Saleh Dawai V. The State (2013)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

ABDU ABOKI J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This appeal is against the decision of the High Court of Justice, Kaduna State, Holden at Kafanchan, delivered on the 27th day of April, 2005 by D.S. Wyom, J.

The brief facts of the case are that the appellant on the 31st day of January, 2004 at Kachia, Kaduna State was alleged to have forcefully entered the residence of one Alhaji Maharazu Saidu while armed with a locally made pistol and accordingly robbed the said victim of the sum of N500,000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira Only).

At the trial, the prosecution (hereafter referred to as the respondent) called four witnesses and tendered one exhibit in its bid to substantiate its case against the appellant, while the appellant gave evidence in his defence and tendered no exhibit.

After the conclusion of the trial, the lower Court convicted the appellant for committing the offence of armed robbery and accordingly sentenced him to 14 years imprisonment.

Dissatisfied with the judgment of the lower Court, the appellant appealed to this Court through a notice of appeal containing 6 grounds of appeal.

The appellant in his brief of argument dated and filed on 4/5/2011 distilled two issues for determination to wit:

“. Whether the trial Court was justified in convicting and sentencing the appellant for armed robbery having regard to the evidence before the Court. (Grounds 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6)

ii. Whether circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution and relied upon by trial Court irresistibly point to the guilt of the appellant. (Ground Three)”.

The respondent on the other hand in it’s brief of argument formulated a sole issue for determination to wit:

“Whether the trial Court was right to have convicted the appellant for the offence of armed robbery”.

The issue formulated by the respondent is all embracing and same is adopted for the determination of this appeal.

“Whether the trial Court was right to have convicted the appellant for the offence of armed robbery”.

On the said issue, learned counsel to the appellant in his brief of argument opined that the lower Court erred in law when it convicted the appellant for the offence of armed robbery based on the premise that the respondent had not proved all the ingredients of the said offence against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.