FASILAT ADEPOJU v. THE STATE(2018)

FASILAT ADEPOJU v. THE STATE

(2018) LCN/4746(SC)

In The Supreme Court of Nigeria

On Friday, the 20th day of April, 2018

SC.484/2014

RATIO

ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENCE OF CONSPIRACY THAT MUST BE PROVED TO GROUND A CONVICTION

The conspiracy charged was a distinct offence from the offence of robbery charged: BALOGUN v. A-G, OGUN STATE (2002) FWLR (Pt. 100) 1287. I agree, as submitted by the Appellant’s counsel, that being a distinct offence the prosecution has, by dint of Section 135(2) and (3) of the Evidence Act, 2011, the burden of proving the offence of conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt independently and sufficiently too The offence of conspiracy is constituted of the following elements, namely: I. the Agreement between two or more persons; II. to do an illegal act, or to do a legal act by an illegal means. I hereby adopt this definition restated in WAMBAI v. KANO N.A. (1965) NMLR 15. All that is necessary for the proof of the offence of conspiracy is for the prosecution to establish, what Tobi, JCA (as he then was) would call: “some community effort on the part of the accused persons aimed at committing a crime”: GBADAMOSI v. THE STATE (1991) 6 NWLR (Pt. 196) 204 at 205 C-D. It is sufficient if it is established that the parties in the alleged conspiracy had agreed to do an illegal act, or to do a legal act by illegal means: IKEMSON v. THE STATE (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 110) 455 at 477 (SC). A bare agreement to commit an offence is sufficient. PER EJEMBI EKO, J.S.C.

POSITION OF THE LAW ON HOW TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF A CONSPIRACY

DEFINITION OF THE OFFENCE OF ROBBERY

Robbery, an offence of aggravated theft, is defined by Section 401 of the Criminal Code Law of Lagos State thus – Any person who steals anything, and at or immediately before or immediately after the time of stealing it uses or threatens to use actual violence to any person or property in order to obtain or retain the thing stolen or to prevent or overcome resistance to its being stolen or retained, is said to be guilty of robbery. PER EJEMBI EKO, J.S.C.

WHAT THE PROSECUTION MUST ESTABLISH TO PROVE THAT THE THEFT AMOUNTED TO ROBBERY

For theft to amount to robbery the prosecution is enjoined to establish that “at or immediate before or after the time of stealing” the defendant “uses or threatens to use actual violence to any person or property in order to obtain or retain the thing stolen or prevent or overcome resistance to its being stolen”. PER EJEMBI EKO, J.S.C.

WHEN A PIECE OF EVIDENCE WILL BE SAID TO CONTRADICT ANOTHER PIECE OF EVIDENCE

JUSTICES

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

EJEMBI EKO Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria

Between

FASILAT ADEPOJU Appellant(s)

AND

THE STATE Respondent(s)

EJEMBI EKO, J.S.C. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): The Appellant was tried at, and convicted by, the Lagos State High Court (coram: O. A. Williams, J) on a two count charge alleging conspiracy to commit robbery and robbery contrary respectively to Sections 403(a) and 402(1) of the Criminal Code Law, Cap C.17 vol. 2 Laws of Lagos State, 2003. She was jointly tried for the two offences with one Kazeem Raimi, her boyfriend. They were convicted for the said two offences. The Appellant’s appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal (the lower Court); hence, this further appeal.

Etiosa Osigbo-Esere, the alleged victim of the robbery, testified as Pw.1. She had known the Appellant intimately for a while. The Appellant lived with one Linda Ofili who lived as Pw.1’s tenant in the Boys Quarters of the same apartment. The Appellant was Linda Ofili’s house help or nanny. Most times the Pw.1 invited the Appellant to her living room in the main building where they watched television together. The Pw.1 claimed that she occasionally gave the Appellant some of her dresses she no longer needed.

Pw.1 testified that on 4th January, 2006

between 8.30 and 9.00pm, a man intruded and barged on her through the back doors that were open as she was cooking. The man wore a red baseball cap. He was followed by a lady who “had tied a veil around her face”. They pushed her to the living room. Pw.1 was ordered to kneel down by the man and the lady. Pw.1 obliged. They ordered her to surrender her jewelleries, valuables and money. The man collected Pw.1’s Nokia 6310 handset from her. As she tried to move the lady commanded: “Don’t move or I will scar your face”. Pw.1 was frightened. She however not only recognized Appellant’s voice, she also recognized the pair of shoes she had earlier given to the Appellant, as handout. The man, identified as the 1st accused, did not cover his face. The Pw.1 noticed the tribal marks on his face.

Pw.1 further narrated that the duo had warned her that they were armed and that if she did not co-operate they would harm her. She, accordingly, did not resist. They led her into the rooms and collected 3 wrist watches, a pair of white gold earrings, a set of gold earrings and a pendant with blue beads. They brought her back to the living room. The Appellant commanded her

to kneel down there and she did. The Appellant, while the Pw.1 knelt down, allegedly disconnected the LG Silver 32 Inch Television set and took it out. She came back and removed PW.1’s DVD player, Video set and a Starcom phone. While Appellant was allegedly doing all these, Pw.1 noticed “something bulging underneath (the 1st Accused’s) shorts at the right hand side” when he was watching over her as she knelt down. She took the “bulging something” as the weapon they said they had on them.

