YAHYA v. STATE (2022)

YAHYA v. STATE

(2022)LCN/16630(CA)

In The Court Of Appeal

(YOLA JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Wednesday, March 09, 2022

CA/YL/123C/2021

Before Our Lordships:

Chidi Nwaoma Uwa Justice of the Court of Appeal

Jamilu Yammama Tukur Justice of the Court of Appeal

Mohammed Lawal Abubakar Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

IDRISA MALLAM YAHYA APPELANT(S)

And

THE STATE RESPONDENT(S)

RATIO

DEFINITION OF HERESAY EVIDENCE

Now, Section 37 of the Evidence Act defines Hearsay as a statement:-
(a) Oral or written made otherwise than by a witness in a proceeding; or
(b) Contained or recorded in a book, document, or any record whatever proof of which is not admissible under any provision of this Act, which is tendered in evidence for the purpose of proving the truth of the matter stated in it.
Section 38 of the Evidence Act provides that “Hearsay evidence is not admissible except as provided in this part or by or under any other provision of this or any other Act.” PER ABUBAKAR, J.C.A.

WHETHER OR NOT CONTRADICTIONS IN THE TESTIMONIES OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES IS FATAL TO HIS CASE

On the issue of contradictions in the testimonies of PW 1 and PW 2 with regard to the date of the commission of the Robbery, the place of arrest of the Appellant and where Exhibits M1 and M2 were recovered, it is trite law that contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution’s witnesses would not cast doubt in the mind of a trial Court where they are not material. Two pieces of evidence contradict one another when they are inconsistent on material facts as mere discrepancies will not amount to contradiction that affect the prosecution’s evidence. See EGWUMI V. STATE (2013) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1372) 525, GALADIMA V. STATE (2017) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1585) 187, MUSA V. STATE (2019) LPELR – 46350 (SC).
I have perused the Record of Appeal and found that the PW 1 in his evidence stated that the Robbery took place on 21/03/2016 while the PW 2 stated that it occurred on 22/03/2016. The PW1 also testified that the PW 1 was arrested with gunshot at Dirdou bush while the PW2 stated that the Appellant was arrested by the hunters. See pages 84, 101 and 104 of the Record of Appeal.
I hold that the contradiction mentioned above are not material as could cast doubt in the mind of the Court. There is cogent and convincing evidence against the Appellant. See ANKPEGHER V. STATE (2018) LPELR – 43906 (SC). PER ABUBAKAR, J.C.A.

THE POSITION OF LAW ON PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBTS

It is trite law that proof beyond reasonable doubt doesn’t mean proof beyond all doubt, or all shadow of doubt. It simply means establishing the guilt of the accused person with compelling and conclusive evidence. A degree of compulsion which is consistent with a high degree of probability. See the cases of DIKE V. THE STATE (2022) NWLR (Pt. 1813) pages 369 – 403, AGBO V. STATE (2006) 6 NWLR (Pt. 977) 547, OKONJI V. STATE (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt. 52) 659.

THE BURDEN AND OF PROOF IN AN OFFENCE OF ARMED ROBBERY

To secure a conviction for the offence of armed Robbery, the prosecution is required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that, there was Robbery or series of Robbery, each Robbery was an armed Robbery and the accused person was one of those who robbed or took part in the armed Robbery. See the cases of UTTO V. STATE (2022) NWLR (Pt. 1814) page 369 – 403, DIKE V. THE STATE (Supra), THOMAS V. STATE (2017) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1570) 230, MOHAMMED V. STATE (2019) LPELR – 46420 (SC). PER ABUBAKAR, J.C.A.

MUHAMMED LAWAL ABUBAKAR, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Adamawa State sitting in Yola presided by the Hon. Justice Bulila Ladukiya Ikharo delivered on 7th September, 2020 in Suit No. ADSY/13C/2017 wherein the Appellant was convicted and sentenced for the offence of Robbery while armed with offensive weapons punishable under Section 1(2)(a) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act Cap R11, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.

The Appellant being dissatisfied with the judgment of the lower Court has appealed to this Court via a Notice of Appeal as contained in pages 142 – 146 of the Record Appeal wherein 5 grounds of Appeal were raised for the determination of this appeal by this Court.

