KEHINDE GBADAMOSI v THE STATE (SC.56/2014) [2017] NGSC 24 (11 May 2017)

In the Supreme Court

Holden at Abuja

Fri,12 May 2017

Suit Number: SC.56/2014

KEHINDE GBADAMOSI                     ...................................         Appellant


THE STATE                                      ......................................       Respondent



The appellant was arraigned on an amended five count charge, one of which was conspiracy to commit armed robbery while the remaining four count were for armed robbery. The plea of the appellant was taken on the amended charge and thereafter the prosecution called five witnesses and tendered several exhibits. The appellant gave evidence on his own behalf in Yoruba language but did not call any other witness to testify in support of his defence. The trial Judge convicted and sentenced him to death by hanging. The appellant was dissatisfied with the judgement and appealed against it to the Court of Appeal, Ibadan Division which dismissed the appeal. This prompted a further appeal to this Court where the appellant filed three notices of appeal on 10/12/2013, 30/12/2013 and 2/1/2014 respectively. The appeal is based on the Notice of Appeal dated 30/12/2013 since appellant's counsel indicated in the appellant's brief that the notices dated 10/12/2013 and 2/1/2014 have been withdrawn.


The appellant has distilled two issues for determination from the 12 grounds of appeal contained in the notice dated 30/12/2013 and they are as follows:-

1. Whether the evidence of the prosecution was contradictory or riddled with reasonable doubt and ought not to have been relied on by the Court below in affirming the conviction and sentence of the appellant for conspiracy to commit armed robbery (Grounds 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12).

2. Whether the Court below was not in error when it affirmed the rejection of the entire defence put up by the appellant by the application of the inconsistency rule to the appellant's non-confessional statement contained in Exhibit P1 and his testimony in Court (Grounds 5, 6, and 11).

The respondent's brief filed on 10/2/2016 was deemed filed on 24/3/2016 in which a sole issue for determination was distilled to wit:-

Whether from the entirety of material and evidence available on the record, the respondent as prosecution established the offences of conspiracy to commit armed robbery as well as armed robbery on the five (5) count criminal indictment information against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt to warrant a dismissal of the appeal in its entirety. (Grounds 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 of the Notice of Appeal of 30th December, 2013).

Dr. Olumide Ayeni, the learned Attorney-General of Ogun State filed a notice of preliminary objection to the appellant's brief contending that it is incompetent in that no Nigerian Bar Association stamp or seal was affixed thereto by E. Robert Emukpoeruo Esq. of counsel and this is in violation of Rules 10(1)(2) and(3) and 55(1) and (2) Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners, 2007 made pursuant to the Legal Practitioners Act Cap L 11 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.

The appellant filed a reply stating that as at 3rd March, 2014 the Nigerian Bar Association had not approved a stamp or seal that should be affixed to the legal document. At the hearing of the appeal on 2/3/2017 the respondent abandoned his preliminary objection and it was accordingly struck out.

Regarding the main appeal, Mr. Emukpoeruo, learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that while the Court below found that the evidence of the PW1 or PW3, the victims of the armed robbery, corroborated the alleged confessional statements of the appellant, the trial Judge did not use or rely on the evidence of PW1 or PW3 at all in linking the appellant with the offences charged. On the contrary the trial Judge specifically found that the evidence of PW1 and PW3 did not link the appellant with the commission of the crime. He argued that since the prosecution did not appeal against the aforesaid finding of the trial Judge, that finding that no prosecution witness gave evidence of seeing the appellant at the robbery scene was binding on the court below and relied on the case of Omnia Nig. Ltd. v. Dyktrade Ltd. (2007) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1058) 576. He submitted that the evidence of PW1 and PW3 can be corroborated if they identified the appellant and linked him with the offences charged citing Iko v. State (2001) 14 NWLR (Pt. 732) 211 at 240 - 241 in support. He further submitted that the corroboration provided by the evidence of PW1 and PW3 to the appellant's alleged confessional statements in Exhibits P2, P9, P10 and P10A was perverse in the circumstances. He said P1 and PW3 gave different accounts of the robbery in their testimonies from that contained in Exhibits 92, 99, P10 and P10A. He therefore submitted that different accounts of the robbery cannot be corroborative of each other and therefore the finding of the Court below that the evidence of PW1 and PW3 provided corroboration to the appellant's confessional statements in Exhibits 92, 99, P10 and P10A was perverse.

