Tunde Agboola V. The State (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

MOJEED ADEKUNLE OWOADE, J.C.A.(Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court, Ondo State, Ore Judicial Division delivered on 26th April, 2013 by Hon. Justice O. O. Akeredolu.

The Appellant and two other accused persons were arraigned on 2 counts charge of conspiracy to commit armed robbery and armed robbery contrary to Section 6 (b) and 1 (2) (a) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act cap. R11 Vol. 14 Laws of Federation 2004.

The particulars of the offence are that Appellant and the two other accused persons on or about 31st May, 2005 along Ajue Road via Ore conspired to commit armed robbery and whilst armed with guns and other dangerous weapons robbed Saliu Boye and Showemimo Olaniran of money and personal effects.

The Appellant and the other accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charge. The prosecution called 3 witnesses and tendered Exhibits. The Appellant and each of the other accused persons testified in defence.

On 26/4/2013, the learned trial Judge delivered his judgment and held at page 82 of the record of appeal that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the Appellant and the two other accused persons conspired to commit armed robbery and that they committed armed robbery contrary to Section 1 (2) (a) and Section 6 (b) of the Robbery and Fire Arms Act (Special Provisions) Act cap R. 11, Vol. 14 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004. The learned trial Judge accordingly convicted the Appellant and the two other accused persons.

Dissatisfied with his conviction, the Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal containing seven (7) grounds of appeal into this Court on 7/6/2013.

Appellant’s brief of argument dated 20/3/2014 and filed on 21/3/2014 was deemed filed on 16/4/2015

Respondent’s brief of argument is dated 15/6/2015 and filed on the same day.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant nominated a sole issue for determination.

“Whether the learned trial Judge was right when his Lordship convicted and sentenced the Appellant based on the purported confessional statements, when there was no cogent, convincing, credible and/or prima facie evidence, oral or documentary outside the confessional statements to establish the guilt of the Appellant for the offences Conspiracy and Armed Robbery beyond reasonable doubt. More so, when the purported statements are not true, positive and direct.”

Learned Counsel for the Respondent also formulated a sole issue for determination, to wit.

“Whether or not from the totality of evidence before it, the trial Court rightly held that the prosecution proved the case of conspiracy and armed robbery beyond reasonable doubt against the Appellant.”

On the sole issue, Appellant’s Counsel reminded us that the burden of proof is always on the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused person beyond reasonable doubt.