Whether An Accused Person Will Be Guilty of The Offence of Armed Robbery When Found in The Company of Others Armed with The Offensive Weapon

CASE TITLE: UGWU v. STATE (2025) LPELR-80572(SC)

JUDGMENT DATE:  21ST JANUARY, 2025

PRACTICE AREA: CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE

LEAD JUDGMENT: HARUNA SIMON TSAMMANI, J.S.C.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:

This appeal borders on Criminal Law and Procedure.

FACTS:

This appeal is against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, on the 29th day of May 2020. By the said judgment, the Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction of the Appellant along with two others by the Niger State High Court of Justice sitting in Minna on the 22/6/2018.

The brief facts of the case are that on the 15th day of January 2015 at about 9.30–10 pm, Arch. Umar Muhammed Bawa was having a discussion in his car at F-Layout by Yusuf Datti Road, Minna, when three young men approached them, one of whom pointed a gun at Arch. Umar Muhammed Bawa (PW2) and asked him to come out and move to the back seat while the other person held the friend, Maimuna Yusuf Datti, and held a knife by her neck. The third person who was with them emerged and drove the car to Three Arms Zone by Western Bypass, Maitumbi, where they tied Arch. Umar Muhammed Bawa and his female friend (Maimuna) and left them in the bush while the young men drove away with the vehicle containing several valuables, including handsets and the sum of N17,000.00.

The evidence also discloses that the three young men, one of whom turned out to be the Appellant, drove the Toyota Camry car snatched from Arch. Umar Muhammed Bawa to Kaduna, and were in the process of selling it when they were apprehended by the police the very next day of the robbery. They were then returned to Minna Niger State, where they were charged, prosecuted, and convicted. The Appellant being one of the persons convicted, was displeased by the decision of the trial Court and appealed to the Court of Appeal but the appeal was dismissed.

Further dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Supreme Court.

ISSUE(S) FOR DETERMINATION:

In determination of the appeal, the Court adopted the second issue raised by the Appellant, to wit:

“Whether, from the facts and circumstances of this case, the guilt of the Appellant, as affirmed by the Court of Appeal, was proved beyond reasonable doubt as required in criminal cases.”

DECISION/HELD:

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the appeal.

RATIOS:

• APPEAL- INTERFERENCE WITH CONCURRENT FINDING(S) OF FACT(S): Attitude of the Supreme Court to interference with concurrent finding(s) of fact(s) of Lower Courts
• APPEAL- UNAPPEALED FINDING(S)/DECISION(S): Effect of failure to appeal against specific findings of facts of Court
• CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE- OFFENCE OF ROBBERY/ARMED ROBBERY: Whether an accused person will be guilty of the offence of armed robbery when found in the company of others armed with the offensive weapon
• CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE- OFFENCE OF ROBBERY/ARMED ROBBERY: Ingredients required to be proved by the prosecution to establish the offence of armed robbery; ways of proving the offence of armed robbery
• EVIDENCE- PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY: Presumption of regularity of proceedings or judgment of Court; on whom lies the burden to rebut same
• EVIDENCE- BURDEN OF PROOF/ONUS OF PROOF: Whether Constitutional presumption of innocence of an accused correlates with the burden of proof on the prosecution; when is the burden of proof discharged?
• EVIDENCE- BURDEN OF PROOF/ONUS OF PROOF: On whom lies the burden of proof in criminal matters; whether the burden of proof on the prosecution can shift to the accused person
• EVIDENCE- STANDARD OF PROOF: Required standard of proof in criminal trials and the nature of proof beyond reasonable doubt
• JUDGMENT AND ORDER- ERROR/MISTAKE IN JUDGMENT: Whether Court has power to correct an error or administrative error in an enrolment of order or judgment

To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol