The Appellant, as second Defendant, and two other Defendants were arraigned before the Lagos State High Court on a two-Count Charge of conspiracy to commit robbery and robbery. They were alleged to have used a toy gun to attack and rob a motorcycle rider and his passenger and dispossessed them of the sum of N500 and N1,500 respectively.

At the trial, the Prosecution called a sole Witness, Friday Ojiemen, a Policeman attached to the Special Anti-Robbery Squad (SARS), lkeja, and he tendered the Statement made by the Appellant to the Police. However, Defence Counsel objected to the admissibility of the said Statement in evidence because "the Defendant denied writing the Statement, the Defendant alleged duress in obtaining the Statement."

In the circumstances, the trial Court conducted a trial-within-trial, and after its Ruling of 20/4/2012 wherein the Appellant's confessional Statement was admitted in evidence as Exhibit P2, it adjourned the matter to '6th, 12th and 13th of June 2012", for continuation of the trial.

The trial could not proceed on 6/6/2012 because the Officer that the Prosecution intended to call was away "on a special assignment", and 12/6/2012 was a public holiday. On 13/6/2012, Friday Ojiemen, who was to continue his evidence in chief as PW1, was "not available", and the case was adjourned to "03/07/2012 for continuation of trial'.

On the next date on Record, 2/10/2012, Prosecution Counsel asked for another adjournment and the Defence Counsel opposed same. But in acceding to Prosecution Counsel's plea for one more adjournment, the learned trial Judge, I. O. Kasali, J., stated as follows at page 156 – I am reluctantly adjourning the 2007 matter at the instance of the Prosecution for the last time. I am, however, putting it on record that the Prosecution on the next adjourned must close its case by assembling all Witnesses to testify on the next adjourn (sic) date failing which the Court will close the Prosecution case and call on the Defendant to open their defence. Case adjourned to 31/10/2012 for continuation of trial.

On 31/10/2012 PW1 was in Court, but the Defence Counsel said he was not ready to proceed with the trial as he had "a medical problem".

In objecting to his application, the Prosecution Counsel stated that – We have difficulty in getting our witnesses. PW1 is a busy Officer, any attempt to adjourn will not be in the interest of justice.

PW1 continued with his evidence. A toy gun was admitted in evidence through him as Exhibit P3, and the case was "adjourned to 6/12/2012 for cross-examination of CW1 (PW1) and open the Defendant case."

On 30/1/2013, when the case came up again, PW1 was in Court, but Defence Counsel was absent. This time, the trial Court noted that: It is very unfortunate that the Defendant Counsel is not taking this 2007 matter serious. On 31/10/2012, when he was to cross-examine CW1 he did not and he applied for a date to cross examine CW1. The matter was adjourn (sic) to 6/12/2012. On 6/12/2012, the Defendants were present, none of the Counsel were in Court, the Court did not sit as the Court was bereaved and this matter was adjourned to 10/1/2013. On 10/1/2013, the Defendants were also present, the Prosecutor Counsel was in Court, but the Defendant Counsel was absent, the Court did not sit, it was on the day Hon. Justice Ayo was buried and this matter was adjourn (sic) till today. Today, when the matter was called, the State was represented, the Defendants are present but the Defendant Counsel is equally absent. The business of the Court for today is for cross-examination of CW1 and for the Defendant to open their defence. CW1 is present. I am, however, putting it on Record that if by the next adjourn date, the Defendant Counsel is not ready to cross-examine CW1, CW1 will be discharged and the Court will call on the State to file written address. Case adjourned to 06/03/2013 for continuation of trial. CW1 to be cross-examined by Defendant Counsel, the Defendants to open their defence.

On 6/3/2013, the Defence Counsel was absent and the trial Court said: The Court has given more than enough opportunity to the Defendant Counsel to cross-examine PW1, the only Witness for the Prosecution, yet the Defendant Counsel did not make use of the opportunity. The Application by the Assistant Chief State Counsel for the State to foreclose the right of cross examination by the Defendant counsel is meritoriding (sic). I hereby close the right of the Defendant to cross-examine PW1. PW1 is hereby discharged. This matter is adjourned to 30/04/1013 for Defence.

On 30/4/2013, a new Defence Counsel appeared for the "Defendant" and sought an adjournment to get processes from the former Counsel, and the case was adjourned to 14/5/2013 for defence. The Appellant testified as DW2 on 14/5/2013, when the Defence opened their case. But the trial Court, in its Judgment of 1/4/2014, found him guilty as charged, and convicted and sentenced him to 21 years imprisonment.

The Appellant then appealed to the Court of Appeal, and one of his complaints against the trial Court's decision was that the trial Court had "erred in law when it foreclosed (his) right to cross-examine PW1". But in its Judgment delivered on 2/3/2018, the Court of Appeal held –

It is obvious that adequate opportunity was given to the defence to cross examine CW1. It would have been a different thing if the Court did not bend backwards to a point of breaking just to give the Appellant on opportunity to cross examine Prosecution Witnesses. The right is not open ended. Once on opportunity is not used, the Court must move on. The Witness taken but awaiting cross examination cannot also be made to continuously appear in Court unending. I do not agree with the Appellant that he was not given on opportunity. Failure to exercise the opportunity given cannot be the fault of the Court below. Consequently, the right to fair hearing of the Appellant was not breached and he cannot be heard to complain. Trials are not overstretched merely because a Party is not ready to utilize an opportunity given for the party to take a step. Appellant was represented by Counsel on all the dates the Court below took a step in the proceedings leading to the Appellant's conviction and sentence. Furthermore, the decision taken by Counsel cannot be challenged nor questioned by the Court. Counsel had unfettered authority to handle the matter the way he deemed fit. It is clear that the initial Counsel did not even have any regard nor respect for the Court. For all the times he was absent from the proceedings, there was no record that he wrote the Court to explain his absence. It is expected that Counsel should show respect to the Court and always write to explain absence from Court. That is simply extending courtesy to the Court and is the ideal conduct and behaviour of Counsel before any Court. The Appellant cannot find refuge under fair hearing. He is bound by what the second Counsel also did, by not recalling the only witness for the prosecution. The Court cannot under any guise question that decision. Flowing from above, the issues having been resolved against the Appellant, the Appeal lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. The judgment of the trial Court decided on 1/4/2014 by Hon. justice I. O, Kasali is hereby affirmed. I make no order as to cost.

Further aggrieved, he filed a Notice of Appeal containing two Grounds of Appeal in this Court.