SEGUN v. THE STATE

Briefly, the facts giving birth to this appeal are that the Appellant and one Jamiu Dairo were tried together for armed robbery and aiding the commission of armed robbery. The evidence of the prosecution at the trial showed that the said Jamiu Dairo went to rob PW1 of his car at gun point somewhere in Igbeba Road, Ijebu Ode. During the operation, PW2 was shot by the said Jamiu Dairo. On the following day, Jamiu took the car to another location and then eventually to the appellant to wash the said car. While the appellant was washing the said car, he was arrested by policemen.
Evidence at the trial showed that Jamiu had never known who the appellant was before the said date and all the appellant did was to wash the car before he was arrested. There was no nexus or link between the appellant and the said Jamiu.
In fact, Jamiu in his evidence before the Court stated that he did not know the appellant and all he did was to approach him to wash the car that was stolen. The appellant being a car wash person decided to do the washing and it was during the washing that he was arrested. Despite all these facts to show that there was no nexus or link between the appellant and the crime, the learned trial Judge found the appellant guilty of receiving stolen property and sentenced him to life imprisonment. Against this conviction and sentence, they appealed to the Court of Appeal which after consideration of the issues raised, affirmed the conviction of the appellant by a majority of two with one dissenting. The judgment of the Court below was delivered on 9th June, 2015.
Again, the Appellant was dissatisfied with the judgment of the Court below and filed Notice of Appeal on 7th July, 2015 which was deemed properly filed on 8th March, 2018. There are three grounds of appeal out of which the Appellant has distilled two issues for the determination of this appeal thus:-
1. Whether the appellant was rightly convicted of the lesser offence of receiving.
2. Whether the prosecution was able to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt as required by law.
It was however the view of the learned counsel for the Respondent that only one issue is germane for the determination of this appeal which he has couched as follows:-
“Whether from the entirety of the evidence on record as well as material available, the Respondent as prosecution established the offence of Receiving Stolen Property against the Appellant beyond all reasonable doubt to warrant the appellant’s affirmation of conviction and sentence by the Court of Appeal and a dismissal of the Appeal of 7th July, 2015 in its entirety.”
On the issues formulated by the parties for the determination of this appeal, it is crystal clear that although the appellant has distilled two issues, the respondent has fused the two issues into one.
I shall determine the two issues of the appellant together as if it was one issue. What this means is that I adopt the sole issue as couched by the Respondent as a guide in determining this appeal.
The learned counsel for the Appellant Oladipo Olasope, Esq., submitted in the main that it was a wrong approach for the learned Trial Judge, as affirmed by the Court below, to convict the appellant of a lesser offence as the principles for conviction for a lesser offence were missing, referring to the case of Adeyemi v. The State(1991) 6 NWLR (Pt. 195) 1. According to him, the principal elements of the offence of aiding and abetting are that the person aiding and abetting must be present at the scene of crime and the person must have done something or failed to do something which helped the commission of the crime, relying on Yakubu Mohammed v. State (1980) 3-4 SC 56.
Learned counsel submitted that the ingredients of the offence of receiving are that:-
1. The property in question must have been stolen.
2. The accused received the stolen property.
3. The accused knew or had reason to believe that the property was stolen property, citing the case of

…………………….B…………………….