Ogunsanya Oluwaseyi V. The State (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

HARUNA SIMON TSAMMANI, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Ogun State High Court, delivered by A. O. Jibodu, J on the 30th day of June, 2011.

Before the Ogun State High Court, the Appellant and two others, namely; Haruna Rafiu and Ganiyu Rafiu were charged with the commission of the offences of Robbery contrary to Section 1(1) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act, Cap. R11, Laws of the Federation, 2004 and Receiving stolen Goods contrary to Section 5 of the Robbery and Firearms Act (supra). While Haruna Rafiu was charged alone with the commission of robbery, Ganiyu Rafiu and the Appellant were with the offences of receiving stolen goods.
?
The case against the Appellant is that, on the 17th day of January, 2007, the complainant, one Aminat Olufade (Pw1) took a commercial motorcycte to take her home after closing from her place of business at about 7.30p.m. That around Printing Corporation in Abeokuta, as the motorcycle slowed down, another motorcycle suddenly emerged beside her and the rider of that motorcycle forcefully snatched her bag and sped away. According to the complainant,

1

she started shouting for help and asked the motorcycle rider that took her to ride fast after the other motorcycle; but they lost him. According to the complainant (PW1), because of the conduct of the motorcycle rider that took her, she suspected his complicity in the whole incident, and therefore sought the help of policemen attached to the Central Bank of Nigeria, who then immediately arrested him.

According to the complainant (PW1) about two weeks later, MTN gave her an itemized bill which contained the list of all calls, duration of such calls and the numbers called. That, upon checking the list’ she discovered that 15 minutes after the incident, calls were made from her phone stolen from her, and that, a call to one of the numbers went through and was picked by a lady. That she then fixed an appointment with the lady, and also reported to the police who assigned a police-woman to accompany her. The lady was arrested. The lady then told her that it was one Seyi (Appellant) who called her with the complainant’s phone. The Appellant was then arrested. The complainant also testified that, her bag which was snatched contained some MTN, GLO, V-Mobile lines

2

as well as recharge cards for MTN, GLo, MTS, Multilinks and v-Mobile. That it also contained some phones such as Nokia 1100, Sagem MYX2, Federal Polytechnic Ilaro Student Identity Card and National Identity card including a bunch of keys.

The Appellant denied the charge. At the trial, the prosecution called three witnesses who testified as the PW1, PW2 and PW3 respectively. The prosecution also tendered the extra-judicial statements of the Appellant in evidence and the MTN itemized Bill, and were admitted as Exhibits P, P1, P10 and P11 respectively. The Appellant testified in his defence. At the close of evidence, counsel addressed the Court and in a considered judgment delivered on the 30th day of June, 20th the learned trial Judge convicted the Appellant of the offence of receiving stolen goods contrary to Section 5 of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act (supra), and proceeded to sentence him to 21 years imprisonment. The Appellant is aggrieved by his conviction and has therefore appealed to this Court.

The Notice of Appeal which is contained at pages 104-106 of the Record of Appeal consists of three grounds as follows:
1. The

3

learned trial Judge erred in law when in finding the 2nd Appellant guilty of the offence charged, he held as follows:
“Again having tested the truth of the confessional statement of the 3rd accused in the light of other ascertained facts which have been proved, I am satisfied and convinced that the same i.e, Exhibit 11 is true.?
PARTICULARS
The said confessional statement of the 2nd Appellant (Exhibit P11) did not meet or satisfy the conditions laid down in R. v. Sykes (1913) C.A.R. 233 and approved by the Supreme Court in Jona Dawa. & Anor v. The State (1980) 8-10 S.C. 236 at 267.
(b) There were no other credible pieces of evidence to corroborate the said confessional statement of the 2nd Appellant.
(c) The said confessional statement was retracted during the trial.
2. The learned trial Judge erred in law when he held as follows:
?I hold that it can be inferred from the circumstances surrounding the receipt and possession of the stolen properties by the 3rd accused that he knew that the properties were stolen.”
PARTICULARS
(a) The ingridients of receiving stolen goods were not proved to the

4

satisfaction of the trial Court by the prosecution.
(b) The learned trial Judge in the absence of direct evidence relied on circumstantial evidence to infer the guilt of the 2nd Appellant which fell far below the standard required in coming to the conclusion.
3. That the decision of the High Court is unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the weight of evidence.