md←→ previous / next
Before Their Lordships
OLABODE RHODES-VIVOUR Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
MARY UKAEGO PETER-ODILI Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
JOHN INYANG OKORO Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
AMIRU SANUSI Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
SIDI DAUDA BAGE Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
MARY UKAEGO PETER-ODILI Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
JOHN INYANG OKORO Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
AMIRU SANUSI Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
SIDI DAUDA BAGE Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
Between
THE STATE- Appellant
AND
MICHAEL OMO FADEZI-Respondent
…………………….A…………………….
AMIRU SANUSI, J.S.C. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This appeal is against the Judgment of Kaduna division of the Court of Appeal (“the lower Court” for short) (Coram I. O Akeju, Habeeb A. O Abiru and Oludekun A. Adefope. JCA) delivered on 18th of September, 2015 which substituted the death sentence passed by the High Court of Justice Kaduna State (the trial Court) on the respondent with 21 years Imprisonment
The respondent herein, was arraigned before the trial Court on an allegation of armed robbery along with three other co-accused, out of which two were at large hence they did not stand the trial. The respondent and one other who were alleged to have worn police uniform and armed themselves with guns broke into the house of Victor Omuruan and Clara Omuruan and robbed them of their personal belongings and a sum of N32,000 on 14th October, 2001.
On their arrest, the respondent was charged with the offence of armed robbery, contrary to Section 1 (1) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act, Cap 398 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria of 1990. At the trial Court, the respondent pleaded not guilty to the sole count.
The trial thereupon proceeded in earnest. In an effort to prove its case, the appellant called four witnesses to testify in its case, the first two of whom were Clara Omuruan and Victor Omuruan, the victims who testified at the trial as PW1 and PW2 respectively. The third witness was the IPO who investigated the case and also recorded the confessional statement of the respondent which was later tendered and admitted as exhibit at the trial without any objection by the defence. The fourth and last witness was a member of the Vigilante group who arrested the respondent. On the conclusion of the case for the prosecution, now appellant, the respondent/accused testified on his own behalf as DW2 but did not call any witness.
After the learned counsel for the parties delivered their addresses, the trial Court adjourned for Judgment. In the Judgment delivered by the trial Court, the respondent was found guilty as charged and was convicted and sentenced to death by hanging.
The respondent became disenchanted by his conviction and sentence by the trial Court hence the appeal to the Court of Appeal (the lower Court or Court below) which in its Judgment delivered on 18th September, 2015 allowed the appeal by the respondent in part, in that it set aside the conviction and sentence of death by hanging passed on him and substituted the conviction of armed robbery with that of simple robbery and reduced or commuted the death sentence to that of 21years imprisonment to take effect from 4th August, 2005 being the date of his conviction by the trial Court.
Miffed by the Judgment of the lower Court, the appellant has now appealed to this Court. In keeping with the procedure obtained in this Court, parties to this appeal filed and exchanged briefs of argument. The appellant’s brief of argument settled by Hassan EI- Yakub was filed on 29/3/2015 which was deemed filed on 8th March, 2016. on his part, the respondent filed his brief on 19/10/2015, settled by one Olukayode Adebowola which was also deemed filed on 8th March 2016.
In the appellant’s brief of argument, a lone issue was decoded from the Notice and grounds of appeal which simply reads as follows:-
whether from the totality of the evidence in this case, the appellant did not prove beyond reasonable doubt the charge of armed robbery contrary to Section 1 (2)(a) (b) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act, Cap 398 Laws of Federation of Nigeria 1990 against the Respondent but only proved robbery such as to Justify the decision of the Court of appeal in setting aside the conviction and sentence of the trial Court and substituting same with a conviction for robbery and sentence of 21 years imprisonment (Grounds, 2 & (Grounds, 2 &).”
