UKEME CHRISTOPHER OKON (A.K.A. ABILITY) v. THE STATE
(2018)LCN/11824(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Monday, the 2nd day of July, 2018
CA/C/265c/2016
RATIO
EVIDENCE: CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT
“Where at trial, an accused person denies making a confessional extra judicial statement attributed to him by the prosecution; the trial Court would admit the said statement in evidence as was done in this instance by the learned trial Judge. See ALARAPE & ORS VS STATE (2001) 5 NSCQLR 451.
Considering that a free and voluntary confession is sufficient to ground conviction, admitting the said statements is merely preliminary, as it must be determined later in the course of evaluation that the confessional statements could be appropriately attributed to the Appellant as his true confession. In the evaluation process, the extant procedure is for the said extra judicial statements to be examined with respect to existing evidence on record and be subjected to what is generally referred to as tests of validity or truthfulness.” PER JOSEPH OLUBUNMI KAYODE OYEWOLE, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
STEPHEN JONAH ADAH Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
JOSEPH OLUBUNMI KAYODE OYEWOLE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
UKEME CHRISTOPHER OKON A.K.A. ABILITY Appellant(s)
AND
THE STATE Respondent(s)
JOSEPH OLUBUNMI KAYODE OYEWOLE, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment):
This is in respect of an appeal against the decision of the High Court of Akwa Ibom State delivered on the 19th day of January, 2016 by ABRAHAM J. (as he then was) convicting the Appellant for armed robbery and sentencing him to death.
The Appellant had been charged as 2nd accused alongside 5 other co-accused on 3 counts of armed robbery contrary to Section 1 (2) (a) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special provisions) Cap R.11 2004.
At trial the prosecution called 5 witnesses and tendered several exhibits while the accused persons including the Appellant testified from the witness box in their defence with the 3rd accused person calling an additional witness. After taking the final addresses of counsel, the learned trial Judge in a considered judgment found that the prosecution failed to prove counts 1 and 2 beyond reasonable doubt but found count 3 proved beyond reasonable doubt against the Appellant and 2 of his co-accused and consequently convicted and sentenced them.
Exercising his constitutional rights, the Appellant filed a notice of appeal against the said judgment on the 14th April, 2016 containing 3 grounds.
At the hearing of the appeal, Mr. Krukrubo adopted the Appellant’s brief filed on the 2nd November, 2017 but deemed properly filed and served on the 22nd February, 2018 as well as the Appellant’s reply brief filed on the 30th April, 2018 as the arguments of the Appellant in this appeal.
The Respondent’s brief filed on the 27th March, 2018 but equally deemed properly filed and served on the 12th April, 2018 was adopted by Mr. Okpo an Assistant Chief State Counsel with the Akwa Ibom State Ministry of Justice, as the arguments of the Respondent in contesting this appeal.
The Appellant distilled 2 issues for determination as follows:
a. Whether the trial Court was right to rely on the Appellant’s statement made to the police to convict the Appellant.
b. Whether the trial Court was right when it found the Appellant guilty of armed robbery based on circumstantial evidence and the confessional statements of his co-accused persons.
The Respondent on its part formulated 3 issues as follows:
(a) Whether the prosecution had proved the charge of armed robbery against the Appellant at the Court below beyond reasonable doubt.
(b) Whether the trial Court was right to rely on the Appellant’s confessional statement made to the police to convict the Appellant.
(c) Whether the trial Court was right when it found the Appellant guilty of armed robbery based on circumstantial evidence.
The issues formulated by the Appellant are more succinct and I shall adopt them in this appeal proceeding seriatim. I must note however that I agree with the Appellant that the first issue raised by the Respondent is incompetent as it is unrelated to any of the grounds of appeal before the Court. See CONTRACT RESOURCES NIGERIA LTD V. STANDARD TRUST BANK LTD (2013) LPELR-19934(SC) at 12-13.
The first issue to be considered therefore is whether the trial Court was right to rely on the Appellant’s statement made to the police to convict the Appellant.
Arguing this issue, Mr. Krukrubo submitted that with the retraction by the Appellant of exhibits 5 and 6, the two extra judicial statements attributed to him, the learned trial Judge was duty bound to apply the test of truthfulness or veracity before ascribing credibility to the two statements. He argued further that if applied it would be evident that there was no corroborative piece of evidence to validate the said extra judicial statements.