The Appellant, as the Dw.2, testified that the 1st Accused was her boyfriend. That while she was engaged as a nanny, one Mr. Robert, the husband of her boss had raped and impregnated her. On confirming that she was pregnant, the Appellant averred that she informed the husband of her boss about it and warned that if he did not find solution she would tell his wife. Mr. Robert and the Appellant settled at some money to be given to her to “buy hair dryers” – the tools of her trade. Mr. Robert further promised to give her N100,000.00 in addition.

The Appellant testified further that on the fateful day she had gone to the Boys Quarter where Linda, her boss,

resided to remove Linda’s property. The reason for this, in her words –
What I did is, because Linda’s husband failed on his promise and I live with Linda, I took her belongings knowing that if she tell her husband, he will give me the money he promised me.

The things taken from Pw.1, according to the Appellant, were Linda’s belongings –
because when Linda was (packing) the vehicle she came with could not contain all her property so she left some of her things with the Pw.1.

Appellant insisted that she packed Linda’s belongings from the Pw.1’s house, and that Pw.1 was not at home that day. She maintained that she was not armed that day. She admitted in her testimony, under cross-examination –
The items I stole from Pw.1’s house are: an LG Television, a CD player and two mobile phones; a pair of earrings and a pendant as well as two wrist watches,
and that these items were taken to the 1st Accused’s defendant’s house.

The 1st Accused, as Dw.1, did not deny going with the Appellant to the residence of the Pw.1. His account, not in any way dissimilar to the account of the Appellant, is that the husband of the

Appellant’s boss had impregnated the Appellant; because he did not want the wife to know, he promised the Appellant that all the money the Appellant spent as medical bills would be refunded. He however reneged on the promise. The Dw.1 continued –
We were bitter about the failed promise so we went to the house of her boss to take her belongings.

They packed the belongings, unarmed, in the absence of the Appellant’s boss, Dw.1 testified.

The trial Court, on the totality of the evidence before it, found that the two offences of conspiracy and robbery had been proved beyond reasonable doubt against the duo of the appellant and the 1st Accused. They were convicted as charged. The lower Court affirmed the conviction and sentence.

The three issues submitted by the Appellant for the determination of this further appeal are all on facts. They are-
2.01 Whether the Court of Appeal was right when it affirmed the conviction of the Appellant for offence of conspiracy and robbery under Sections 402(1) and 403(a) of the Criminal Code Law Cap 17, Vol. 2 Laws of Lagos State 2003. (Ground 1 and 4)
2.02 Whether on a preponderance of

evidence, the Court of Appeal was right in affirming the trial Court’s reliance on the testimony of the two prosecution witnesses as proving the offence of conspiracy and robbery (Ground 2)
2.03 Whether the Court of Appeal was right to (have) come to the conclusion that actus reus can draw out mens rea and whether both elements were present and satisfactory to justify the conviction of the Appellant for conspiracy. (Ground 3)

This appeal was brought, purportedly, as of right pursuant to the provisions of Section 233(1) and (2) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended. But in actuality it was brought only on facts or at best mixed law and facts, and for it to be competent, it requires leave first sought and obtained, as a pre-condition (which was not). It is thus clear that this appeal was brought in clear defiance of the provisions of Section 233(1) and (2) of the Constitution.

Mr. Ihekweazu of counsel for the Appellant submits that the Respondent, as the prosecutor, “did not sufficiently establish the elements essential for the proof of the offences of conspiracy and robbery”. Consequently the lower Court was in error, when it affirmed the

decision of the trial Court, counsel further submits. What then are the “elements essential for the proof of the offences of conspiracy and robbery”.

For the offence of conspiracy to commit robbery contrary to Section 403(a) of the Criminal Code Law of Lagos State, the Appellant’s counsel concedes that the overt act of the accused persons “situates the offence of conspiracy”. He is, however quick to add that the overt act must relate to the actual offence of robbery the Appellant stood trial on.

The offence of conspiracy is constituted of the following elements, namely:
I. the Agreement between two or more persons;
II. to do an illegal act, or to do a legal act by an illegal means.
I hereby adopt this definition restated in

WAMBAI v. KANO N.A. (1965) NMLR 15. All that is necessary for the proof of the offence of conspiracy is for the prosecution to establish, what Tobi, JCA (as he then was) would call: “some community effort on the part of the accused persons aimed at committing a crime”: GBADAMOSI v. THE STATE (1991) 6 NWLR (Pt. 196) 204 at 205 C-D. It is sufficient if it is established that the parties in the alleged conspiracy had agreed to do an illegal act, or to do a legal act by illegal means: IKEMSON v. THE STATE (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 110) 455 at 477 (SC). A bare agreement to commit an offence is sufficient.