The Appellant was arraigned on a two Counts Charge dated the 23rd of February, 2017 before the High Court of Adamawa State sitting at Yola on a two Counts Charge of Robbery while armed with offensive weapons punishable under Section 1 (2)(a) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act Cap R11, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004, as follows:-
COUNT 1

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE
Conspiracy to commit Robbery while armed with offensive weapons punishable under Section 1 (2)(a) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act Cap R11, Laws of the Federation, 2004.
PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE
Idrisa Mallam Yahya on or about the 21st March, 2016 at Mamukan Village, in Jada Local Government Area of Adamawa State, within the Ganye Judicial Division of the Honourable Court, agreed with Mohammed Buba, Iro Buba and others (all at large) to do an illegal act, to wit: to rob while armed with offensive weapons, and you made away with two (2) handsets, belonging to the family members of Mohammed Saleh, while so armed in pursuance of the agreement.
COUNT 2
Robbery while armed with offensive weapons punishable under Section 1 (2)(a) of the Robbery and Firemans (Special Provisions) Act Cap R11, Laws of the Federation, 2004.
PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE
Idrisa Mallam Yahya, along with Mohammed Buba, Iro Buba and others (all at large) on or about the 21st March, 2016 at Mamukan Village, in Jada Local Government Area of Adamawa State, within the Yola Judicial Division of this Honourable Court, had formed a common intention to commit robbery while armed with offensive weapons, such as guns, cutlass and sticks, and in furtherance of which, you made away with two (2) handsets belonging to the family members of Mohammed Saleh.

The case went to trial and the Respondent called two (2) witnesses and tendered three (3) documents in proof of its case and the Appellant testified himself as DW1 in his defence. At the end of the trial, the lower Court convicted the Appellant and sentenced him to death.

During the hearing of the appeal on 01/02/2022, learned Counsel for the Appellant adopted the Appellant’s Brief of Argument filed on 05/10/2021 and deemed properly filed on 01/11/2021 as representing his argument for the appeal. He urged the Court to allow the appeal. Learned Counsel for the Respondent also adopted the Respondent’s Brief of Argument filed on 29/10/2021 and deemed properly filed on 01/11/2021 as forming his reaction against the appeal. He urged the Court to dismiss it.

In the Appellant’s Brief of Argument, the learned Counsel for the Appellant distilled three (3) issues for determination as follows:-
(i) Whether the learned lower Court was not in error when it believed and acted on the hearsay evidence of PW I and PW II? (Distilled from ground 1 of the Notice of Appeal).
(ii) Whether the learned lower Court was not in error and thereby occasioned miscarriage of justice when it relied on the contradictory evidence of PW I and PW II to convict the Appellant? (Distilled from grounds 2 and 5 of the Notice of Appeal).
(iii) Whether the learned trial Court was not in error of law and fact when it came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the ingredients of Armed Robbery against the Appellant considering Exhibits M1, M2 and the evidence of DW1 in the absence of any evidence either from the hunters or the boys whose handsets were alleged to have been stolen? (Distilled from grounds 3 and 4 of the Notice of Appeal).

The Respondent in his Brief of Argument crafted three (3) issues for determination as follows:
(1) Whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt to warrant the lower Court into convicting and sentencing the Appellant to death for the offence of conspiracy to commit Robbery while armed with offensive weapons and Robbery while Armed with offensive weapons.
(2) Whether the evidence of the prosecution witnesses i.e PW 1 and PW 2 are hearsay evidence and cannot be relied upon by the lower Court to convict the Appellant.
(3) Whether the evidence of PW 1 and PW 2 are contradictory and cannot be relied upon by the lower Court to convict the Appellant.

A careful look at the above sets of issues for determination shows that they are identical in substance as they raised the issues of hearsay evidence, contradictory evidences of PW 1 and PW 2 and the discharge of burden of proof by the prosecution. Consequently I married all the issues raised by the Appellant and the Respondent and reframed them as follows:-
(1) Whether the testimonies of PW 1 and PW 2 are hearsay and contradictory in nature.
(2) Whether from the totality of the evidence adduced in Court, the Appellant ought to be found guilty of the offences charged against him.

ISSUE ONE
The learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the law is settled that hearsay evidence is not admissible in law. He argued that all the witnesses relied on by the prosecution are not eye witnesses which means the entire case was built on hearsay evidence and therefore inadmissible in law. He cited Sections 37 and 38 of the Evidence Act, 2011 dealing with hearsay evidence to buttress his argument. He also cited the case of MUSA UMARU KASA V. THE STATE (1994) LPELR – 1671 (SC) where the Supreme Court per Uwais JSC held as follows:-
“At common law, it is fundamental rule of evidence that hearsay evidence is inadmissible”.

The Counsel also cited the case of OBOT V. STATE (2019) LPELR – 48172 (CA) where hearsay evidence is defined by this Court per SHUAIBU JCA (pages 14 -15 paras B – C.

The Counsel submitted that in his testimony, the PW 1 stated that a case of Robbery was reported to his office by the PW 2 and that on receipt of the information a team of police was dispatched to the scene where seven empty shelves of 1.63mm, one life ammunition with 7.62mn was found. The PW 1 added that they organized search and followed the footprint down to Dirdow bush where the Appellant was arrested and brought to the Station. See page 83 of the Record.

Under Cross-examination, the PW 1 admitted that the police were not present when the purported Robbery took place, that it was when the PW 2 reported the incident that the police were dispatched to the scene, that the said PW 2 did not mention that any item was stolen, that PW 2 did not state anybody’s name who broke into his house. He also testified that the Appellant was shot at the scene of the Robbery. See page 100 of the Record.

The Counsel argued that if the police were not at the scene of the Robbery, how then would the PW 1 have known where the Appellant was shot? It was what the PW 2 told PW 1 that the PW 1 testified before the Court and not what he witnessed or what his investigation revealed. The Counsel submit that the evidence of PW 1 is not admissible and must be expunged from the record.

The Counsel argued further that the PW 2 testified that the Robbery happened in his house around 2am on the 22/03/2016, that thieves entered his house and started beating his junior brother, Halidu, that his wife heard them asking about Alhaji, then his wife came in and woke him up and he ran to the inner part of the palour and hid, that at this point, thieves entered through the window and opened the door and started firing or shooting. But under cross-examination, the PW 2 stated that he did not know the Appellant before the incidence, that he could not recognize anyone of them at the time of the incident. He also admitted that he was not present when the Appellant was arrested.

The Counsel finally submits that the evidences of PW 1 and PW 2 are not direct evidence and are too remote to be relied on by the Court in convicting the Appellant. So the evidence should be expunged from the record. The evidence of phone theft derives the veracity, and competence from the boys whose phone were allegedly stolen and were not called as a witness in this case. The evidence as to where the Appellant was shot derives its veracity and competence from the hunters who were not called by the prosecution to give evidence in this case. So the evidence of PW 1 and PW 2 are hearsay evidence and same should be discountenance. He cited the case of OBOT V. STATE (Supra).

On the issue of contradiction in the testimonies of PW 1 and PW 2, the Counsel submits that PW 1 testified that the incident happened on the 21/03/2016 while the PW 2 stated that it happened on 22/03/2016. This contradiction gives the impression that there are two Robberies which cast doubt on the prosecution’s case and ought to have been resolved in favour of the Appellant by the lower Court as it is material contradiction. He urged this Court to so hold. He cited the cases of EKE V. STATE (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1235) 589, ISMAILA V. STATE (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1277) 601.

The Counsel further submits that the PW 1 testified that they found the Appellant in the Dirdou bush with the gunshot and arrested him. See page 84 of the Record. Under cross-examination he stated that it was the Police that arrested the Appellant. See page 101 of the Record while the PW 2 testified that it was the hunters that arrested the Appellant. See page 102 of the Record. The Counsel argued further that the PW 1 testified that the Exhibits M1 and M2 were recovered at the scene of crime. See page 83 of the Record. While the PW 2 stated under cross-examination that he handed over the cartridges i.e Exhibits M1 and M2 to the police at Yola. See page 102 of the Record.

