n Compulaw - 1st Indigenous Digital Law Library
Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

Ukpabi V. State (2004) CLR 6(e) (SC)

Judgement delivered on June 18th 2004

Brief

  • Concurrent finding of fact
  • Identification of accused person

Facts

Briefly, one Samuel Sunday (p.w.2), a petty trader, was taking his wares to the market on 11 July, 1978 along Ngwa Road, Aba in the early hours of the morning. At about 5 a.m. he was accosted by a man whose name he later knew to be Christopher Okereke Ukpabi. He is the Appellant. The said p.w.2 was carrying a bag on his head and holding a hand bag. The Appellant stopped him and ordered him to search his own person. The first instinct of the Appellant was to resist. At that stage, two other persons appeared on the scene. One of them who wore a mask held a gun. The Appellant asked p.w.2 to choose between searching himself and death. This frightened p.w.2 and he surrendered his wares together with N25.00 in cash to the men. The wares were 80 dozens of headties valued at N315.00 and 50 pieces of gowns valued at N200.00. Also taken from him were his wrapper cloth, a pair of trousers, one shin, a towel, a portfolio and some documents.

The men gave p.w.2 a warning to continue in the direction he was going and not to look back. He did as he was directed and after some distance he hid somewhere along the said Ngwa Road. Later, he retraced his steps to go home to report his experience. It was on his way back that he recognised the Appellant buying some cigarettes at a small store at the park along Ngwa Road. He gripped him and a crowd of people gathered. One of the people called in the police. The p.w.2 said he was able to recognise the Appellant from his face and the way he walked with his lame leg.

The Appellant in his testimony claimed to be a beggar who had come from Arochukwu to Aba and that he did not live on Ngwa Road. He admitted that on 11th July, 1978, the p.w.2 came round to lay hands on him and both began to fight. He said p.w.1 was one of those who came to intervene. In the testimony of the p.w.1 he confirmed that he saw p.w.2 and the Appellant exchange words. He said p.w.2 demanded from the Appellant to return his property but the Appellant asked whether p.w.2 had come to take advantage of his deformity.

The Appellant made a statement to p.w.3, Sgt. Oto Ebere. In it he said he was having a drink with two other boys in a hotel along Ngwa Road on 11 July. 1978 around 6 a.m when he had an encounter with the Appellant. He claimed that the two boys worked and lived in that hotel. He added:

  • “Then one man brought a bag and a waterproof bag. He said we should guard the bags for him and he was going to bring another bag. Immediately he was going one of the workers whom I was chatting with carried the portfolio and the bag and said that he was going to keep them upstairs."
  • He said further in the statement that he had gone out to change his dress and that it was:-

    • “When I came out the boy who brought me to the Police Station gripped me when I demanded whether he had collected his bags from the upstairs because I saw the boy when he carried it (sic) upstairs and said that he was going to keep it for safe" (sic)
    • The learned trial Judge considered the evidence carefully and made findings of fact (1) that p.w.2 was indeed robbed of those items, as enumerated, on 11 July, 1978 along Ngwa Road'. (2) that one of those who robbed him wore a mask and held a gun: (3) that the Appellant was the first person who accosted p.w.2; (4) that p.w.2 saw his face. The learned trial Judge held that although the Appellant did not himself hold a gun, he was caught by the principle of common intention and common purpose as stated in section 7(a) of the Criminal Code (section 8 of the Criminal Code of Western Nigeria) and as applied in Digbehin v. The Queen (1961) 1 All NLR 388 at 391 per Brett JSC. The Court of Appeal concurred with those findings and the law as applied. His appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed on 21 March, 2002 as the Court of Appeal concurred with those findings and the law as applied. Dissatified, Appelant appealed further to the Supreme Court.

    Issues

    Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right in affirming the...

    Read More