The evidence on the record shows that the Dw.1 and the Appellant had agreed to resort to blackmail in order to get Mr. Robert, Linda’s husband, to pay the Appellant on his promise to refund to the Appellant the expenses she had incurred treating herself for the alleged pregnancy and the additional sum of N100,000.00 to enable her set up her hair dressing business. It is clear from the evidence of the Dw.1 and the Appellant, as Dw.2, that they were both “bitter about (Mr. Robert’s) failed promise” and that they had embarked on the option of proceeding to Linda

(said to be Mr. Robert’s mistress) to cart away her belongings in order to force Mr. Robert, who did not want Linda to know about the alleged pregnancy of the Appellant (Linda’s house help), to pay up or be damned by the scandal. The agreement between the Dw.1 and the Appellant to steal Linda’s property or belongings and hold them as a pawn or blackmail consideration for the enforcement of Mr. Robert’s promise is no doubt on agreement to enforce a promise by an illegal means.

Proof of existence of a conspiracy, at common law, is generally a matter of inference deducible from certain criminal acts of the parties accused, done in pursuance of an apparent criminal purpose in common between them: Archbold – Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice; 40th ed., Paragraph 4076 at page 1875. The evidence of the Pw.1, assessed and described by the learned trial Judge, at page 99 of the record, as succinct and without prevarication fixed the Dw.1 and the Appellant to her house and the alleged robbery. Both were in concert and had exhibited some community effort aimed at stealing or dispossessing her of some chattels including an LG Television Set, DVD player, her

mobile telephone handsets, earrings, pendant etc. The Dw.1 was guarding the Pw.1, who was ordered to kneel down and she knelt down in obedience, as the Appellant went about removing some of the chattels. The frightened Pw.1 was threatened that if she moved her face would be “scarred” as she was forced to kneel down. The duo of the Appellant and Dw.1 marched the Pw.1 from room to room and in the process they carted away her belongings.

The evidence of the Pw.1 clearly established the offence of criminal conspiracy. It is clearly deducible from the concerted criminal acts of the Dw.1 and the Appellant at the material time. The Pw.1’s evidence described by the Pw.1 as succinct and without prevarication was believed, upon proper evaluation, by the trial Court. On appeal, the trial Court’s finding was affirmed by the lower Court. I have no cause to disturb this finding of facts that the totality of the facts established the existence of criminal conspiracy between the Dw.1 and the Appellant.

On the offence of robbery, the submission of the Appellant’s counsel is that the Respondent, as the prosecutor, failed to prove the offence against the

Appellant. Robbery, an offence of aggravated theft, is defined by Section 401 of the Criminal Code Law of Lagos State thus –
Any person who steals anything, and at or immediately before or immediately after the time of stealing it uses or threatens to use actual violence to any person or property in order to obtain or retain the thing stolen or to prevent or overcome resistance to its being stolen or retained, is said to be guilty of robbery.

The Appellant, as Dw.2, had admitted under cross-examination that an LG Television, a CD player, two mobile phones, a pair of earrings, a pendant as well as two wrist watches were stolen by her from the Pw.1. This piece of evidence has thus confirmed the evidence of the Pw.1 that on 4th January, 2006 valuable items, including the items listed by the Dw.2 were stolen from her. The narrow question now is: whether the theft admitted by the appellant (Dw.2) amounted to robbery

obtain or retain the thing stolen or prevent or overcome resistance to its being stolen”.

The undiscredited evidence of the Pw.1 that when the Dw.1 and the Appellant intruded and trespassed into her residence they pushed her into the living room from the kitchen where she was cooking and commanded her to kneel. That terrified her. The Dw.1 had something bulging underneath his shorts at the right hand side which made her believe the Dw.1 that they were armed as he had earlier stated. When the duo of Dw.1 and the Appellant menacingly demanded to be given money, gold jewelleries and other valuables, the Appellant directed her (Pw.1) not to move or “I will scar your face”. These are clearly words of threat. The Pw.1 had been exposed to violence or threats of actual violence to her person at the time of the theft. The terrified Pw.1 was, in the circumstance, made to submit to the criminal authority of the appellant and the Dw.1.

The trial Court and the lower Court found as a fact that the overt acts of the Appellant and Dw.1 amounted to robbery. The theft alleged by the Pw.1 was admitted by the Appellant. The Pw.1s evidence that the

Appellant threatened that if she (Pw.1) moved her face would be “scarred” was not challenged nor discredited. The finding that the Appellant and Dw.1 committed robbery by their overt acts is one of facts. The concurrent findings of fact by the trial Court and the lower Court ordinarily entitle the respondent to a judgment dismissing the appeal, unless the Appellant shows exceptional circumstances, including the perversity or unreasonableness of the judgments which occasion miscarriage of justice, that would warrant this Court interfering and disturbing the concurrent judgments: OMETA v. NUMA (1934) 11 NLR 18; AJIBULU v. AJAYI (2004) 11 NWLR (Pt. 885) 458; OGIDI v. THE STATE (2003) 9 NWLR (Pt. 824) 1. The apex Court, this Court is, like the Privy Council in those days, will not (unless under special circumstance) hear arguments seeking to disturb concurrent judgments of the trial and intermediate Courts on pure question of fact: SERBEH v. KARKARI (1939) 5 W.A.C.A 49. The reason for this judicial policy by which the Apex Court declines to review the evidence for a third time, unless there are some special circumstances which justify departure from the practice,

is that the concurrent judgments of the two Courts below are presumed to be correct.

