Theophilus Eyisi & Ors V. The State (2000)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

ONU, J.S.C.

The origin of this case comprising of an attack on a vehicle (a Peugeot 504 G.L. saloon car) occupied by two persons – P.W. 2 and P.W.3 – involved the three accused persons (Theophilus Eyisi alias Sunday Eyisi, Joseph Ezebuilo and Titus Eyisi, who in the rest of this judgment I shall refer to as 1st, 2nd, and 3rd appellants respectively). They were jointly charged in a one-count information with the offence of Armed Robbery contrary to section 1(2)(a) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act, 1970 (No.47 of 1970) as amended by the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) (Amendment) Act, 1974 (No.8 of 1974). The appellants who then subsequently stood trial before the High Court of Anambra State presided over by Obiesie, J. of blessed memory, sitting at Onitsha, were found guilty, convicted as charged and accordingly sentenced to death.

Aggrieved by this decision, the appellants appealed unsuccessfully against their conviction and sentence to the Court of Appeal holden in Enugu (hereinafter referred to as the Court below). Being further dissatisfied with the decision of the court below, they have finally appealed to this court. The facts of the case, which are themselves not complicated, may be briefly stated as follows:

On the 18th day of July, 1981, at Onitsha, in the Onitsha Judicial Division, Osita Okeke (PW2) and Onyebuchi Onwuzuligbo (PW3) who had earlier that day been to Aba to purchase some music playing records and were on their way back to Onitsha in PW2’s Peugeot 504 G.L car registration No. AN 1616 SA entering Oguta road, Onitsha, saw a Saloon car blocking the road in front of them and appearing to be reversing. This made PW2 to stop his car to watch the appellants and three other occupants of their vehicle immediately alighting therefrom, all armed with daggers, guns and knives. This was about 9.30 p.m. but the headlights of PW2’s car were fully on. Four of these robbers attacked PW2 with the other two going to the side of PW3. As those who converged on PW2 ordered him out of his car and he declined to do so, he was soon attacked with daggers and knives, with the 3rd appellant hitting him at the mouth with the butt of his gun thus, forcing PW3 to run away to a nearby building. All six attackers after being described as having in their possession locally made shotguns, it was shown how these guns were fired into the air to scare away people.

The armed men upon being said to have driven away in PW2’s car together with his brief case containing N5,000 and 54 packets of records, it was shown that after this, PW3 came out of hiding and called a taxi which took PW2 to hospital where he was treated by Dr. Chukwuemeka Godwin Anyika (PW1), who gave a vivid description of the injuries sustained by PW2, the latter who in turn subsequently made a report of the matter to the police.

On the 20th of July, 1981, barely two days after the incident just narrated, 1st and 2nd appellants came to Obed Onwuzuligbo, who later testified as PW 5 and who incidentally is father of PW3, to sell some packets of records – identical to those involved in the robbery thus, freshly perpetrated on PW2 and PW3 in the neighbourhood. The law was set in motion by the Police being contacted with the natural follow up leading to the arrest of the 1st and 2nd appellants. After the arrest, the 2nd appellant made a useful statement to the Police that there were other (identical) records in the house of the 3rd appellant at number 6, Pam Pam Lane, Onitsha. Following the trail of this information and sequel thereto, the Police imminently went to the house where the 3rd appellant was arrested and some records recovered. On the following day – 21st July, 1981 – the Police, armed with a search warrant (Exhibit P), conducted a search of 3rd appellant’s premises and recovered thereat:

(a) 3 double barrel locally made pistols,

(b) 40 cartridges;

(c) One carton of long-playing records containing 49 pieces of records.

During the search, Sergeant E. Anyano (PW6), who conducted the search and Sergeant Momodu Aliyu (PW4) as well as (PW3), one of the robbery victims, were all present.

All three appellants made extra-judicial statements to the Police, namely, (Exhibits C,D,E,H and N) which were admitted in evidence without any objections. The prosecution’s case in the first place was effectively that all the appellants took part in the commission of the crime and were pinpointedly identified by either PW2 or PW3 or both at the scene of the crime. Secondly, it was their (prosecution’s) contention that the appellants were found in possession of the property stolen during the robbery that earlier, and one may dare add, took place contemporaneously to the detection thereof.

The case of all the appellants taken separately and together was a complete denial of their involvement in the commission of the robbery. In addition, the 1st appellant in his voluntary statement to the police (Exhibit ‘C’) dated 20th July, 1981 and his evidence in court, stated unequivocally that it was the 2nd appellant who brought the cartons of records on 19th July, 1981 between 4.00 and 5.00 am to the room at Pam Pam Lane, Onitsha and at that time, 3rd appellant was absent. On the other hand, the 2nd appellant, both in his extra-judicial statement to the Police (Exhibit’D’) and his evidence in court, stated that it was the 1st appellant who met him (2nd appellant) and offered to sell the records to him.

All three appellants, as I had hereinbefore pointed out, were found guilty of robbing PWI AND PW2 of the records as charged and were each sentenced to death. Each appealed to the court below, which found no substance in their appeals and so did not hesitate in dismissing them. The appeal to this court by each of the appellants is from the affirmation of both their convictions and sentences.

Each of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd appellants, has bought his appeal solely upon the grounds of appeal filed with the Leave of this court dated the 24th day of November, 1999 contained in a notice of appeal consisting of four grounds and granted on 9th December, 1999. The parties eventually filed and exchanged briefs of argument in accordance with the rules of court.