Learned counsel drew this Court's attention to Exhibit 92 which is inconsistent to his statements in Exhibits P9; P9A, P10 and P10A and contended that the courts below ought to have found that the prosecution presented fundamentally contradictory evidence and thus to reach the conclusion that this amounted to a failure of proof beyond reasonable doubt. He stressed the importance of Exhibit 92 which the two lower courts found to have formed a crucial part of the prosecution's case. He argued that what is clear from the contents of Exhibit P2 is that the appellant was not part of the conspiracy or the robbery itself. He therefore urged this Court to hold that Exhibits P2, P9, P9A, P10 and P10A are irreconcilably in conflict which portends lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt which doubt enures to the benefit of the appellant and should result in his discharge. See: Onubogu v. State (1974) 9 SC 1; Stephen v. State (1986) 5 NWLR (Pt. 46) 918; Patrick Ikemson v. State (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 110) 455: Ifeanyi Chukwu v. The State (1996) 7 NWLR (Pt. 463) 686.

Learned counsel dealt with the evidence of the appellant at page 45 of the record where he said that he did not confess to any policemen that he was an armed robber or that he robbed anyone and was emphatic that he did not rob anyone of Motorola L7 either alone or with any gang of robbers on 19th February, 2007. He contended that the denial of the signatures on the so-called confessional statements was not scrutinised by the lower courts. He argued that none of the purported signatures of the appellant on the exhibits are similar and Exhibit 9A was not signed in the column for signature but despite this the courts below relied on Exhibit 9A and ignored the evidence given by the appellant without comparing the signatures on the confessional statements with any signature admitted by the appellant. There is also the issue of the Nokia 1110 phone which was alleged stolen from PW3 and recovered from the appellant but the phone was not tendered in evidence and the learned trial Judge attached no credence on the recovery of the said phone as he made no finding on it. But PW2 testified that he recovered the Nokia 1110 phone from him while the appellant denied under cross-examination that any phone was recovered from him.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the court below made a perverse finding when it stated that a Nokia 1110 phone was recovered from the appellant and the appellant offered no explanation for its being recovered from him and applied the doctrine of recent possession of a robbed item against the appellant to find that he was one of the robbers when there was no evidence in support of the finding.

The arguments advanced by Dr Ayeni, learned Attorney-General of Ogun State on behalf of the respondent are as follows:-

All the elements of the appellant's culpability to commit armed robbery were amply present and demonstrated in the evidence of PW1 and PW2 which corroborated Exhibits P1, P2, P10 and P10A from which the conspiracy to commit armed robbery and the commission of armed robbery were established. The learned trial Judge considered the evidence, both circumstantial and confessional, brought against the accused person by the prosecution, which he believed was overwhelming, cogent, complete and unequivocal and so compelling that the only conclusion he could reach was that the accused person committed the offences brought against him and held that the prosecution proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The lower court found that the learned trial Judge was right in convicting the appellant based on his voluntary statements which were corroborated by the evidence of the witnesses. The lower court stated that in the light of the totality of the evidence, which can be tested and is consistent with other facts already established, the appellant had the opportunity to commit the offences charged and accordingly did not find fault with the decision of the learned trial Judge. The court, according to learned counsel, in arriving at its decision made a number of crucial concurrent findings namely:-

1. That Exhibit P2 was the confessional statement of the appellant.

2. That in Exhibits P2, P10 and P10A appellant confessed to the offence of conspiracy which having been admitted in evidence formed part of the prosecution's case which the learned trial Judge considered.

3. That PW1 and PW3 gave a graphic account of how they were robbed on 19/2/2007 and this corroborated Exhibits P2, P9, P9A P10 and P10A showing that the appellant did not act alone. It is immaterial that the other accused persons who took part in the robbery escaped from being arrested. The learned trial Judge correctly inferred the offence of conspiracy.

4. All the ingredients of the offence of armed robbery as charged against the appellant were completely proved inclusive of the participation of the appellant and the role he played in the series of robberies.