He referred to ATTAH VS STATE (2010) 10 NWLR (PT 1201) 190, ISAH VS STATE (2010) 16 NWLR (PT 1218) 132 at 160, NSOFOR VS STATE (2004) 18 NWLR (PT 905) 292, UBIERHO VS STATE (2005) 5 NWLR (PT 919) 644, AKPA VS STATE (2007) 2 NWLR (PT 1019) 500 at 527, SHURUMO VS STATE (2010) 16 NWLR (PT 1218) 65 at 120, OSETOLA VS THE STATE (2012) 17 NWLR (PT 1329) 251, ADISA VS THE STATE (2013) 14 NWLR (PT 1375) 567, BASSEY VS STATE (1993) 7 NWLR (PT 306) 469 at 481 and IGBINE VS STATE (1997) 9 NWLR (PT 519) 101 at 109.
The learned counsel submitted that there was no evidence linking the Appellant to the scene of the crime or even the alleged crime and that his conviction by the trial Court was therefore a miscarriage of justice that should be set aside. He referred to SHOFOLAHAN VS STATE (2013) 17 NWLR (PT 1383) 281 at 315, AUDU VS STATE (2003) 7 NWLR (PT 820) 516 at 557 and SHALLA VS STATE (2007) 18 NWLR (PT 1066) 240 at 279-280.
The response of Mr. Okpo to this was that the stated tests of veracity were mere guides to evaluation and that the learned trial Judge did evaluate the retracted exhibits 5 and 6 together with the oral testimonies of PW1-PW5 as well as DW3 which corroborated the two statements before accrediting the said statements and that the submissions of the Appellant in this regard should be discountenanced. He referred to FATAI BUSARI VS STATE (2015) 5 NWLR (PT 1452) 343, KOLAWOLE VS THE STATE (2015) 8 NWLR (PT 1460) 134 at 165-167 and GABRIEL VS THE STATE (2010) 6 NWLR (PT 1190) 280.
In the Reply brief, Mr. Krukrubo reinforced his earlier arguments that the extant test of truthfulness for a retracted confessional statement is mandatory and that the remaining pieces of evidence before the trial Court did not constitute corroboration sufficient to validate the said statements. He referred to MBELE VS THE STATE (1990) 4 NWLR (PT 145) 484 at 500, OKAFOR VS THE STATE (1965) ALL NLR 295 at 297 and AMADI VS STATE (1993) 8 NWLR (PT 314) 644 at 675.
The Appellant was convicted, as earlier stated, on count 3. It is apposite to set out the content of the said count 3 for necessary clarity. The said count is contained in the Amended charge filed on 4/2/2014 contained on pages 106-107 of the record of appeal thus:
STATEMENT OF OFFENCE
Armed robbery contrary to Section 1(2)(a) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act, Cap R.11 2004.
PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE
UKEME CHRISTOPHER OKON a.k.a. ABILITY, NSE FELIX UDO a.k.a. FELA, OTOBONG ETIM JAMES a.k.a. T.BOY, PATRICK OKON UDO a.k.a. SECOND SON and UBONG FRIDAY OKORIE a.k.a. UB sometime in May, 2010 at Use Ikot Ekop, Ibiono Ibom Local Government Area in the Itu Judicial Division armed yourselves with offensive weapons to wit matchetes and short guns and robbed Bassey Okon Johnson of his GSM set valued at N12,000.00, Nanfang Motorcycle with Reg. No. QC981ENW valued at N80,000.00 and a cash sum N180,000.00 total value of property robbed N272,000.00, property of Bassey Okon Johnson.
Exhibits 5 and 6 were tendered through PW5 as the extra judicial statements made to him in the course of the investigations. The Appellant denied making the two statements and gave evidence at variance thereto in his evidence before the Court as DW2. The said statements are on pages 48-53 of the record of appeal.
Where at trial, an accused person denies making a confessional extra judicial statement attributed to him by the prosecution; the trial Court would admit the said statement in evidence as was done in this instance by the learned trial Judge. See ALARAPE & ORS VS STATE (2001) 5 NSCQLR 451.
