Sunday Onuorah v. The People of Lagos State (2024)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report – SUPREME COURT

CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, JSC (Delivering the leading judgment)

The appeal is against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division (hereinafter referred to as the lower court) delivered on 20th May, 2016 in which the lower court affirmed the decision of the High Court of Lagos State (hereinafter referred to as the trial court) which had convicted the appellant of the offence of conspiracy to commit robbery and robbery, and sentenced him to a term of 21 (twenty-one) years imprisonment with hard labour in each of the two counts.

Dissatisfied with his conviction and sentence, the appellant appealed to the lower court which affirmed the decision of the trial court. Thereafter, the appellant further appealed to this court.

The background facts are that the appellant was the first of two defendants at the trial court in charge No. JD/11C/2011 before the Ikeja Judicial Division of the High Court of Lagos State by way of Information.

In proof of her case, the respondent called three (3) witnesses namely, PW1 (Esther Osimen, the victim), PW2 (Shedrack Monday) and PW3 (ASP Emmanuel Onwuemeli). The appellant testified in his defence as the DW1 and called no witness.

At the close of the trial on 14th March, 2013, the trial court found the appellant guilty on the counts of conspiracy to commit robbery and robbery. The appellant was convicted and sentenced accordingly. The appellants appeal to the lower court was dismissed on 20th May, 2016 in which the decision of the trial court was affirmed thus, this appeal.

The appellant distilled two issues for the determination of the appeal thus:

1 Whether the Justices of the Court of Appeal were right in affirming the judgment of the trial court which was arrived at by wrongly relying on the confessional statement of the appellants co-accused which was not adopted by the appellant, in spite of the clear testimony of the PW1, the victim of the robbery that she did not recognize the appellant. (This issue was distilled from ground 1 of the notice and grounds of appeal)

2. Whether the Court of Appeal was justified in upholding the conviction of the appellant by the trial court in the face of the clear contradictions in the testimonies of the PW1, PW2 and PW3 and the absence of evidence of conspiracy. (This issue was distilled from ground 2 of the notice and grounds of appeal).

In arguing the appeal, the learned counsel to the appellant B. O. Igwe, Esq relied on and adopted his brief of argument filed on 8/6/2022 and his reply brief filed on 29/7/2022 in urging us to allow the appeal. In arguing issue one (1), it was submitted that when evaluating the evidence contained in a confessional statement, which the defendant denied making, the trial court must go outside the confessional statement to seek and obtain external evidence corroborative of the confessional statement before it could be concluded that the defendant is guilty. The corroborative evidence is intended to make it probable that the confession is true. See Uluebeka v. The State (2000) 7 NWLR (Pt. 665) 404.

It was submitted that the appellant denied making the confessional statement and that the Investigating Police Officer (PW2) wrote exhibits D – D1. Further, that where the defendant resiles from making a confessional statement, corroboration of the statement is required for a safe conviction. It was argued that for a conviction based only on the defendants confessional statement, where corroboration is required, it would be unsafe to allow the conviction to stand.

See State v. Gambo (2021) 1 WRN 1; (2019) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1655) 117 at page 138, Osung v. State (2012) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1332) 256 and Olayinka v. State (2007) 45 WRN 147; (2007) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1040) 561. It was alleged that the defendant was convicted based on the evidence of the appellants co-accused (Emmanuel Ameh) at the trial and the testimony of PW1 (Esther Osimen, the victim of the robbery).

It was argued that the appellant did not adopt the statement of his co-accused for the trial court to have utilized same, reference was made to pages 130 – 131 of the records of appeal, paragraphs 3 and 1 respectively. This was said to be perverse, reliance was placed on section 29(4) of the Evidence Act, 2011.

With reference to the evidence of the PW1 on pages 27 – 29 of the printed records of appeal, it was submitted that the PW1 did not know the appellant the alleged incident took place in the night between 10:00 and 11:00 pm among other circumstances and that there was doubt as to the appellants participation, therefore making it unsafe to have convicted the appellant.

Also, that the third ingredient of whether the appellant participated in the robbery was not proved. See Olayinka v. State (2007) 45 WRN 147; (2007) 4 S.C (Pt. 1) 210 where the ingredients for the proof of robbery were listed. It was submitted that the PW1 stated that there was no light in the taxi where she sat with her attackers and that a gun was pointed at her.