Muritala Akibu V. The State (2019)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

SIDI DAUDA BAGE, J.S.C.

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Ibadan Division wherein the conviction and sentence of the Appellant herein by the trial Court was affirmed. The Appellant had been arraigned alongside a co-accused before the Ogun State High Court sitting in Ijebu-Ode, on a three count charge alleging the offence of conspiracy to commit and commission of armed robbery, in Charge No. HCJ/22C/2013.

On the 28th day of March, 2014 the trial Judge, O.A. Onafowokan J. found the Appellant guilty. The Appellant lodged an appeal at the Court of Appeal, Ibadan which also confirmed the decision of the trial Court leading to further appeal to this Court.

SUMMARY OF FACTS:

The Appellant was arraigned at the Ogun State High Court sitting in Ijebu-Ode alongside another co-Accused, Dare Alebiosu for conspiracy to commit and commission of armed robbery contrary to Section 6(b) and 1 (2) (b) of the Robbery and Firearm (Special Provisions) Act, Cap R 11, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.

The evidence linking the Appellant to the robbery apart from the fact that

1

he was allegedly recognised by PW.1 as leader of the gang that robbed her on that day of the incident, was the Appellant’s confessional statement. In his judgement delivered on 28th March, 2013, the trial Court held that the prosecution was unable to prove the offence of armed robbery charged against the Appellant but however succeeded in proving the offence of robbery against him and consequently convicted and sentenced him. The Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal in Ibadan. In its judgement, the Court of Appeal dismissed the Appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence of the trial Court. Still being dissatisfied, the Appellant lodged further appeal to this Court vide a Notice of Appeal dated 24th March, 2016.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:

The Appellant formulated two issues for determination in his Brief of Argument dated 11th February 2019, thus:

“1) Whether the Justices of the Court of Appeal were right in law when having held that identification parade was essential to clear any doubt as to the identity of the actual culprit still went ahead to affirm conviction and sentence of the Appellant by the trial Court (Ground one)

2

2) Whether the Justices of the Court of Appeal were right in law when in affirming the conviction and sentence of the Appellant by the trial Court in spite of the defects and limitations on the evidence of PW.1 on the identity of the Appellant in relation to the robbery committed in the house, and in particular, the sham and charade identification parade of the Appellant conducted by the police (Ground two).”

On its part, the Respondent formulated one issue for determination, thus: