Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

Victor Vs. State (2013) CLR 6(a) (SC)

Judgement delivered on June 14th 2013

Brief

  • Armed robbery
  • Section 1 (2) (a) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act
  • Alibi

Facts

The Appellant and three other persons were arraigned before the High Court of Justice, Akwa-lbom on three (3) count charge of armed robbery contrary to Section 1 (2) (a) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions), Cap 398 Vol. 22 Laws of the Federation.

Counsel to both parties addressed the court on "no case submission" which was rejected by the trial court, and the accused persons entered their defence.

After the closure of the defence case, both parties addressed the court. The trial court in its judgment found the accused persons guilty and convicted them for the offence of armed robbery and they were all sentenced to death by hanging or to face firing squad. At page 113 of the record, the trial court concludes thus:-

"The evidence of the prosecution witness were not dislodge under the search lights of cross-examination…….. I find and hold that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable (sic) doubt against the 1st and 2nd accused persons as charged I find them guilty. Victor Essien victor and Charles Kingsely Joe, by virtue of Section 1 (3) of Armed Robbery and Firearms (special provisions) Act, Cap. 398, Vol. 22 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990, you shall either be hanged by the neck until you die or face death by firing squad, as it shall please the Government of Akwa-Ibom State to determine."

The appellant in this case was dissatisfied with the decision of the trial court and has as a result un-successfully appealed to the Court of Appeal, Calabar Division, hereinafter called the lower court.

On the 5th day of May, 2009, the lower court dismissed the appeal for lack of merit and affirmed the judgment of the trial court.

The appellant was again dissatisfied with this judgment and has again appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues

  • 1
    Whether the court of Appeal was right in holding that the appellant had...
  • Read More