The Counsel submit that the lower Court was in error in acting on the contradictory evidence of the prosecution and convicted the Appellant. He cited the case of ALI V. SALIHU (2011) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1228) CA. He urged the Court to so hold.

In reaction, the Respondent’s Counsel in his written address submits that the evidence of PW 1 and PW 2 are not hearsay evidence, they both gave an account of what they personally saw and heard when the Robbery incident occurred. He referred to the evidence of PW 1 at page 83 of the Record and argued that the fact that the PW 1 narrated what the Appellant said while giving his extra-judicial statement before them at the Police Division, is not hearsay because he heard it personally from the Appellant what they did during their Robbery operation, which means it is oral direct evidence. He referred this Court to Section 126 (b) of the Evidence Act dealing with oral evidence and submits that by virtue of the testimonies of PW 1 and PW 2 the prosecution has proved its case against the Appellant by direct oral evidence and other proofs.

On the issue of contradictory evidence, the Counsel submits that the law is that where there are contradictions on the testimonies of witnesses, such contradictions must be material and substantial before they will be able to vitiate the decision of the Court. He cited the case of EKE V. STATE (2011) 3 NWLR, (Pt. 1235) page 539.

The Counsel submits that the Appellant’s Counsel mentioned some contradictions in the date the Robbery took place. The PW 1 in his testimony stated the incident took place on 21/03/2016 while PW 2 stated that it took place on 22/03/2016. The Counsel explained that this is a minor contradiction as the passage of time can affect the human memory as regards events or things that happened in the past. Moreover, the difference between the two witnesses is just a day, as regards when the incident took place.

The Counsel further submits that the other contradiction mentioned by the Appellant’s Counsel is about who arrested the Appellant. PW 1 stated that it was the police that arrested the Appellant while the PW 2 stated that is was the hunters that arrested him. The Counsel argued that the contradiction is not a material one that will cast doubt on the Court. He cited the case of EKE V. STATE (supra) to buttress his arguments. He urged this Court to resolve this issue in favour of the Respondent.

RESOLUTION
Issue one deals with the hearsay evidence and contradictions in the testimonies of PW 1 and PW 2.

Now, Section 37 of the Evidence Act defines Hearsay as a statement:-
(a) Oral or written made otherwise than by a witness in a proceeding; or
(b) Contained or recorded in a book, document, or any record whatever proof of which is not admissible under any provision of this Act, which is tendered in evidence for the purpose of proving the truth of the matter stated in it.

Section 38 of the Evidence Act provides that “Hearsay evidence is not admissible except as provided in this part or by or under any other provision of this or any other Act.”

Similarly, Section 126 (b) of the Evidence Act states as follows:-
“Oral evidence must be direct subject to the provision of Part III of this Act, oral evidence must, in all cases whatever, be direct –
(b) If it refers to a fact which could be heard, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he heard that fact.”

The learned Counsel for the Appellant argued that the evidence of PW 1 and PW 2 is a hearsay evidence. From the record of Appeal, it is clear that the witnesses gave evidence of what they personally saw and heard when the Robbery incident occurred which implies it is direct oral evidence. See the case of ANYASODOR V. STATE (2018) LPELR – 43720 (SC), the Supreme Court held:-
“To my mind, all that the PW 3 (I.P.O.) did was to give evidence on what he actually saw or has witnessed, or discovered in the course of his work as an investigator. His testimony on what the Appellant told him was positive and direct which was narrated by the Appellant and other witnesses he came into contact with in the course of his investigation of the cases. Evidence of an I.P.O. is never to be tagged as hearsay ….”
In view of the above mentioned authorities, I hold that the testimonies of PW 1 and PW 2 were never hearsay evidence as envisaged by the Appellant’s Counsel.