Considering that a free and voluntary confession is sufficient to ground conviction, admitting the said statements is merely preliminary, as it must be determined later in the course of evaluation that the confessional statements could be appropriately attributed to the Appellant as his true confession. In the evaluation process, the extant procedure is for the said extra judicial statements to be examined with respect to existing evidence on record and be subjected to what is generally referred to as tests of validity or truthfulness.
This position of the law was explicitly espoused by OGUNBIYI, JSC thus:
It is also pertinent to state that in as much as the law enjoins a Court to act upon a confessional statement for the conviction of an accused person the veracity of the confession ought to be tested. In other words, the test of determining veracity thereof has been judicially decided in a plethora of authorities.
For instance in the case of Ekure v. The State (1998) 13 NWLR (Pt. 635)p. 456 at 470-471 it was held that a confession of an accused should be tested as to its truth by examining it in the light of the other evidence, to determine:-
a. Whether the facts stated in it are true so far as can be tested.
b. whether the accused had the opportunity of committing the offence.
c. whether the accused’s confession was consistent with the facts which have been ascertained and proved.
d. whether the accused’s confession was possible.
e. whether there is anything outside it to show that it is true.
f. whether it is corroborated. See ALO VS STATE (2015) LPELR-24404(SC) at 28-29.
May I say that the evaluation process need not be mechanical laying out each of the stated principles one after the other but would be sufficient if the records indicate a conscientious evaluation wherein the learned trial Judge sought to examine whether there was some existing evidence validating the retracted confession. See AZABADA VS THE STATE (2014) 58 NSCQR 531.
In the vexed judgment of the trial Court, the learned trial Judge stated in lines 24-32 of page 324 continued to lines 1-10 of page 325 of the record of appeal as follows:
In concluding this judgment, I have found from the evidence adduced that the accused persons belong to a syndicate of armed robbery. I have found that the accused persons have robbed so many people and have killed quite a number of people. I have received evidences that prove beyond reasonable doubt that the 2nd, 4th and 5th accused persons had committed armed robbery as charged in count 3 of the information. I have found their confessional statement to be true positive and direct. I am satisfied that they were voluntarily made and show clearly that the accused had committed the offence in Court three of the charge. The confessional statements are corroborated by the generality of the evidence, presented by the prosecution. For example, the connection with the 3rd accused person’s motor-cycle which was being used by the 2nd accused and PW3’s motor-cycle which was found among the motor-cycles abandoned by the robbers.
I believe that the 2nd, 4th and 5th accused persons were among three robbers that abandoned the motor-cycles and ran away. The law is that a free and voluntary confession which is direct, positive and properly proved, is sufficient to sustain a conviction. See IRENE NGUMA (ALIAS IRENE OKOLI) VS ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF IMO STATE (2014) 7 NWLR (PT 1405) 119 at 142 and 163.
It is of utmost importance to see if there was evidential basis for these findings.
In exhibits 5 and 6, the Appellant supposedly confessed to participating in a series of robberies including that in count 3 using the motorcycle of the 3rd accused at trial which he collected on 12th May, 2010 on the pre that he was going to a vigil with it. A portion of exhibit 5, in particular lines 15-20 of the main body thereof on page 50 to the entire page 51 of the record of appeal, goes thus:
Well, yesterday 12/5/210 I collected CY 90 bike from my friend Nse Felix from Use Ikot Ekop. The bike has no number and it is red in colour. I tell him that I want to use his bike and go to a vigil night at Uruan with my girlfriend. I don’t know her name I only saw her on the road and she follow me.
I did not know the name of the village then I parked the bike there where they sell drinks and the bike lost there. I tell the owner of the bike so because I was afraid to tell him what happened. Yes I use the bike and others lead by Oto-Obong Etim James to robbed the Complainant at Ikot Ikwere and Use Ikot Ekop and all the money we carry is with Oto-Obong and the man handset and some money where with me but it lost in the bush as we were running as people and the police came looking for us. It is T. Boy, Oto-Obong that brought us into robbery and he has being in it for long as he use to tell us. Yesterday we robbed the man as the man claim his ceiling I draw his cloth and Oto-Obong point him gun. I don’t know where others ran to but I will take the Police and show them where Oto-Obong lives. Some of the things I got them from robbery and some are in our house at Mbak and some in my Uncle’s house at Use Ikot, that is all I have to say.