The fanciful defence put up by the Appellant for the offences charged was not believed by the trial Court. It was disbelieved. The trial Court found that the defence evidence strengthened the case of the prosecution. This finding was affirmed by the lower Court. In the lead judgment of Nimpar, JCA, unanimously concurred by the other Justices on the panel, the point was made that “the trial Court was on good ground to rely on the evidence of the two prosecution witnesses” that proved all the ingredients of the offences charged to the ground the conviction of the Appellant. On these concurrent judgments it behoves the Appellant to show that the judgments are perverse or unreasonable, and that they had occasioned a miscarriage of justice. The learned Appellant’s counsel, in order to discharge the Appellant’s burden of establishing from the printed evidence, special circumstances to warrant this Court’s intervention on the findings of facts highlighted the evidence of Pw.2, at page 30 of the Record, purporting to be the reportage of the complaint the Pw.1 made of the

incident on 4th January, 2006 and then submitted that the Pw.2’s evidence not only it did not corroborate the evidence of the Pw.1; that it was inconsistent with the Pw.1’s evidence on the account of the intrusion of the two accused persons and the actual threat they issued to the Pw.1. The Pw.2, testifying, had stated –
The complainant, one Mrs. Etiosa Esere, reported on 4th January 2006 at about 9.00pm she was cooking in her kitchen when suddenly two men with masked faces came to her and ordered her to lie down on the ground. They threatened to fire at her.

The evidence of Pw.1, said not to have been corroborated by the Pw.2 and in fact inconsistent with Pw.1’s evidence, is as follows –
He pushed the net door in, so I moved back to allow him in. Two people came in. The man with the face cap and a lady who had tied a veil around her face. They pushed me into the living room and asked me to kneel down. – The man was in front of me and the lady was standing at the adjourning (sic) door between the kitchen and the living – I made a movement and the lady said to me: “Dont move or I will scar your face”. The man was in the living

room with me and warned me not to move because he was armed. I saw that there was something bulging underneath his shorts at the right hand side. So I took his word for it.

Throughout the proceedings, there was no dispute that it was the Appellant and the Dw.1 who intruded on the Pw.1 through the kitchen door while she was cooking at the material time. The Dw.1 did not deny that he was the man wearing a face cap. The Appellant also did not deny that she was the “lady who had tied a veil around her face”. Dw.1 and the Appellant never denied that they ordered the Pw.1 to kneel down with a threat that if she moved. “I will scar your face”. The Dw.1 only denied that he held a gun. The Appellant had, in her testimony, admitted stealing the very items the Pw.1 said were stolen from her. In the circumstance, the argument of the Appellant’s counsel that the Pw.2’s evidence did not corroborate the Pw.1s evidence will go to no issue. While one may concede to the Appellant that as to specific details, there are some variations between the Pw.2 and the source of the facts he was repeating (with allowance for innocuous embellishments); I find no material

contradiction, in terms of substance, between the evidence of Pw.1 and Pw.2.

A piece of evidence is said to contradict another piece of evidence when it asserts or affirms the opposite of what the other asserts, and not necessarily when there are minor discrepancies in details between them: OGOALA v. THE STATE (1991) 2 NWLR (Pt. 175) 509; SELE v. THE STATE (1993) 1 NWLR (Pt. 269) 276; IKEMSON v. THE STATE (supra). The minor discrepancies in details the Appellant’s counsel harps on have not been shown to occasion any miscarriage of justice to the Appellant. I agree with the learned counsel for the Respondent that having regards to the facts, the evidence of the prosecution and the unequivocal admission of the Appellant before the trial Court, the lower Court was right to have affirmed the judgment of the trial Court. Since there are no material contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution affecting the charges; no reasonable doubts exist in the case to warrant invoking the ratio decidendi in ONUBOGU v. THE STATE (1974) 9 SC 1; ALMU v. THE STATE (2009) 4-5 SC (Pt. 2) 33: that when a doubt exists in the prosecution’s case the benefit of the doubt

must be resolved in favour of the accused person.

Learned Appellant’s counsel while advocating the innocence of the Appellant, in the Appellant’s Brief, submits that “it would seem that at the time (the Appellant) was removing the properties of the Pw.1, she reasonably believed that those properties actually belonged to Linda”. He accordingly stretches this argument further to support the submission that at the material time the Appellant had not the requisite guilty mind (mens rea) for the theft. This argument cannot stand in the face of the seemingly contrary submission founded on TONGO v. COMM. OF POLICE (2007) 2 NCC 529 at 544 (SC) that for an accused person to avail himself of the defence bona fide claim of right, he has to prove at the trial that the claim was made with all honesty and without intention to defraud. The Appellant, from the facts, cannot reasonably plead any bona fide claim of right to the property she admitted, under cross-examination, that she stole from the Pw.1. She lived with Linda in the Boys Quarter appurtenant to the main building occupied by the Pw.1. While she lived with Linda she had access to Pw.1’s room, particularly

the living room, where she watched Television occasionally with the Pw.1. She was in a position, reasonably, to know that Linda’s property did not include those of the Landlady, Pw.1.

