Robbery

On whether or not the offence of robbery was made out as required by law, I shall reiterate the necessary ingredients the prosecution/respondent must prove to sustain a charge thereof and these are well set out in the case of Henry Otti v. The State (1991) 8 NWLR (Pt.207) 103 at 118 and these ingredients are as follows:
a. That the accused stole something
b. That the thing stolen is in law capable of being stolen
c. That the accused threatened to use violence or actually used violence immediately before or immediately after the time of stealing the thing.
d. The violence could be on either a person or on a property in order to obtain or retain the thing stolen or to prevent or overcome resistance to its being stolen or retained.
An essential element of the offence of robbery is stealing and so what is said to be stolen must be such as could be an item capable of stolen.

In describing the offence of robbery, this Court had this to say in the case of Ebeinwe V. The State under reference supra at page 224:-
" - Robbery is theft or extortion by force or inducing of fear by coercion --. Therefore theft in all its ramifications is robbery if in order to commit the theft or in committing the theft or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by theft the offender/accused for that end voluntarily causes or attempts to cause any person's death or hurt or wrongful restraint or fear of instant death or hurt or instant hurt or of wrongful restraint."
Judicial guidance was given also by this Court in Fatayi Olayinka V. The State, 30 NSCQR 149 at pages 162 – 163. It is clear from the foregoing principle that where it is shown that in forcefully taking away the property of another, the assailant either hurts or attempts to put his victim in a state of fear or apprehension of eminent harm or death or restraint, an armed robbery has taken place.