The burden of proof that the appellant took part in the robbery either alone or with others lies with the prosecution since an accused person is deemed innocent until he is proved guilty. See: Section 36(5) of 1999 Constitution (as amended); Section 138 of Evidence Act; Adekunle v. State (1989) 5 NWLR (Pt. 123) 505; Okoroji v. State (2002) 5 NWLR (Pt. 758) 21; Akinbisade v. State (2006) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1007) 184; Olayinka v. State (2007) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1040) 56; Ajayi v. State (2013) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1360) 589; Adonike v. State (2015) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1458) 237.

The discovery of the Nokia 1110 on the person of the appellant is key to unravelling his participation in the robbery which took place on 19/2/2007 since PW3, one of the victims of the robbery could not identify him as the person who dispossessed her of the phone. PW2, Corporal Joseph Idehen gave evidence that the accused/appellant first reported that his Mazda 323 with registration No. DW 910 FST was snatched from him at gun point along Ibadan Imowo Road Ijebu-Ode. Later he became suspicious of the accused when he phoned to say that he got information that the vehicle had been found at Ikoto in Odogbolu Local Government. On getting the information he asked the accused to return to the Police station so that he (PW2) could accompany him to where the vehicle was in order to recover it. It was when they reached Ikoto Police Outpost that he made enquiries from the Police Officer in charge of the Station who said the vehicle was recovered at the scene of the robbery and the people who drove it to Ikoto later escaped leaving the vehicle behind. He later searched the accused and recovered the Nokia 1110 which PW3 identified as her own. The phone was released to her under a bond to produce it in the Police Station.

Did the prosecution prove its case against the accused? The evidence given by PW1, PW2, PW3, PW4 and PW5 as well as the Exhibits tendered are quite revealing. PW2, Cpl. Idehen Joseph testified that on 20th February, 2007, the accused/appellant reported that his Mazda 323 with registration no. DW 910 FST was snatched from him at gun-point along Ibadan Imowo Road, Ijebu-Ode and the case was referred to him for investigation. His statement as a complainant was taken and it was admitted in evidence as Exhibit P1. After lodging the complaint, the accused was told to go home and produce the documents relating to the vehicle. A few minutes after he left, he phoned to say he got information that the vehicle had been found at Ikoto in Odogbolu Local Government. He then asked the accused to return to the Police Station so that they would go together to recover the vehicle.

When they got to Ikoto police outpost, they found that the vehicle had been vandalised beyond repair. He (PW2) made enquiries from the officer in-charge of the police post and he was told that the vehicle was recovered at the scene of the robbery, that the robbers came with the vehicle and later escaped leaving it behind and the vehicle was damaged by the villagers. He noticed that the accused was hiding his face inside the vehicle and he began to suspect his action. They returned to Atan Division where he narrated his observation to the DPO and when the latter put questions to him (accused), he confessed that the vehicle was not snatched from him but that he went with three of his friends to rob some students and that it was in a bid to escape that he ran to the Police Station to report that the vehicle was snatched from him. At that stage the DPO directed him to caution him (accused) and this led to the statement which was tendered as Exhibit P2 without objection. After making Exhibit P2, he searched the accused and found one Nokia 1110 which PW3 identified as her own. Under cross-examination, PW2 said he met the lady that identified the Nokia 1110 handset as her handset which was taken from her by the robbers but she could not identify the accused as the one who took the phone.

PW3, Miss Oluwatoyin Sanya testified, that on 19th February, 2007 around 8 p.m. she and other students were attacked at Gloryland Hall and she was dispossessed of her phone. When she demanded for the sim card, the person who collected the phone pointed a gun at her. She and other victims of the robbery made a report at the Police Station the next day which was Tuesday. On Wednesday she went to Atan Police Station and she was shown a Nokia 1110 phone as having been recovered which she identified as her own. She applied for the release of the phone which was given to her after she had signed a bond which was admitted as Exhibit 8.

Sgt. John Ayegbede testified as PW4. He and his team took over the investigation of the case when it was transferred from Odogbolu Police Station on 23/2/2007. The accused was transferred along with the case file and exhibits which included two locally made short guns, tendered as Exhibits 4 and 4A, one live cartridge, a pair of vehicle plate number DW 910 FST, the Nokia 1110 phone which was later handed over to PW3 after she had identified it through the text messages in the phone and other exhibits such as the driving licence and National Identity Card belonging to the accused. He cautioned the accused before he volunteered a statement in Yoruba which he later translated into English. When the application was made to tender the statement, learned counsel for the accused objected on the ground that the statement was not signed. The objection was overruled and it was admitted as Exhibit 9 while the English translation became Exhibit 9A. He denied that Exhibit 9 and 9A was his own imagination and not what the accused told him.