Assuming the said personal property the Appellant and Dw.1 forcefully stole from the Pw.1 belonged to the said Linda, the fact is that at the material time those chattels were in the actual possession or custody of the Pw.1. It is equally felonious if the Dw.1 and the Appellant had forcefully removed these personal property from Linda with the ulterior purpose of blackmailing Mr. Robert, the Husband of Linda, to pay the Appellant on his promise or undertakings. The mens rea for the overt act in this case lies in the fact of the admitted intention of robbing either Linda or Pw.1 of Linda’s personal property “knowing that if (Linda) tells the husband he will give the money he promised” to the Appellant. The Dw.1 and the Appellant are ad idem on this sinister ulterior purpose that is a bare faced blackmail. With this ulterior purpose the Appellant cannot plead the defence of bona fide claim of right.

The lower Court was right in my view when it stated at page 214-215

of the record:
Thus, intention is inferred from the overt acts. Where there is confession from the accused and surrounding circumstances of a case, intention can be discovered therefrom. The actions of the accused provide the bases for concluding on the intention. The significance of intention in criminal trial is that intention is the purpose or design of the act performed coupled with the desire to do the act.

It is clear to me from the fact that the Appellant exhibited the necessary mens rea or guilty mind for both criminal conspiracy to commit robbery and the robbery charged. I have therefore no cause to interfere with, and disturb, the conviction and sentence of the Appellant for criminal conspiracy and robbery. Consequently, as I find no substance in the appeal, the same is hereby dismissed in its entirety.

The conviction and sentence of the Appellant by the trial Court affirmed by the lower Court in the appeal No. CA/L/936/2012 are hereby further affirmed. Appeal dismissed.

OLABODE RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C.: I had the benefit of reading a draft of the leading judgment delivered by my learned brother,

Ejembi Eko, JSC. I agree with his lordship that concurrent findings of fact by both Courts below that the appellant committed the offences of conspiracy and robbery contrary to Sections 403 (a) and 402 (i) of the Criminal Code Law, Cap 17 Vol. 2 Laws of Lagos State 2003 are correct. The appellant was unable to dislodge these findings.

It is for the above and the detailed reasoning of my learned brother that I affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeal and dismiss this appeal.

MARY UKAEGO PETER-ODILI, J.S.C.: I am in agreement with the judgment just delivered by my learned brother, Ejembi Eko, JSC and to register that support for the reasonings from which the decision came about, I shall make some comments.

This is an appeal against the concurrent findings of two Courts below in respect of a two count charge of conspiracy and robbery initiated against the appellant and one Kazeem Raimi (The 1st accused person at the trial Court) in 2007 at the Lagos High Court, Lagos Division wherein the lower Court (Coram: Sidi Dauda Bage, JCA (as he then was), Rita Nosakhare Pemu, Yargata B. Nimpar JJCA) upheld the conviction by

the trial High Court per A. O. Williams J.

The background facts are well set out in the lead judgment and I shall not repeat them unless the occasion calls for a visit to any part of the facts.

The hearing was on the 25th January, 2018 and at the said hearing, learned counsel for the appellant, Chimezie Victor C. Ihekweazu, Esq. adopted the brief of argument filed on 15th September, 2014 and in it were raised three issues for determination, viz:-
1. Whether the Court of Appeal was right when it affirmed the conviction of the appellant for the offence of conspiracy and robbery under Sections 402(1) and 403(a) of the Criminal Code Law Cap 17, Vol. 2 Laws of Lagos State 2003.
2. Whether on a preponderance of evidence, the Court of Appeal was right in affirming the trial Court’s reliance on the testimony of the two prosecution witnesses as proving the offence of conspiracy and robbery.
3. Whether the Court of Appeal was right to have come to the conclusion that actus reus can draw out mens rea and whether both elements were present and satisfactory to justify the conviction of the appellant for conspiracy.

Mrs T. K. Shitta-Bey, learned DPP Lagos State Counsel for the respondent adopted its brief of argument filed on 19th November, 2014 though settled by Ade Ipaye, the then Attorney-General of Lagos State. In it were identified two issues for determination which are thus:-
1. Having regard to the facts and evidence led by the Prosecution and the unequivocal admission of the appellant before the trial Court, whether the lower Court was right to have affirmed the judgment of the trial Court.
2. Whether the lower Court was right in holding that the mens rea of the appellant was deducible from her overt acts to ground the trial Court’s judgment finding the appellant guilty of conspiracy.

I shall utilise issue one of the respondent, similar to its counterpart of the appellant’s issue 1 in the determination of this appeal. The single issue is sufficient since the other issues easily dovetail within the question raised therein.

ISSUE 1
Having regard to the facts and evidence led by the prosecution and the unequivocal admission of the appellant before the trial Court, whether the lower Court was right to have affirmed the judgment of the trial Court.

Mr. Ihekweazu of counsel for the appellant contended that a clinical look at the evidence before the trial Court shows obviously that the evidence of the prosecution did not sufficiently establish the elements essential for the proof of the offences of conspiracy and robbery. That the Court below was in error when it affirmed the decision of the trial Court in that regard. He stated that the prosecution did not prove the offence of conspiracy against the appellant as there was no evidence before the trial Court to show that the appellant agreed with the 1st accused to commit robbery. That the evidence proffered fell short of the offence of conspiracy and robbery.

He cited Balogun v. A-G, Ogun State (2002) FWLR (Pt.100) 1287 at 1306; Section 135 of the Evidence Act 2011; Gbadamosi v. State (1997) 3 NWLR (Pt. 296); Oduneye v. State (2001) 2 NWLR (Pt. 697) 313 at 324-325; Njovens v. State (1973) 5 SC 17 etc.