Furthermore, lines 18-22 of the main body of exhibit 6 on page 52 continued to lines 1-11 of page 53 of the record of appeal contain thus:
I lead the gang to Use Ikot Ekop where we robbed two houses we collected Nanfang red motorcycle. I use the CY 90 bike Koksy break the doors and it was mike that rode the Nanfang motorcycle and carry Koksy while Oto rid the Q link motorcycle on that day Akwaowo Godwin Sambo followed us for the two jobs.
At Ikot Ekwere we collected N35,000.00 and my share was N6,000.00. We use to be eight in number because we joined two groups. I am now telling the Police the truth that on 13/5/2010 Koksy, Oto-Obong and Ajala called me from vigil night place and it was Akwaowo that came with motorcycle and pick me to Use Ikot Ekop but going to Ikot Ekpuk I use CY 90 bike while Nse Felix joined Akwaowo.
PW1 testified of a robbery incident on or about the date stated in count 3 although he did not identify the Appellant as one of those who robbed him neither did he ascribe any role to him.
PW2 was equally a victim of the robbery that night. He alerted fellow villagers about the robbery and they succeeded in chasing the robbers away. At day break he visited the police station to lodge a complaint but at the police station he saw 3 motor-cycles recovered by the police as having been abandoned by the fleeing armed robbers. He identified two of the motor-cycles as belonging to the 3rd accused and PW3 his neighbor, respectively. The recovered motor-cycles corroborates exhibit 5 and 6 that one of the motor-cycles used for the robbery was that of the 3rd accused at trial while one motor-cycle was stolen from PW3 during the robbery operation.
PW3 was the victim named in the said count 3. He saw 8 persons enter his compound from where he hid for safety during the robbery operation and his motor-cycle stolen during the robbery was recovered by the Police. His testimony corroborated exhibits 5 and 6 on the recovered motor-cycle and further corroborated PW2 on the same issue.
PW4, the Village Head of the Appellant who mentioned the Appellant in his testimony did not witness the alleged robbery incident in count 3. He was unable to give direct testimony and his evidence was largely about the ordeal of his community from notorious armed robbers which included the Appellant.
PW5 the police investigator did not arrest the Appellant at the scene and his recoveries during the search of the residence of the Appellant did not yield any of the stolen items but his evidence on the recovery of the motor-cycles did corroborate exhibits 5 and 6 and quite vitally the description of the motor-cycles belonging to PW3 and the 3rd Accused at trial matched the description given in the two statements. The recovery of a gun, exhibit 15 from the residence of the Appellant adds to the general picture in exhibits 5 and 6 and the testimony of this witness that the Appellant led him to the other accused persons further corroborates the said extra judicial statement.
When each of the 6 points in the test of veracity earlier laid out are applied to exhibits 5 and 6 one cannot fault the findings of the learned trial Judge with respect thereto even if the evaluation did not set out each of the said points mechanically.
The centrality of the recovered motor-cycles to the robbery incident of early 13/5/2010 cannot be downplayed. The evidence of PW5 was that he and other members of his patrol team responded to Police security radio message of an ongoing radio message at Ikot Ekpuk Itam Village and on getting to the scene, the robbers saw the police van and ran into the bush leaving their 3 motor-cycles abandoned. The said motor-cycles were then brought to the Police Station. PW2 testified about how he rallied help from the Village to repel the robbers and got to the Police Station in the morning to see the motor-cycle of PW3 taken away by the robbers at the Police Station as well as the motor-cycle of the 3rd Accused stated in exhibits 5 and 6 to have been in possession of the Appellant.
Corroboration evidence must be evidence which confirms in some material particular not only that the crime was committed but also that it was the accused who committed it. See CHIEF ODOFIN BELLO VS THE STATE (1967) NMLR 1 and AMADI VS STATE (1993) 8 NWLR (PT 314) 644.
The account of the recovery of the said motor-cycles corroborates the testimony of PW3 and the contents of exhibits 5 and 6 in addition to the account in exhibit 5 on how the Appellant took one of the said recovered motor-cycles from its owner, the 3rd accused at trial.
I hold that there existed sufficient corroborative evidence validating exhibits 5 and 6, the extra judicial confessions of the Appellant and I therefore resolve this issue in favour of the Respondent and against the Appellant.