PW5, Sgt. Folorunso Ajisola was the Divisional Crime Branch Officer at Odogbolu when the case was transferred from Ikoto Police Post to Odogbolu. He cautioned the accused who volunteered a statement in Yoruba and translated it to English. In the said statement the accused made a clean breast of his participation in the robbery. And since the statement was confessional in nature, he took the statement together with the accused before a Superior Police Officer who endorsed it. This statement was put in evidence as Exhibit 10A while the English translation is Exhibit 10.

The accused testified in his defence but called no other witness. He recounted how he parked his mother's car at his shop at Awokoya Street, Bonojo Area of Ijebu-Ode on 19/2/2007 but by the time he wanted to go home, the car was nowhere to be found. He then reported about the missing car at Igbeba Police Station. The following day he went with his mother and they were directed to Atan Police Station where his mother was asked to leave her telephone number while he was asked to produce the documents of the car. After he had produced the documents the Police advised him to return home promising to contact him and his mother whenever there was information concerning the car. After some few hours his mother received a telephone call asking them to return to the Police Station where they were told the car had been recovered at Ikoto. Some policemen accompanied him to Ikoto where he saw the car with the glasses smashed. He was informed that guns had been found in the car and the Police asked him if he knew anything about the guns and he answered that he knew nothing. On their return to Atan Police Station he was arrested as the armed robber and locked up. On the second day of his arrest he was asked to confess to the offence but he pleaded his innocence. He was beaten and locked up in Atan, Igbebe and Odogbolu Police Stations before he was transferred to Eleweran Police State Headquarters where he was detained for two months. At the Police Headquarters Eleweran a Senior Police Officer asked him what his offence was. It was on 23rd April, 2007 that he was taken to court. He denied conspiring with anyone to commit armed robbery; neither did he rob anyone on his own. He also denied confessing to any police man that he was an armed robber or that he robbed anyone. He maintained under cross-examination that the report that he made to the Police about his stolen car was the exact truth of what happened and that the information he gave to the Police was not a cover up. He denied abandoning his car on the road when he was pursued by the villagers of Edo Epo and that the Police never recovered any handset from him; neither did he rob anyone of Motorola L7 either alone or with any gang of armed robbers on 19th February, 2007. He also denied being a commercial driver and did not point a gun at Sanya Oluwatoyin on 19/2/2007.

The accused/appellant did not dispute making Exhibit P1 (the complaint he lodged about the stolen car). The accused/appellant made Exhibit P1 to distract police attention from putting their search light on him as a suspect in the robbery of 19/2/2007.

In Olusina Ajayi v. State (2013) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1360) 589 where learned counsel argued that the prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of the offence because it was the appellant who first lodged a complaint with the police about the robbery and identified PW1-PW4 as the culprits but the police turned round to accuse him and others as the perpetrators of the robbery, this court applying Section 4 of the Police Act held that there is no law which prescribes the order in which investigation is to be carried out. The court observed that a person who is the first in time to report a case to the Police could as well turn out to be the prime suspect in the case and the purpose of being the first to lodged the complaint is to divert attention away from himself. It is not law that once the stolen items cannot be found, the accused cannot be said to have participated in the commission of the offence.

In Exhibit P2, the accused after he had been cautioned stated among other things:-

"On 19th February, 2007 one of our gang called Biola called me on phone that we have discussion and I was with my brother Johnson at Alimeton and I told him that we cannot see that he should call Akeem, before then the vehicle was with Akeem. He told me that is taken the vehicle to TASUED to see his girlfriend. Later that evening around 7.30 p.m. I left Alimenton to Ijebu-Ode and I took another motorcycle to take me to Ikoto express to trace them and on my way I saw that people are pursuing them and I asked the motorcycle that was carrying me to turn back and I came back to Alimeton to sleep and as the okada want to turn we fell down and that is how I sustained the injury on my forehead. That evening I saw my vehicle seriously damaged along express and that is why I have come to the police station to report. I came to the Police Station to report that my car was snatched from me to cover up and seek for assistance and I have lied that it was the armed robber that hit me with gun on my forehead. Akeem and Biola are my friends. I don't know where they got their gun am only a driver, I was not tied by anybody and I did not go to any police station at Ago-Iwoye to report before coming to Atan. I don't know Akeem's and Abiola house. Infact Akeem used to stay with me at my brother place at Alimenton even before the incident happened he was staying with me but since that night I have not seen him. I don't know those who were burnt at Merto but I know that it is my vehicle that was used to rob at Tasued and the other village".