That the prosecution failed to discharge the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt as some doubts are floating around which have to be resolved in favour of the appellant. He cited Ikaria v. State (2012) LPELR-15533; Aruna v.

State (1990) 9-10 SC 87 at 97.

Going further, learned counsel for the appellant stated that the evidence of PW2 is hearsay and full of inconsistencies which materially contradicted the evidence of PW1 especially as it related to the identity of the accused persons.

That the two Courts below failed to properly evaluate the evidence before arriving at their respective decisions which turned up faulty. He referred to Iko v. State (2001) 7 SC (Pt. 11) 115 at 122; Alamu v. State (2009) 4-5 SC (Pt. 11) 33 at 44; Onubogu v. The State (1974) 9 SC 1 etc.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that this Court should interfere and right the wrong produced by the faulty evaluation. He cited Okonkwo & Ors v. Okonkwo & Ors (2010) LPELR-9357 (SC); Union Bank Plc & Anor v. Alhaji A. Ishola (2001) FWLR (Pt. 81) 1868 at 1892-1892; Iko v. The State (2001) FWLR (Pt. 68) 1161 at 1189 etc.

In response, learned counsel for the respondent stated that the prosecution adequately proved the essential ingredients of the offences of conspiracy and robbery beyond reasonable doubt. He cited The State v. John (2013) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1368) 337 at

360; Banjo v. The State (2013) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1381) 455 at 468.

That the evidence led by PW1 was compelling and credible and remained unshaken and her evidence alone with her positive identification of the 1st accused was enough to secure a conviction. He referred to Aliyu v. The State (2013) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1368) 403 at 420-421.

That the contradictions the appellant alluded to were inconsequential and not sufficient to derail the prosecutions proof on the standard required by law. That the evidence of PW2 offered the corroboration to the evidence of PW1. He cited Musa v. The State (2013) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1359) 214 at 243.

That the appellant intended to divest the complainant of her properties when she carried out the acts and that Section 23 of the Criminal Code did not avail her. He cited Agrotec Technical Services (Nigeria) Ltd v. MIA & Sons Ltd (2000) NWLR 533.

That the mens rea of the appellant was deducible from her overt acts to ground the trial Court’s decision finding the appellant guilty of conspiracy. He cited Daboh v. The State (1977) 5 SC 122 at 134.

It was concluded by learned counsel for the respondents that

there is no reason for an interference with the findings of fact of the two Court below. He cited Ndulue v. Ojiakor (2013) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1356) 311 at 339; Egunjobi v. F.R.N. (2013) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1342) 534 at 555 etc.

The two contending positions on either side of the divide have to be viewed within the con of what the law provided. That is to say that in proving the guilt of the accused the onus of proof lies on the party alleging the crime beyond reasonable doubt. See Section 135 of the Evidence Act, 2011 and with particular reference to Subsection (3) which stipulates thus:-
“(3). If the prosecution proves the commission of crime beyond reasonable doubts, the burden of proving reasonable doubts is shifted on to the defendant.”
The Courts have interpreted that provision in a number of judicial authorities which I shall have to call in aid. For example, my learned brother, Rhodes-Vivour, JSC had stated the position to be thus in the case of the State v. John (2013) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1368) 337 at 360 as follows:-
“Once all the ingredients of an offence have been proved by the prosecution to the satisfaction of the Court, the charge is said

to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt and the guilt of the accused person is pronounced by the learned Trial Judge. Indeed Section 138(1) of the Evidence Act requires crimes to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. In Miller v. Minister of Pensions (1947) 2 ALL ER p.372 at 373, Para. H, Lord Denning MR, said that:
“Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond the shadow of doubt. The Law would fail to protect the community if it admitted fanciful possibilities to deflect the course of justice. If the evidence is so strong against a man as leaves only a remote possibility in his favour which can be dismissed with the sentence “of course it is possible but not in the least probable”, the case is proved beyond reasonable doubt, but nothing short of that will suffice.”
It has been reiterated again and again that the said requirement is not tantamount to the prosecution being expected to prove any criminal offence as absolute proof beyond reasonable doubt or proof beyond all shadow of doubt rather what is required is proof beyond reasonable doubt. See Banjo v. The State (2013) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1381) 455 at 468; Akalezi v. State (1993) 2 NWLR

(Pt. 273) 1; Oreoluwa Onakoya v. F.R.N. (2002) 11 NWLR (Pt. 779) 595.

The learned trial judge in making his findings and conclusion stated thus:-
“Both the prosecution witness led positive evidence. PW1 stated what happened on 4th January, 2006. She was clear and forthright in her testimony and she was not shaken under cross examination.
She narrated the roles played by the accused persons succinctly and without prevarication and reiterated her story under cross examination. Her testimony alone established a prima facie case against the accused persons.”

He stated further thus:-
“… I believe the case of the prosecution and find the defence unbelievable. I am convinced beyond reasonable doubt that the defendants went to the house of PW1, found her there and robbed her the State has established the two counts of offence contained in this charge.”

