Stephen John & Anor V. The State (2010)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

ZAINAB A. BULKACHUWA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

The appellants as accused persons were arraigned before the High Court of Plateau State coram Dusu J. (of blessed memory) with 7 other accused persons on an eight count charge. By a motion on notice dated 17th April, 2001 the prosecution sought and was granted the leave of the court to amend the charges as a consequence of which the names of the 4th – 9th accused persons and counts 3 – 8 of the charges were struck out.

The plea of the three accused persons on the amended charge was taken by the court on the 10/4/2002,- wherein they all pleaded not guilty. The amended charge reads;

“That you, Stephen John, Henry Lawrence and Maxwell Idis in company of Samson Madaki and Freedom (surname unknown and now at large) on or about the 21st day of February, 1999 at Jenta Mangoro, Jos, Jos North Local Government Area, in the Plateau Judicial Division while armed with guns, knives and sticks robbed one Elizabeth Musa of one video cassette recorder, one world receiver radio, one car stereo, six set of gold necklaces valued at N216,000, two wrist watches, six sets of gold jewelries valued at N30,000 three cameras, seven cupion laces, assorted wrappers and one dictionary and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 1(2)(b)of the Robbery and Firearms Act 1984 (as amended).

The matter thereafter proceeded to trial and three witnesses testified for the prosecution, the accused persons testified for themselves as DW1 and DW2, thereafter learned respective counsels addressed the court and in a considered judgment delivered on the 7th April, 2004 the lower court found the accused persons guilty of the charge and sentenced them to death.

The 1st and 2nd accused persons dissatisfied with their conviction and sentences filed two separate notices of appeal on the 3rd May 2004 consisting each of two grounds of appeal and consequently with leave of this court each filed 8 additional grounds of appeal.

Parties filed and exchanged briefs of argument and in a joint brief by the two appellants deemed filed by leave of this court granted on the 29/3/2010 the following issues were identified;

(1) Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants of the offence of armed robbery punishable under Section (1)(2)(b) of the Robbery and Firearms Act 1984 (as amended), (this issue is distilled from grounds 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 9).

(2) Whether the learned trial judge was right in law in admitting Exhibits 3 and 5 the 1st and 2nd appellants” confessional statements, and using same principally to find the appellants guilty of the offence of armed robbery punishable under Section 1(2)(b)of the Robbery and Firearms Act 1984 (as amended), (this issue if distilled from grounds 4, 7 and 8).

From the above it would appear that the appellants have not distilled any issue from their ground 10. It is trite that where no issue is formulated from a ground of appeal it is deemed abandoned and liable to be struck out. Mamudere Vs. Okafor 1996 4 SCNJ 73. In the circumstances there being no issue formulated from ground 10 of the Grounds of Appeal of the two appellants. I deem them abandoned and hereby strike them out.

The respondent in a brief of argument also deemed filed on 29/3/2010 distilled the under listed issues for the determination of the appeal;

(1) Whether the learned Maijudge was right in convicting the appellants on their retracted confessional statements.

(2) Whether from the facts and circumstances of this case, the prosecution proved its case

The two sets of issues as formulated by the parties are similar.