Similarly, the respondent herein, in his brief of argument also raised a lone issue for the determination of this appeal which is less verbose compared to the one raised by the appellant which simply reads thus:-
Whether the Court of Appeal rightly held that the prosecution failed to prove the charge of armed robbery beyond reasonable doubt and convicted the respondent of a lessor offence of robbery
SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE APPELLANT ON THE SOLE ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION RAISED
The issue deals with whether from the totality of the evidence in this case, the appellant did not prove the charge of armed robbery. It was submitted that where the prosecution established all the essential ingredients of
On their arrest, the respondent was charged with the offence of armed robbery, contrary to Section 1 (1) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act, Cap 398 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria of 1990. At the trial Court, the respondent pleaded not guilty to the sole count.
The trial thereupon proceeded in earnest. In an effort to prove its case, the appellant called four witnesses to testify in its case, the first two of whom were Clara Omuruan and Victor Omuruan, the victims who testified at the trial as PW1 and PW2 respectively. The third witness was the IPO who investigated the case and also recorded the confessional statement of the respondent which was later tendered and admitted as exhibit at the trial without any objection by the defence. The fourth and last witness was a member of the Vigilante group who arrested the respondent. On the conclusion of the case for the prosecution, now appellant, the respondent/accused testified on his own behalf as DW2 but did not call any witness.
After the learned counsel for the parties delivered their addresses, the trial Court adjourned for Judgment. In the Judgment delivered by the trial Court, the respondent was found guilty as charged and was convicted and sentenced to death by hanging.
The respondent became disenchanted by his conviction and sentence by the trial Court hence the appeal to the Court of Appeal (the lower Court or Court below) which in its Judgment delivered on 18th September, 2015 allowed the appeal by the respondent in part, in that it set aside the conviction and sentence of death by hanging passed on him and substituted the conviction of armed robbery with that of simple robbery and reduced or commuted the death sentence to that of 21years imprisonment to take effect from 4th August, 2005 being the date of his conviction by the trial Court.
Miffed by the Judgment of the lower Court, the appellant has now appealed to this Court. In keeping with the procedure obtained in this Court, parties to this appeal filed and exchanged briefs of argument. The appellant’s brief of argument settled by Hassan EI- Yakub was filed on 29/3/2015 which was deemed filed on 8th March, 2016. on his part, the respondent filed his brief on 19/10/2015, settled by one Olukayode Adebowola which was also deemed filed on 8th March 2016.
In the appellant’s brief of argument, a lone issue was decoded from the Notice and grounds of appeal which simply reads as follows:-
whether from the totality of the evidence in this case, the appellant did not prove beyond reasonable doubt the charge of armed robbery contrary to Section 1 (2)(a) (b) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act, Cap 398 Laws of Federation of Nigeria 1990 against the Respondent but only proved robbery such as to Justify the decision of the Court of appeal in setting aside the conviction and sentence of the trial Court and substituting same with a conviction for robbery and sentence of 21 years imprisonment (Grounds, 2 & (Grounds, 2 &).”
Similarly, the respondent herein, in his brief of argument also raised a lone issue for the determination of this appeal which is less verbose compared to the one raised by the appellant which simply reads thus:-
Whether the Court of Appeal rightly held that the prosecution failed to prove the charge of armed robbery beyond reasonable doubt and convicted the respondent of a lessor offence of robbery
SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE APPELLANT ON THE SOLE ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION RAISED
The issue deals with whether from the totality of the evidence in this case, the appellant did not prove the charge of armed robbery. It was submitted that where the prosecution established all the essential ingredients of
…………………….B…………………….
Continue reading STATE v. FADEZI
You have read the opening. Unlock the full library once and it stays unlocked - one payment, no subscription, the same library as the app.
- All 725 Laws of the Federation, A to Z
- 916 full judgments and 269 case collections
- 8,046 legal principles and 124 rules of court
- 343 drafts, with the Draft Builder
- The Law Dictionary - 31,442 terms
- Law School notes and 2,082 MCQs
Every Act, case collection and principle beginning with A, B or C is free to read in full, without unlocking - the same boundary as the Android app.