Getting back to the law prescribing the offence and punishment, the crime of robbery is defined under Section 401 of the Criminal Code as follows:
“Any person who steals anything and, at or immediately before or immediately after the time of stealing it, uses or

threatens to use actual violence to any person or property in order to obtain or retain the thing stolen or to prevent or overcome resistance to its being stolen or retained, is said to be guilty of robbery.”
It seems clear from that definition that the essential ingredients of robbery are as follows:-
(i) That stealing took place;
(ii) There was the use of force or presence of threat of use of force; and
(ii) Intention to retain stolen property.
I place reliance on the following cases, viz:-
Adeleke v. The State (2013) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1381) 556 at 582; Agboola v. The State (2013) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1366) 619 at 641.

Taking the above ingredients of robbery conually with the facts in which the PW1 testified in an eye-witness account of recognizing the voice of the appellant when the latter threatened her with violence. Also PW1 stated recognizing the pair of shoes appellant wore on the occasion as she, PW1 had given appellant those shoes. Again at the trial Court PW1 identified the 1st accused person having seen his face in the course of the incident with the added spice of locating most of her belongings in the house of

1st accused person with whom the appellant lived. This she did with the assistance of the police in getting to the house of 1st accused.

That version placed on the table as against that of the appellant, who admitted going into the house of PW1 in PW1’s absence and removing the alleged items but that she had not intended to permanently retain the items she took but to use them as hold until she appellant was paid the money agreed between her and PW1’s (Linda’s) husband.

The learned trial judge considering the two versions albeit, the testimony of the PW1 as against that put across in defence by the appellant and did not seem in any difficulty in accepting that as stated by the PW1 in these words, viz:-
“Linda did not get her pregnant, Linda was not aware of her pregnancy – she was not even working for Linda when she allegedly got pregnant, and Linda did not make her any promises. Her story that she got pregnant for her boss’ husband while working for his senior wife in 2005 but decided to take her revenge on the junior wife in 2006, by going to steal property that she kept at a friend’s apartment after moving out from the place she was

staying is not believable. It is incredible that she decided to take property from PW1’s house when she was still working and living with Linda and had easy access to Linda’s belongings in her house… The defendants have not explained how they were identified and eventually arrested if indeed PW1 was not present when her things were stolen… I also take cognizance of the facts that there were two mobile phones stolen from PW1 which would have been on her in her house if in fact she was not at home.”

On appeal, the lower Court was of the same line of thought as the trial Court and held that the actions of the appellant clearly established her mens rea.

The situation presented in the case before Court is such that the evidence of PW1, alone could settle the question as to the guilt of the appellant. This is because the quality of the sole evidence comes within the radar upon which a Court could ground a conviction as it was easy to believe it being credible, cogent and effectively knocks out the watery defence put up by the appellant. I refer to the case of Aliyu v. The State (2013) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1368) 403 at 420-421, per Fabiyi, JSC.

The other point raised to the fore in this discourse is the fact of the appellant being found with the robbed items and without tendering cogent and sufficient explanation as to how she came about them. The law allows for the presumption that she/he was one of the robbers. This principle followed again and again and reiterated by this Court in Banjo v. The State (2012) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1381) 455 at 466 per Muntaka-Coomassie JSC, holds sway in this case at hand and I find little difficulty in applying it and finding as the two lower Courts did that appellant participated in robbery with the guilty mind and not as she is trying to sell to the Court, that she went there on the pre to use the goods as a hold over to get payment upon an earlier agreement.

With respect to the issue of conspiracy, this Court has variously defined conspiracy to be, a meeting of two or more minds on a plan to carry out an unlawful or illegal act which is an offence by just the mere agreement and nothing else done. It is because conspiracy is usually hatched in utmost secrecy and to unravel it, the circumstances of the matter are properly considered. That is that

conspiracy to commit an offence is quite often inferred from circumstantial evidence and the foundation is the common intent or purpose.
Therefore once there is evidence to commit the substantive offence what any of the conspirators did or did not do is of no moment. I refer to Adeleke v. The State (2013) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1381) 556 at 584; Kaza v. The State (2008) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1085) 125; Upahar v. The State (2003) 6 NWLR (Pt. 186) 230 at 239; Egunjobi v. F.R.N. (2013) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1342) 534.

The learned counsel for the appellant had urged that the Court discountenance the evidence of PW2, the Investigating Police Office (I.P.O.) on the ground that it is hearsay. Learned counsel for the respondent urges differently contending that in fact the testimony of PW2 offered corroboration of that proffered by PW1 and that PW2 in his capacity was duty bound to give evidence of what he saw and heard in the course of his investigative duty. That the Court should grant due weight to the said evidence of PW2 as it is properly before the Court.