On the issue of contradictions in the testimonies of PW 1 and PW 2 with regard to the date of the commission of the Robbery, the place of arrest of the Appellant and where Exhibits M1 and M2 were recovered, it is trite law that contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution’s witnesses would not cast doubt in the mind of a trial Court where they are not material. Two pieces of evidence contradict one another when they are inconsistent on material facts as mere discrepancies will not amount to contradiction that affect the prosecution’s evidence. See EGWUMI V. STATE (2013) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1372) 525, GALADIMA V. STATE (2017) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1585) 187, MUSA V. STATE (2019) LPELR – 46350 (SC).
I have perused the Record of Appeal and found that the PW 1 in his evidence stated that the Robbery took place on 21/03/2016 while the PW 2 stated that it occurred on 22/03/2016. The PW1 also testified that the PW 1 was arrested with gunshot at Dirdou bush while the PW2 stated that the Appellant was arrested by the hunters. See pages 84, 101 and 104 of the Record of Appeal.
I hold that the contradiction mentioned above are not material as could cast doubt in the mind of the Court. There is cogent and convincing evidence against the Appellant. See ANKPEGHER V. STATE (2018) LPELR – 43906 (SC).
In conclusion, I resolved this issue one in favour of the respondent and against the Appellant.

ISSUE TWO
The learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that in criminal matter, the onus is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. This is done by adducing credible evidence. This burden does not shift unless and until it is discharged by the prosecution. He cited Section 131 of the Evidence Act, 2011 and the case of WOOLMINGTON V. DPP (1935) AC 462. The learned Counsel argued that the charge against the Appellant is Armed Robbery punishable under Section 1 (2)(a) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act Cap R11 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004. To prove the offence, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt the following:-
(1) There was robbery or series of robberies
(2) The Robbery or each robbery was an armed robbery
(3) The accused was one of those who took part in the robbery.

The three ingredients must jointly be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The Counsel cited the case of OLUMIDE OPEKE V. STATE (2021) 1 NWLR (1758) SC 570.

The learned Counsel submits that in the instant case, assuming without conceding that the prosecution proved the 1st ingredient, the 2nd and 3rd ingredients have not been proved. This can be seen from the evidence before the Court when the PW 1 testified that the police arrested the Appellant and the DW II contradicted the PW 1 that it was the hunters that arrested the Appellant.

He added that in the 2nd ingredient, the lower Court based its judgment on speculation that Exhibits M1 and M2 emanated from the Appellant which is purely not the duty of the Court. He cited the case of ACB Plc V. EMOSTRADE LTD. (2006) 10 WRN 42. On 3rd ingredient, the prosecution failed to link the Appellant to the commission of the offence which the Appellant was convicted. He cited the case of THE STATE V. ABDULLAHI SANI (2018) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1624) SC 282. The Counsel submits that PW 1 testified that the Appellant was shot at the scene of the robbery whereas he was not at the scene of the robbery. The hunters whom PW 1 and PW 2 claimed to have shot the Appellant were not called as witnesses neither were they invited by the police to make statements.

The boys whose phones were allegedly stolen were not even known by the PW 2. The evidence before the Court did not establish the ingredients of the offence of armed robbery.

The Counsel further submits that there are three ways of proving an offence by the prosecution in order to obtain conviction. They are:-
(1) By the testimony or testimonies of an eye-witness or eye-witnesses.
(2) Through voluntary confession statement of the accused person.
(3) Through circumstantial evidence.
See the case of EMMANUEL UGBOJI V. THE STATE (2018) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1627) SC 346 Ratio.

The Counsel argued that on the first way mentioned above, the PW 1 and PW 2 are not eye-witnesses so the guilt of the Appellant could not be establish through them. He urged the Court to discountenance the evidence of PW 1 and PW 2.

On the 2nd way, the Counsel submits that, although the Appellant’s objection to the admissibility of his confessional statement was overruled and admitted, there is nothing to show that he made the confessional statement after the injury he sustained as a result of the gunshot had been healed. He wondered how a man with gunshot make a statement. He urged this Court to exercise its appellate jurisdiction and expunge the inadmissible evidence from the record.

On the 3rd way or method which is circumstantial evidence, the Counsel submit that the circumstance of this case cannot be relied on to convict the Appellant by the lower Court. The circumstantial evidence is not strong enough to sustain the conviction and sentence of the Appellant. He urged this Court to resolve this issue in their favour.

