CASE TITLE: ABIFARIN v. STATE (2026) LPELR-84286(SC)
JUDGMENT DATE: 22ND MAY, 2026
PRACTICE AREA: CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE
LEAD JUDGMENT: MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.S.C.
SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:
INTRODUCTION:
This appeal borders on Criminal Law and Procedure.
FACTS:
This appeal emanated from the decision of the Court of Appeal, Ekiti State.
On 21st December, 2013, the Appellant, alongside two other persons, forcefully gained entry into the complainant’s house and robbed him of the sum of N250,000.00 (Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira only). During the robbery operation at about 9:00pm, PW1 (the son of the complainant), who lived next to his parent’s house, heard their cry and went to enquire what was happening. When he arrived at his parent’s house, he saw the Appellant and two other persons there, and he was ordered to kneel down. The younger brother of PW1 arrived at his parent’s house when he found out that PW1 was yet to return. PW1 told his younger brother that the Appellant and the two other persons were armed robbers and not policemen. The younger brother of PW1 engaged in a scuffle with one of the robbers, and he sustained a machete cut to his face as a result.
The Appellant then attempted to escape with his motorcycle but was overpowered and eventually arrested and subsequently charged with the offence of armed robbery contrary to Section 1(2)(a) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act. He pleaded not guilty to the sole count.
In the course of trial, the Respondent called two (4) witnesses, while the Appellant testified in his defence and did not call any other witness. At the conclusion of trial, the trial Court found the Appellant guilty of armed robbery and sentenced him to death by hanging.
Dissatisfied by the decision of the trial Court, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, Ekiti Division. The Court of Appeal in its decision affirmed the judgment of the trial Court.
Still dissatisfied with the decision of the Court of Appeal, the Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal to the Apex Court.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:
The appeal was determined on the following issues:
1) Whether the information dated 04/01/16, which the Appellant pleaded to, was valid and whether he was not misled as to the charge before the trial Court.
2) Whether the Court below was right in holding that the Respondent proved its case against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt and in affirming the conviction and sentence of the Appellant for the offence of armed robbery.
DECISION/HELD:
The appeal was lacking in merit and was thereby dismissed in its entirety.
RATIOS:
- CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE- AMENDMENT OF CHARGE: Whether a fresh plea must be made where there is an amendment to a charge
- CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE- AMENDMENT OF CHARGE: Distinction between amendment and correction of a charge
- CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE- CHARGE(S): Appropriate time to object to a formal defect in a charge; the consequence of failure to do so
- CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE- CHARGE(S): The presumption as to the satisfaction of court in relation to the charge read to an accused
- CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE- CHARGE(S): Whether an accused person who has not been misled by the charges against him can be heard to complain about same
- CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE- OFFENCE OF ROBBERY/ARMED ROBBERY: Ingredients required to be proved by the prosecution to establish the offence of armed robbery; whether the ingredients must co-exist
To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol
