Matthew Orimoloye V. The State (1984)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

IRIKEFE, Ag. C.J.N. 

The appellant in pursuance of the commission of robbery on the night indicated on the charge brought against him discharged a double-barrelled shot gun in the direction of P.w.1 and scored a hit. Some of the pellets in the cartridge injured P.w.1 on his right hand.

Thereafter some of the confederates of the appellant broke down the door of the Singer Machine shop and stole money and goods. P.w.1 and P.w.2 saw the appellant and gave testimony to that effect. In fact, after P.w.1 had received treatment for his gunshot injuries, he was taken by the police to the police station and as soon as he caught sight of the appellant, he pointed to him as the robber who had fired at him in the early hours of that day. The police recovered the spent cartridge at the scene of robbery.

The only issue in this case is that of identity and on the record, the appellant was properly and adequately identified by both P.w.1 and P.w.2, who had ample opportunity to do so. The charge brought against the appellant was proved and nothing that was urged by his counsel would persuade me to disturb the findings made by the court of trial. The appeal clearly lacks merit and should fail. I hereby dismiss it and affirm the conviction and sentence made by the court of trial which were in turn rightly affirmed by the Court of Appeal.

ESO, J.S.C.: The premises of Singer Machine Company at Ife were invaded by robbers at about 1.00 a.m. Eye witness account indicated there were moonlight and streetlight. The 1st and 2nd p.w. identified the appellant. It was he who fired a gun and while in that process he leaned against the car that brought the robbers to the scene. At the first opportunity the appellant was identified by those eye witnesses.

There is not much that could even be said in defence of the appellant whose defence was a denial once the account given by the eye witness was accepted.

The trial court sifted the evidence and came to the inevitable conclusion that it was the appellant that fired that gun and that he was one of the four night marauders.

The Court of Appeal found no substance in the appeal of the appellant.

In this Court, in a detailed brief by Chief Afe Babalola followed by oral submissions by Mr. Aribido the appellant’s claim to innocence was emphasised. Learned counsel talked of inconsistency in the evidence of prosecution witnesses but was only able to refer to evidence of non-eye witnesses whose evidence is immaterial to the identification of the appellant as a culprit. Mr. Aribido also made heavy weather of identification parade. But it is not in every case that a parade is necessary to identify culprits. The appellant was identified by 1st p.w. as soon as the latter saw him at the police station and even before he was asked to identify him.

I do not think there is any merit in the attack by learned counsel on the judgments of the trial court and the Court of Appeal.

Finally the appellant in the brief filed on his behalf submitted that the information filed was null as it was filed by the D.P.P. I think this has been adequately taken care of by s.191 (2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria which provides –

”The powers conferred upon the Attorney-General under sub section (1)…… may be exercised by him in person or through officers of his department.”

It goes without saying that the D.P.P is an officer in the Attorney-General’s department. There is no need for further exercise or assurance to clothe the D.P.P with the powers of instituting and undertaking criminal proceedings against any person.

On the whole, the appeal is devoid of merit and it is hereby dismissed. The conviction and sentence on the appellant are hereby further confirmed.