Yusuf Muhammad Alias Danladi V. The State (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

TUNDE OYEBANJI AWOTOYE, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is the judgment in respect of the appeal filed by the appellant on 14/05/2015 against the decision of Kangiwa J. delivered on 23/2/2015.

The appellant was the 3rd accused at the lower Court. The charge against the 5 accused persons contain 3 counts which read as follows:-

“Charge No 1

That you Abdul Ra’uf Bello ‘M’ Umaru Muhammad alias danladi Kura ‘?M’ and Umaru Bawa alias Ma’aji ‘M’ on or about the 3rd day of December, 2008 at about 2300hrs along Birnin Kebbi Jega road within Birnin Kebbi judicial Division of High Court of Justice, agreed among yourselves to commit the offence of armed robbery on one Ibrahim Abubakar and same act was done in pursuance of your agreement thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 5 (b) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act 1990 as amended .

Charge No 2

That you Abdul Ra’uf Bello ‘M’ Umaru Muhammad alias danladi Kura ‘M’ and Umaru Bawa alias Ma’aji ‘M’ on or about the 3rd day of December, 2008

1

at about 2300hrs along Birnin Kebbi Jega road within Birnin Kebbi judicial Division of High Court of Justice, agreed among yourselves to commit the offence of armed robbery in that while you were armed with a knife, you attacked one Ibrahim Abubakar and robbed him of his motor vehicle, golf, red in colour with registration number AL 87 BRK and thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 1 (2) (a) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act 1990 (as amended).

Charge 3

That you Ibrahim Muhammed ‘M’? sometime in 2008 at Argungu Local Government Area of Kebbi State and within the jurisdiction of this honorable Court committed the offence of Aiding and Abetment in that you introduce one Umaru Muhammad alias odidi to one Umaru bawa alias Ma?aji and one Abudul Ra’uf Bello whom you know to be involved in the crime of a car snatching and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 5 (a) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) act 1990 as amended.”

The learned trial Judge after hearing the parties gave judgment inter alia thus

“As I stated earlier in this judgment, that the

2