The remaining issue is whether the trial Court was right when it found the Appellant guilty of armed robbery based on circumstantial evidence and the confessional statements of his co-accused persons.
Arguing this issue, Mr. Krukrubo argued that the evidence adduced by the Respondent at trial was at best circumstantial but did not conclusively point to the guilt of the Appellant. He referred to AHMED VS NIGERIAN ARMY (2011) 1 NWLR (PT 1227) 89 at 115, IGABELE VS STATE (2006) 6 NWLR (PT 975) 100 at 130, ODOGWU VS STATE (2013) 14 NWLR (PT 1373) 74 at 123-124 and SHOFOLAHAN VS STATE (2013) 17 NWLR (PT 1383) 281 at 315.
The learned counsel further submitted that the trial Court was in error to have convicted the Appellant on the same set of facts upon which the 3rd accused was acquitted. He referred toEBRI VS STATE (2004) 11 NWLR (PT 885) 589 at 604.
Finally, it was submitted for the Appellant that the trial Court convicted him using the confessional extra judicial statement of his co-accused. He referred to Section 29 (4) Evidence Act, 2011, ADEBOWALE VS STATE (2013) 16 NWLR (PT 1379) 104 at 137, OYAKHIRE VS STATE (2006) 15 NWLR (PT 1001) 157 at 175-176 and SUBERU VS STATE (2010) 8 NWLR (PT 1197) 586 at 603 and 614.
The Respondent countered that the circumstantial evidence against the Appellant was positive, direct and unequivocal leading irresistibly to the inference that he committed the offence and that the evidence of the 3rd Accused relied on by the trial Court was his evidence as DW3 at trial which did not attract any cross-examination from the Appellant. He referred to RABIU VS THE STATE (2010) 10 NWLR (PT 1201) 127 at 134 and JUA VS THE STATE (2010) 4 NWLR (PT 1184) 217 at 224.
In his Reply brief, Mr. Krukrubo further reinforced his earlier arguments.
The first point here is on circumstantial evidence. The law is that where direct evidence is not available, and circumstantial evidence is adduced which is cogent and pointing irresistibly and unequivocally as well as compellingly at the Accused as the perpetrator of the offence alleged to have been committed to the exclusion of any other, a Court of law would be entitled to infer from such evidence and surrounding circumstances that the Accused committed the offence and convict on such evidence. See UDO EBRE VS. THE STATE (2001) 5 MJSC 146 at 159-160, KALU VS. STATE 1993 6 NWLR (PT 300) 385, IBINA VS STATE (1989) 5 NWLR (PT 120) 238 at 256, PIUS NWEKE VS. STATE (2001) 3 SCM 86, STATE VS. OGBUNBUNJO (2001) 3 SCM 119 at 123 and OKOROGBA VS. STATE (1992) 2 NWLR (PT 222) 244 at 256.
In criminal cases the force of circumstantial evidence lies in the unmistakable aim of the totality of the evidence, which by an undesigned coincidence point in the direction of the guilt of the Accused. See AKPAN VS. STATE (2001) 7 SC (PT 11) 29 at 42 and STATE VS. UGWU (1972) 1 SC 128.
Furthermore, it has been said that ?circumstantial evidence is very often the best. It is evidence of surrounding circumstances, which by undesigned co-incidence is capable of proving a proposition with the accuracy of mathematics. It is no derogation of evidence to say that it is circumstantial?. Per Lord Chief Justice of England in R VS. TAYLOR & ORS quoted with approval by the Supreme Court in FATOYINBO VS. A.G. of WESTERN NIG. (1966) WNLR 4. See also ADIE VS. THE STATE(1980) 1-2 SC 1 at 16,IJIOFFOR VS. STATE (2001) 5SCM 107 at 115 ?116, AIGBADION VS. THE STATE (2000) 7 NWLR 686 and WILLS ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE (7TH Edition) page 324.
It must be noted however that ‘circumstantial evidence may sometimes be conclusive but it must always be narrowly examined if only because evidence of this kind may be fabricated to cast suspicion on another. It is also necessary before drawing the inference of the Accused’s guilt from circumstantial evidence to be sure that there are no other co-existing circumstances which would weaken or destroy the inference.’ Per Lord Normand in TEPPER VS.R (1952) AC 480 at 489. See also OKOROGBA VS. STATE (Supra) at 254-255, IBINA VS. STATE (Supra) at 250 and IJIOFFOR VS. STATE (Supra) at 113.