The accused made two other statements on 21st and 23rd February, 2007. The statement of 23/2/2007 was recorded by PW4, Sgt. John Ayegbede was admitted as Exhibit P9 while the English translation was marked P9A. The earlier statement made on 21/2/2007 was recorded by Sgt. Folorunso Ajisola. It was put in evidence as Exhibit P10A while the translated English version was marked Exhibit P10. When application was made to tender the statement of 23/2/2007, Mr. Akapo who was defending the accused objected to the tendering of the statement on the basis that it was not signed. Before overruling the objection the learned trial Judge observed that there were three signatures and the name of the accused is written and held that since learned counsel to the accused did not raise the issue of involuntariness, the statement was admissible. Learned counsel to the accused did not object when PW5, Sgt. Folorunso Ajisola applied to tender the statement which he recorded on 21/2/2007 and so the statement which was taken in Yoruba and translated into English was received in evidence as Exhibit P10A and P10 respectively.

Learned counsel for the appellant has argued in his brief that the appellant's evidence denying the commission of the offences charged is ringed with truth by the manifestly disparate signatures on Exhibits P1, P2, P9, P9A, P10 and P10A.

He contended that none of the purported signatures of the appellant on these exhibits are similar even by the most cursory examination. He said Exhibit P9A is not signed at all and submitted that an unsigned document should attract little or no weight. He further submitted that immediately the appellant denied making any confessional statement to the Police the prosecution ought to have confronted him with any of the confessional statements he allegedly made and failure to cross-examine the appellant on his evidence in-chief that "I did not confess to any police man that I am an armed robber or that I robbed anyone", amounted to an admission by the prosecution and relied on Oforlete v. State (200) 12 NWLR (Pt. 681) 415.

Exhibit P9A is the English translation of Exhibit 9 and the signature of the appellant which he is contesting is on Exhibit 9.

The appellant did not deny signing Exhibit P10 and P10A. And Section 101(1) Evidence Act provides as follows:-

"In order to ascertain whether a signature, seal or finger impression is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written or made, any signature, writing, seal or finger impression admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the court to have been written or made by that person may be compared with the one which is to be proved although that signature, writing, seal or finger impression has not been produced or proved for any other purpose".

The argument of learned counsel in which the prosecution was required to confront the appellant with his signature on other documents with the disputed one or comparing it with the disputed one can only relate to Exhibit 9 since he raised no objection whatsoever to the tendering of Exhibit P10A and P10. In Exhibit 10A the appellant was duly cautioned before he made the following statement:-

