BENJAMIN FRIDAY V. THE STATE LRLR VOL 5 PART 54 2016

BENJAMIN FRIDAY V. THE STATE
LRLR VOL 5 PART 54 2016
RATIO
IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMED, J.S.C
NWALI SYLVESTER NGWUTA, J.S.C
KUMAI BAYANG AKA’AHS. J.S.C
CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE J.S.C
AMIRU SANUSI J.S.C
FACTS
The
appellant who was the first accused and two others were found guilty on the
charge of conspiracy to commit armed robbery and armed robbery contrary to
section 6(b) of the Robbery and firearms Act & section 1(2) (a) of firearms
Act.
Benjamin Friday, Mathew Thomas, and Nelson Friday, on or about 1st
of February 2008 at Ondo in the Ondo judicial division conspired with one
another to commit a felony, to wit, armed robbery.
They robbed Hon. Justice
Akin Akintoroye of a sum of 14,000, two sets of laptops, a suit, jewelries, and
at the time of robbery, they were armed with offensive weapons.
The
appellant and the accused pleaded not guilty of the offences charged. At trial,
the prosecution called 4 witnesses which are the victims of the robbery and the
police officers who investigated the case.
The prosecution led evidence to the
fact that during the search, a toy gun was found in the appellant premises but
none of the items stolen could be found. The appellant explained that the toy
gun and other items which were recovered inside a bag in his apartment belongs
to his cousin Enete. He denied robbing the victim.
At the end of the trial, all
the three accused were found guilty of conspiracy to commit armed robbery and
armed robbery and sentenced to death by hanging.
Dissatisfied
with the decision of the trial court, the appellant appealed the decision. The
Court of Appeal affirmed the decision of the trial judge who held that the
coming together of the accused and identification of by the victims was a
conclusive proof of the offence of conspiracy.
The Supreme Court dismissed the
appeal on the grounds of lack of merit and further affirmed the judgement of
the Court of Appeal.
PRINCIPLES
DECIDED IN THE CASE
. Proof
of Conspiracy - it is difficult to prove conspiracy by direct evidence because
of the secrecy involved, it can only be inferred from surrounding
circumstances. In this case, the learned trial judge was right in stating that
the coming together of the accused om the 1st of February and
identification of the accused by the victims of the robbery was a conclusive
proof of the offence of conspiracy. Onyenye
V. State (2012) 15 NWLR (Pt 1324)586; Bright
V. State (2012) 8 NWLR (Pt 1302) 297
. When
the Supreme Court will interfere with findings of the lower courts - the
concurrent findings of fact made by the two lower courts cannot be interfered
by the Supreme Court.
It can only be disturbed if they are shown to be
perverse, unsupported by the evidence before the trial court, or if such
findings were reached as a result of a wrong approach to the evidence of the
principles of substantive law. These are what the appellant failed to
establish.
Post a Comment