This is an appeal against the judgment of C.M.I. Egole, J., of the High Court of Imo State, sitting in the Owerri Judicial Division in Suit No. HOW/39C/2006 delivered on 24th April, 2008.

The appellant as 1st accused was jointly charged with one Martin Egbujor (2nd accused) with the offence of armed robbery contrary to section 1 (2) (b) of the Robbery and Fire Arms (Special Provisions) Act, Cap. R. 11 Vol. 14, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 as applicable in Imo State.

The accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charge. The prosecution called three (3) witnesses. The appellant testified in his own defence and called two other witnesses (DW2 and DW3).

The prosecution's case was that on 23/12/05 at about 4 a.m. armed robbers invaded No 11 Etiti Street, Aladinma, Owerri, and robbed PW 1 and PW2. The PW 1 claimed to have recognized the robbers in the course of the robbery as her neighbours, PW2 did not claim so.

During a search executed in the room of the appellant, the iron rod (Exhibit P4) claimed by PW 1 to have been used on her by the robbers was recovered in the appellant's room and was identified by PW 1. The appellant, on the other hand, testified that he was sleeping in his room at No. 13 Etiti Street Aladinma, Owerri. when he too heard shouts from the neighbouring compound that woke him up. That he heard the voice of his sister, Mrs. Geraldine Ugbaja and answered. But the sister told him not to answer as the people around were armed robbers.

While still in his room, appellant said he saw somebody called pastor rushed out from the compound No. 11 Etiti Street where the robbers carried out their operation. Later the victims came out and the appellant spoke to PW2.

In his statement to the police exhibit P5, appellant stated that the rod (Exhibit P4) was kept in his room by his sister. The prosecution in this case based its case on the identification of the 1st accused by the PW 1 and also relied on Exhibit P4 (iron pipe) which the IPO (PW3) said he picked from the room of the appellant and identified as such by PW 1.

The defence insisted on lack of proper identification, lack of investigation of the (alibi) set up by the appellant and failure of PW 1 to mention the names of the robbers at the earliest opportunity. After the exchange of written addresses by counsel which were not adopted, the learned trial judge delivered his judgment, found the accused persons guilty as charged and sentenced them accordingly.

Dissatisfied with this judgment, the appellant filed a notice of appeal.