"On the 19/2/2007 at about 7.30 p.m., one Abiola Oduyemi 'm", Akeem Samba 'm', and Garuba Oduyemi 'm' came to meet me at Oke-Owa in Ijebu-Ode and we conspired together to go and rob some students of Tai Solarin University of Education at Odo-Epo after Ikoto Ijebu-Ode. It was car wash Oke-Owa that we met and Abiola Oduyemi 'm' and Garuba Oduyemi 'm' brought two short locally made guns which use cartridges and I don't know how many cartridge (sic) they were holding. We left Oke-Owa with my car which I drove by myself and we arrived at Odo-Epo at about 8 p.m. On getting to Odo-Epo, I parked my car in the front of the house where the students live. Abiola Oduyemi and Garuba Oduyemi held the two guns each. We then climbed the upstairs of the house to meet the students upstairs and Abiola Oduyemi and Garuba Oduyemi pointed guns at the students. As the operation was going on, I went downstairs and stayed with my car in the front of the house. I collected one Nokia handset from one of the students before going downstairs to stay with my car, the student I collected her handset is a girl. After sometime, the people of Odo-Epo started to ring bell and it was there Garuba Oduyemi, Abiola Oduyemi and Akeem Samba ran to me where I stayed with my car and they quickly entered the car, I drove the car with speed and the people of Odo-Epo started to pursue us. When I got to a village after Odo-Epo, the people of the village threw a stick under my car and the car could not go again. It was there everybody ran out of the car to different directions and I abandoned the car there. I ran out of the car towards Ikoto road to Express Fari. It was at Express Fari that I entered an Okada to Alumafo village where I slept with my brother Johnson Gbadamosi'm' in his house till day break. My brother Johnson Gbadamosi'm' asked of my car from me and I told him that fuel finished in it at Ibadan road area Ijebu-Ode. Ni Ojo 20/2/2007 at about 9 a.m. I went to Igbeba Police Station and reported to the Police that some robbers snatched my car from me at Imowo Junction. The Policemen at Igbeba Police Station told me to go to Atan Police Station to report there because they control Imowo. I then went to Atan Police Station and reported that some robbers snatched my Mazda car from me at Imowo Junction and they collected my statement down. I told Policemen at Atan Police Station that the robbers tied me with rope in a bush after they snatched the car from me. The Policemen then asked me who untied me. I told them that it was one hunter who untied me and that I knew the house of the hunter. It was there the Policemen asked me to take them to where they tied me and the house of the hunter. I took the Policemen to Oke-Eri village but I could not show them where I was tied and the house of the hunter who untied me. The Policemen at Atan Police Station then suspected me and they locked me in the cell. I later told the Policemen at Atan Police Station that I learnt that my car has been recovered at Ikoto Police Post. The Policemen at Atan Police Station then followed me to Ikoto Police Post where they heard that my car was used to rob by robbers. The Policemen at Atan Police Station saw the Nokia handset which I collected from a female student in my hand and they collected it from me. It is a lie I told the Policemen at Atan Police Station that robbers snatched my car from me. I am the one who drove my car to where we robbed students at Odo-Epo village. I never rob before. This is the first time I robbed with my car. I did not collect money from the students, it is only handset that I collected. My rest people collected money from there."

After making Exhibit P10A, the appellant was taken before a Superior Police Officer who endorsed the statement after it had been read over to him and he agreed it was his statement. Exhibit P10A is a clear confessional statement as defined by section 28 of the Evidence Act. A confessional statement made by an accused person and properly admitted in law is the best guide to the truth of the role played by the accused person and the court can convict the accused solely on the basis of the confessional statement. See: Ogoala v. State (1991) 2 NWLR (Pt. 175) 50; Solola v. State (2005) 11 NWLR (Pt. 937) 460; Olabode v. State (2009) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1152) 254; Onyenye v. State (2012) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1324) 586. However it is always better for a court, before convicting the accused on the said confession to test the statement as to the truth of the confession in the light of other evidence namely:-

(a) Is there anything outside it to show it is true?

(b) Is it corroborated?

(c) Are the facts stated in it true as far as can be tested? and

(d) Did the accused have the opportunity of committing the offence?

(e) Is the accused confession possible? and

(f) Is the confession consistent with other facts which have been ascertained and proved? See: Kanu v R. (1952) 14 WACA 30; R. v. Obiasa (1962) 2 SCNLR 402 at 406; Dawa v. State (1980) 8-11 SC 236; Oiegele v. State (1988) 1 NWLR (Pt. 71) 414 at 425; Qgoala v. State (1991) 2 NWLR (Pt 175) 509; Ejinima v. State (1991) 6 NWLR (Pt. 200) 627; Bassey v. State (1993) 7 NWLR (Pt. 306) 469; Egboghonome v. C.O.P. (1993) 7 NWLR (Pt. 306) 383.

PW1 and PW3 testified that they were robbed in Gloryland Odo-Epo ijebu-Ode on 19th February, 2007 and PW3 was dispossessed of her Nokia 1110 handset. On 20/2/2007 the appellant reported at Atan Police Station that his Mazda 323 with registration no. DW 910 FST was snatched from him at gun point along Ibadan Imowo Road Ijebu-Ode. Shortly after he had been asked by PW2 to produce the vehicle particulars he phoned PW2 and told him he had received information that the vehicle was found in Ikoto. It was when they went to collect the vehicle at Ikoto that PW2 became suspicious of the appellant based on the appellant's behaviour coupled with the information he got that the vehicle was recovered at the scene of the robbery, an

▲ To the top