Obinna Ukpamazi V. The State (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

MISITURA OMODERE BOLAJI-YUSUFF, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal from the judgment of the High Court of Ebonyi State delivered on 22/2/2013 in charge no. HAB/17C/2010. The appellant in this appeal was one of the 4 accused persons charged with an offence of armed robbery punishable under Section 1 (2) (a) and (b) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act Cap. R11, Volume 14, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004. They were accused of robbing one Stephen Epete Egbedike of one Yamaha Cy 80 Motor-cycle and Samba generating machine.

The said Stephen Epete Egbedike was found dead at the scene of the alleged crime. Before the commencement of trial, the 4th accused person died and his name was struck out from the charge. 4 witnesses testify for the prosecution. Each of the accused persons testified in his own defence. After considering the entire evidence led and the addresses of counsel, the Court below found the 3 accused persons guilty as charged. They were each convicted and sentenced to death by hanging or firing squad.

?The appellant herein who was the 2nd accused person at the

1

Court below is aggrieved by the judgment and has appealed to this Court vide an amended notice of appeal filed on 11/2/2016 pursuant to the leave of this Court granted on 8/2/16. Briefs of argument were filed and exchanged by counsel. The appellant’s brief of argument was settled by Ikeazor Akaraiwe Esq. and filed on 14/8/2015. The respondent’s brief was settled by I. I. Alobu Esquire, Director of Public Prosecutions, Ebonyi State and filed on 25/1/16. The two briefs were deemed properly filed on 8/2/2016. Both counsel adopted their briefs of argument.

The appellant’s counsel submitted the following issues for determination :

(1) “Whether the Court below was not in error when it held that the ingredients of armed robbery had been proved beyond all reasonable doubt against the appellant.

(2) Whether the alleged confessional statements of the appellant, relied upon by the learned trial judge to convict him and other co-accused persons of the offences of robbery and murder, were validly admitted in evidence.

(3) Whether the Court below was not in error when it relied on the inadmissible hearsay evidence of PW4 which created a link between

2

the appellant and the items alleged to have been stolen (i.e, Exhibits C and D).”

The respondent submitted the following issue for determination:

“Whether the prosecution proved his case beyond reasonable doubt.”