The records of appeal evidently showed however that what was available to the trial Court was not only circumstantial evidence but also the confessional statement of the Appellant.
Of importance at this stage is the probative quality of the evidence of the 3rd Accused at trial relied upon by the trial Court.
It was argued for the appellant that the confession of a co-accused was used by the trial Court in convicting him contrary to the position of the law. It is instructive that the same Appellant’s counsel had argued on page 23 of the same Appellant’s brief as follows:
In addition to the above, it is trite law that a confessional statement of an accused should not be used as evidence against a co-accused except where it is repeated on oath.
The situation here presents no complications. The 3rd Accused testified as DW3 at trial. His testimony included an account of how it was the Appellant that was in possession of his motor-cycle at the time of the robbery for which the Appellant was convicted. His testimony on lines 10-18 of page 285 of the record of appeal is as follows:
The mother to the 2nd Accused is a sister to my father. The 2nd Accused person collected motor-cycle from me and said he was attending a burial. The police took me to Itam Police Station. There the police informed me that I have been releasing pigs to destroy peoples’ crops and pollute the environment. I was in the police station for 5 days. I made statement to the police. The police at Itam junction said nothing about the motor-cycle. I gave to the 2nd Accused. It is at the state Police headquarters that PW5 asked me where I kept my motor-cycle and I told him the 2nd Accused got it from me to attend a burial. He said I will explain to him where the motor-cycle is. He took me back to the cell.
Quite significantly, the testimony did not attract any cross-examination from the Appellant who was 2nd Accused trial. The Appellant was represented by counsel who was also present at the said proceedings. This thereby indicates Appellant’s unequivocal acceptance of the testimony of the 3rd Accused as DW3. See OFORLETE VS THE STATE (2000) LPELR-2270(SC).
The appellant having accepted the testimony of 3rd Accused as DW3, the learned trial Judge was well in order to accept this evidence as corroboration for the vital part of exhibit 5 and 6 that he was the one who rode the motor-cycle of the said 3rd Accused at the material time of the robbery in Count 3. The evidence of PW5 that the robbers who carried out the operation testified to by PW1, PW2 and PW3 abandoned the motor-cycles used by them when pursued, was unshaken before the trial Court. The evidence of PW3 that his motorcycle recovered by PW5 and his team at the scene was stolen during the said robbery was equally unshaken. The totality of the evidence unequivocally pointed at the Appellant as one of the robbers who carried out the robbery contained in Count 3 and reinforcement was further provided by exhibits 5 and 6 where the Appellant confessed to his participation.
Finally, the contention of the Appellant that the learned trial Judge acquitted his co-accused on the same set of facts upon which he was convicted, is not supported by the evidence.
The evidence adduced against the Appellant was quite distinct as earlier outlined in this judgment and they do support the findings of the learned trial Judge against him.
I therefore resolve this issue as well in favour of the Respondent and against the Appellant.
In totality therefore, I hold that this appeal lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed.
The judgment of the trial Court in Charge No. HIT/5c/2010 delivered on the 19th January, 2016 is hereby affirmed.
IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA, J.C.A.: I have had the privilege of reading in draft the judgment just delivered by Oyewole, JCA. Having equally read the briefs of argument of the learned counsel to the respective parties vis-a-vis the record of appeal, I cannot but concur with the reasoning reached in the said judgment, to the conclusive effect that the instant appeal lacks merits and it?s equally hereby dismissed. The judgment of the Akwa Ibom State High Court delivered on 19/01/2016 in Charge No. HIT/5C/ 2010 is hereby affirmed.
STEPHEN JONAH ADAH, J.C.A.: I have had the privilege of reading in draft the judgment delivered by my learned brother, J. O. K. Oyewole, JCA.
I am in agreement with the reasoning and the conclusion that this appeal is lacking in merit. I also do so hold and I accordingly dismiss this appeal. I abide by the consequential orders as made in the lead judgment.
Appearances:
For Appellant(s)
For Respondent(s)