I shall quote excerpts of the said testimony of PW2 for clarity and for what it portends and as can be seen at

pages 29 and 30 of the Record of Appeal thus:-
“I knew the accused persons. In 2006, I was working at Panti and I am still there. I was attached to anti-robbery squad D9. On 06/01/06, I was on duty and a petition on a case of armed robbery was to (sic) be for investigation by the Deputy Commissioner of Police. Voluntary statement was recorded from the complainant. The complainant one Mrs. Etiosa Esere reported that on 04/10/06, at about 9.00pm she was looking in her kitchen when suddenly two men with masked faces came to her and ordered her to lie down on the ground. They threatened to fire at her. They ordered her into her apartment. They carted away her electronics, money and gold jewellery, as well as other valuable items, which amounted to N125,000.00. That she recognized the voice of one Fasilat Adepoji (the 2nd accused) who search warrant (sic) stolen items were found in the 1st accused’s house. The items were Tapes, DVD, Television and gold jewellery and a wrist watch. The 1st accused was cautioned and he volunteered his own statement. He confessed to the alleged crime. I wrote the statement for him after reading the words of caution to him and

translating it to Yoruba. He signed the statement. I wrote for him because he said he confessed that the items recovered from his house were stolen from the complainant. He also denied that he was armed with any dangerous weapon to rob the complainant. The items recovered from the 1st accused were recorded with the Exhibit keeper. The two suspects were taken before a superior police office. I do not remember his name now…..”

The Courts below were right to take seriously the evidence of PW2 and using it as buttress to that of the PW1 with the added advantage of the recovered items from the house of 1st accused person wherein appellant resided also. The contradictions and discrepancies appellant referred to impugn the prosecution’s case are of a minor strain and in keeping with human versions differently stated by one person or the other and so those discrepancies not going into material effect are easily despatched as neither here nor there, see Odunlami v. Nigerian Navy (2013) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1367) 20 at 53; Adele v. State (1995) 2 NWLR (Pt. 3778) 269;Kwaghshir v. State (1995) 3 NWLR (Pt. 386) 651; Musa v. The State (2013) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1359) 214 at

243.

Indeed the mens rea or guilty mind of the appellant is deducible from her overt acts and there is no basis on which a departure from the findings and conclusion of the two Courts below concurrently made. Just like those Courts held, the prosecution despatched the burden of proof upon it to establish the essential ingredients of both the offence of conspiracy to commit robbery and the offence of robbery itself beyond reasonable doubt.

From the foregoing and the better articulated lead judgment, I too see no merit in this appeal as I dismiss it. I abide by the consequential orders as made.

JOHN INYANG OKORO, J.S.C.: I read in advance the judgment of my learned brother, Ejembi Eko, JSC just delivered. I am in agreement with him that this appeal is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed. When the appellant went to the house of the PW1 in company with her boyfriend, subjected the PW1 to real torture and stole her properties with threats of death, she ought to have known the effect of such unbecoming behavior. Both the learned trial Judge and the Court below agree that the evidence adduced by the

prosecution was enough to nail the appellant. This is concurrent findings of two lower Courts.

It is trite that where there are concurrent findings of fact by the trial Court and the Court of Appeal, this Court does not in practice, disturb such concurrent findings unless they are shown to be perverse. See Bashaya & Ors v. State (1998) 5 NWLR (Pt. 550) 351, Sobakin v. The State (1981) 5 SC 75, Adio & Anor v. The State (1986) 2 NWLR (Pt. 24) 581.

In the instant appeal, the appellant failed to show why the concurrent findings of the two lower Courts should be disturbed. I hereby adopt the fuller reasons adumbrated in the lead judgment of my learned brother Ejembi Eko, JSC as mine. I also make an order dismissing this appeal. Appeal dismissed.

AMIRU SANUSI, J.S.C.: I read in advance the judgment just rendered by my learned brother Ejembi Eko, JSC. I am in entire agreement with his reasoning and the conclusion arrived at that this appeal is devoid of merit. I too accordingly dismiss it and affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Lagos division which had earlier affirmed or upheld the decision of

the trial Court.

Appeal dismissed.

Appearances:

V. C. Ihekweazu, Esq. with him, Victor Abasiakan-Ekim, Esq., Bolanle Komolafe, Solomon Inyang, Esq. and Rita Ekanem, Esq.For Appellant(s)

K. Shitta-Bey, Esq., DPP Lagos State with him, Justin Jacob, Esq., PSC M.O.J. Lagos State, E. R. Agu, Esq., CSC M.O.J. Lagos State and B. Akinsefe, Esq., SSC M.O.J. Lagos StateFor Respondent(s)

Appearances

C.V.C. Ihekweazu, Esq. with him, Victor Abasiakan-Ekim, Esq., Bolanle Komolafe, Solomon Inyang, Esq. and Rita Ekanem, Esq.For Appellant

AND

T.K. Shitta-Bey, Esq. (DPP Lagos State) with him, Justin Jacob, Esq. (PSC M.O.J. Lagos State), E.R. Agu, Esq. (CSC M.O.J. Lagos State) and B. Akinsefe, Esq. (SSC M.O.J. Lagos State)For Respondent

LawCare Nigeria

FASILAT ADEPOJU v. THE STATE(2018)

admin

YOU MAY HAVE MISSED

WHAT ARE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR REGISTERING A FOREIGN COMPANY IN NIGERIA?

UNDERSTANDING THE NEW COMPANIES AND ALLIED MATTERS ACT (CAMA) 2020

BUSINESS NAME VS. INCORPORATED COMPANY: WHICH IS RIGHT FOR YOU IN NIGERIA?

HOW TO REGISTER A COMPANY IN NIGERIA WITH THE CAC: A STEP-BY-STEP GUIDE

admin

Related Story

YOU MAY HAVE MISSED