In reaction, the Respondent Counsel submits that the Appellant was convicted and sentenced for the offences of conspiracy to commit Robbery while Armed with offensive weapons and Robbery while Armed with offensive weapons. He argued that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. He referred to the evidence of PW 1 and PW 2 and the confessional statement of the Appellant on page 76 of the Record of Appeal made at Jada Police Division and marked Exhibit ‘Y’ which was rightly admitted in evidence as the prosecution had met the conditions for determining the veracity of the confessional statement. He urged the Court to resolve this issue in favour of the Respondent and dismiss this appeal.

RESOLUTION
It is trite law that proof beyond reasonable doubt doesn’t mean proof beyond all doubt, or all shadow of doubt. It simply means establishing the guilt of the accused person with compelling and conclusive evidence. A degree of compulsion which is consistent with a high degree of probability. See the cases of DIKE V. THE STATE (2022) NWLR (Pt. 1813) pages 369 – 403, AGBO V. STATE (2006) 6 NWLR (Pt. 977) 547, OKONJI V. STATE (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt. 52) 659.

To secure a conviction for the offence of armed Robbery, the prosecution is required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that, there was Robbery or series of Robbery, each Robbery was an armed Robbery and the accused person was one of those who robbed or took part in the armed Robbery. See the cases of UTTO V. STATE (2022) NWLR (Pt. 1814) page 369 – 403, DIKE V. THE STATE (Supra), THOMAS V. STATE (2017) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1570) 230, MOHAMMED V. STATE (2019) LPELR – 46420 (SC).

In a quest to establish the element of the offence of Armed Robbery and Conspiracy to commit Armed Robbery, the Respondent provided the evidence of PW 1, PW 2 and the Appellant’s confessional statement i.e. Exhibit ‘Y’ which was admitted in evidence after a trial-within-trial. The totality of evidence revealed that the prosecution has proved his case beyond reasonable doubt.

In the end I resolve this issue 2 in favour of the Respondent and against the Appellant.
Having resolved the two issues against the Appellant, the appeal lacks merit and deserves the penalty of dismissal. I dismiss the appeal and affirm the decision of the lower Court delivered on 7th September, 2020 in Suit No. ADSY/13C/2017.

CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, J.C.A.: I read in advance a draft copy of the leading Judgment delivered by my learned brother MOHAMMED LAWAL ABUBAKAR, JCA. I am in agreement with the findings and conclusion of my learned brother, may I add few words on the issues for the determination of this appeal.

It is not in doubt going by the printed records of appeal that the PW1 and PW2 only gave a detailed account of what they personally saw and heard during the investigation which cannot be envisaged to be hearsay. See OLAOYE VS. STATE (2018) LPELR – 43601 (SC) PP. 42 – 43, PARAS. D – A, his lordship Peter – Odili, JSC in stating the position of the law held thus:
“It has to be said that it is erroneous for the appellant to posit that the evidence of PW3 should be discountenanced being hearsay evidence. That submission is a misconception since PW3 is the investigating Police Officer who has to narrate to the Court what transpired in the course of his investigation. In this process of stating what he found out in carrying out his inquiries, would be pieces of evidence which with another witness would be considered hearsay but, from him since the Court has to know the synopsis of his investigative journey, it is direct evidence. See, OBOT VS. STATE (2014) LPELR – 23130 (CA).”

On the issues of contradiction argued by the appellant with regards to the date the incident occurred and how the appellant was arrest, in my view the argument holds no water because of the compelling and convincing evidence against the Appellant. I also resolve the issue against the appellant.

Having perused thoroughly the printed records of Appeal and the respective briefs of arguments of the parties, I am convinced the Respondent successfully proved his case beyond reasonable doubt. I therefore aligned myself with the findings of my learned brother and adopt same as mine and I also dismiss the appeal for lacking in merit.

I abide by the order made therein and also affirm the judgment of the trial Court in Case No. ADSY/13C/2017 delivered on 7th day of September, 2017.

JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR, J.C.A.: I had the privilege of reading the draft copy of the lead Judgment just delivered by my learned brother MOHAMMED LAWAL ABUBAKAR, JCA. My learned brother has exhaustively dealt with the issues contained in the lead judgment and I agree that the appeal is unmeritorious and should be dismissed. It is hereby dismissed by me.