In the Supreme Court of Nigeria Holden at Abuja On Friday, the 12th day of December, 2025 Before their Lordships Muhammad Lawal Garba Tijjani Abubakar Chioma Egondu Nwosu-Iheme Haruna Simon Tsammani Jamilu Yammama Tukur Justices, Supreme Court SC/CR/560/2021 Between Olumide Famotua Appellant And The State Respondent (Lead Judgement delivered by Honourable Tijjani Abubakar, JSC) Facts The Appellant was arraigned on a four-count Information. He was charged with the attempted murder of one Akinrisola Cyril, and with robbing him of N4,000.00 and two mobile phones while armed with a gun, on 11th September, 2016. He was further charged with robbing one Mrs Akintola Modupeola while armed with a gun on 14th October, 2016, and with murdering her in the course of that robbery. Upon his arraignment at the High Court of Ondo State, he pleaded not guilty to all counts. At the end of the trial, the court convicted the Appellant for attempted murder, armed robbery, and murder. He was accordingly sentenced to twenty-year imprisonment for attempted murder, and to death for armed robbery. The Appellant unsuccessfully appealed the decision to the Court of Appeal, Akure, which court affirmed the judgement of the trial court. Further dissatisfied with the decision of the Court of Appeal, the Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. Issue for Determination The Supreme Court adopted the sole issue formulated by the Appellant, to wit: Whether the trial court and the lower court properly evaluated the evidence adduced at the trial court, and came to the conclusion that the Appellant was guilty of the allegations in counts 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Information? Arguments On the sole issue, the Appellant submitted with respect to the count relating to Mrs Akintola, that there was no eyewitness account of what transpired at the scene; that no witness was called from among those who conveyed the victim to the Police clinic; and that no witness saw the Appellant or his belongings at the scene. He contended that no witness testified that the attackers acted to rob the deceased of her mobile phone and handbag, and that it defied common sense for a robber to expend about 17 bullets on one woman merely to obtain a mobile phone. He submitted further that the Respondent’s account of how he came into possession of the Itel phone, which he sold to PW3, was uncontradicted, so the trial court could not speculate as to how he came by it; and that the evidence on the killing and the whereabouts of the deceased’s phone and handbag was too hazy and incoherent, to ground a conviction for murder and armed robbery. He added that the prosecution proved only the first ingredient of murder through PW1, but not the second and third, and that the Appellant was not arrested at the scene. On attempted murder, the Appellant submitted that the only identification evidence linking the Appellant to the robbery of PW4 on 11th September 2016, was PW4’s own evidence, given at about 5:45 a.m. in the dark on an untarred road with no streetlight, where features such as tribal marks could barely be observed. No other witness saw the incident. He conceded that the evidence of PW4 proved that there was an armed robbery, but denied that it linked the Appellant to it. The Appellant contended that the entire judgement of the trial court was driven by sentiment, since a senior officer of the State Ministry of Justice was a victim and human life was lost in the other incident. He argued that the trial Judge did not conceal his bias, and discarded the Appellant’s evidence as lies without adequate consideration, contrary to the decision in AKINDIPE v THE STATE (2016) 15 NWLR (PT. 1536) 470, to the effect that a defence raised by an accused, however unfounded it may appear, ought to be adequately considered. Relying also on OGUNDIYAN v THE STATE (1991) 3 NWLR (PT. 181) 519, Counsel urged the Supreme Court to set aside the concurrent findings as perverse, unsupportable by evidence, and occasioning a manifest miscarriage of justice. The Respondent argued contrariwise, faulting the contention of the Appellant that the prosecution failed to discharge the onus of proof beyond reasonable doubt, stating that the contention was evidentially false, unsustainable, and unsupported by credible and legally founded argument. He submitted that this is a case of concurrent findings of fact, which the Supreme Court rarely disturbs unless the findings are unsupported by evidence, perverse, occasion a miscarriage of justice, or the lower court overlooked a principle of law or procedure, which the Appellant failed to establish. On attempted murder, the Respondent
Don't miss out on breaking stories and in-depth articles.
