as he did, that the prosecution had proved its case against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt (Grounds 1, 2 and 3 of the Amended Notice of Appeal).

(2) Whether in view of the learned trial Judge’s failure to comply with Section 197 of the CPC, the sentence of twelve years imposed on the Appellant was not excessive (Ground 4 and 5).

The learned Counsel for the Respondent formulated three issues for determination. The issues are set out as follows:-

(1) Whether or not the learned trial Judge rightly found upon a careful review of the evidence that the prosecution has proved the case of armed robbery beyond reasonable doubt against the Appellant (Grounds 1 and 3).

(2) Whether or not there are contradictions in the case of the prosecution material or otherwise to warrant a reversal of the findings of guilt by the learned trial Judge against the Appellant (Ground 2).

(3) Whether or not there is non-compliance with the provision of Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the learned trial Judge and if so, whether or not it has occasioned a miscarriage of Justice against the Appellant to justify the reduction of the sentence of 12 years imprisonment imposed on the Appellant by the trial Court (Grounds 4 and 5).

At the hearing learned Counsel for the Appellant referred to the Appellant’s amended brief of argument filed on 19/9/2011.

He adopted the brief as his argument in urging that the appeal be allowed.

The learned Counsel for the Respondent also referred to the Respondent’s amended brief of argument filed on 18/10/11. She adopted it as her argument in urging that the appeal be dismissed.

I have carefully examined the issues formulated for determination on behalf of the parties in this appeal and it is my view that the issues set out on behalf of the Appellant are considered relevant in the determination of this appeal.