AMEH V. THE PEOPLE OF LAGOS STATE (2025) 12 NWLR (PT. 2000) 559
ON MEANING OF ROBBERY
By section 15(1) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act, Cap. 398 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004, robbery means stealing accompanied with threat of violence or actual use of violence to any person or property in order to obtain or retain the thing stolen or to prevent or overcome resistance to its being stolen or retained. [State v. Yamusissika (1974) LPELR 3230; Adeleke v. State (2013) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1381) 556; Ibrahim v. State (2014) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1394) 305; Agboola v. State (2013) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1366) 619 referred to.] (P. 579, paras. D-G)
AMEH V. THE PEOPLE OF LAGOS STATE (2025) 12 NWLR (PT. 2000) 559
ON INGREDIENTS OF OFFENCE OF ROBBERY
The constitutive elements of robbery are that:
(a) there was a robbery or series of robbery;
(b) the robbery was carried out with the threat or actual use of violence on the victim;
(c) the items of the victim which were capable in law of being stolen were stolen; and
(d) the accused person was the robber or one of the robbers.
[Otti v. State (1991) 8 NWLR (Pt. 207) 103; Awosika v. State (2018) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1643) 446; Onuorah v. People of Lagos State (2025) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1977) 575 referred to.] (Pp. 579–580, paras. G-A)
Per UMAR, J.S.C. at page 580, paras. A-F:
“From the briefs before this court, there is no dispute on the first three elements of robbery enumerated above. The dispute in the briefs focuses on only the fourth element of the offence. That is the identity or identification of the appellant as one of the robbers. The appellant’s grouse as articulated by counsel under issue No. 1 is that the police officers instead of taking the PW1 to the appellant at the hospital bed to identify the appellant, they ought to have conducted an identification parade to determine the identity of the appellant as one of the robbers who robbed the PW1 hinging his argument on the fact that the appellant was not arrested at the scene of the crime, that the PW1 did not know the appellant before the robbery incident and that the PW1’s sight was impaired due to darkness at the scene of the crime such that the PW1 could not have had a clear view of her attackers. However, it is my candid view that the circumstances of arresting the appellant coupled with the eyewitness account of the PW1 dispel any conclusion that the appellant is not one of the robbers who attacked the PW1 on the fateful day. It is akin to arresting the appellant at the scene of the crime. The PW1 was beaten and robbed of her ring and cash right inside the car. Where then is the scene of the crime? Of course, the interior of the car is the scene of the crime and the appellant along with his confederates was found and arrested inside the car a short while after the PW1 was robbed. Therefore, the contention that the police officers ought to have conducted an identification parade because the appellant was not arrested at the scene of the crime is clearly misguided.”
KEHINDE ISMAILA V. THE STATE (2025) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1995) 153
ON INGREDIENTS OF ARMED ROBBERY
To establish the offence of armed robbery, the prosecution must prove that a robbery occurred, that the robbery was armed, and that the accused participated in the robbery. All three elements are necessary for a conviction. The court referred to Friday v. State (2024), Bozin v. State (1985), Alabi v. State (1993), Osetola v. State (2012), and Eke v. State (2011) to support this principle. (Pp. 172, paras. B-C)
KEHINDE ISMAILA V. THE STATE (2025) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1995) 153
ON CULPABILITY OF UNARMED PERSON IN COMPANY OF ARMED PERSONS
Under section 1 of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act, an unarmed participant with armed robbers is treated as an armed robber. [Musa v. State (2018); F.R.N. v. Usman (2012); Alor v. State (1997)] (P. 176, paras. B-C)
IKENNA OBI. V. THE STATE (2025) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1995) 69
On Ingredients of offence of armed robbery
The prosecution, in order to succeed in a case of armed robbery, must prove beyond reasonable doubt that:
(a) there was a robbery or series of robberies;
(b) the robbery or each of the robberies was an armed robbery; and
(c) the accused defendant was the person or one of those who committed the robbery.
In the instant case, the evidence of PW1 was very unequivocal that she was robbed of her handbag containing her Nokia telephone handset and N10,000 at gun point by the appellant and his co-convict 2nd February 2009. It was because of her shouting that the appellant and his co-convict were apprehended by some people after a pursuit and she immediately identified the appellant as one of the people who robbed her. PW2 was the person who prevented the appellant and his co-convict from being lynched by the people who apprehended them. He later invited the Police to the scene to take away the appellant and his co-convict. The appellant was also positively identified in court by PW2. The question of the appellant’s identity did not arise in this case as he was clearly identified by the two prosecution witnesses. So, the prosecution succeeded in proving beyond reasonable doubt that there was a robbery on 2nd February 2009; that PW1 was its victim; that one of the robbers was armed with a gun during the robbery; and that the appellant was one of those who committed the robbery. [Attah v. State (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1201) 190; Igabele v. State (2006) 6 NWLR (Pt. 975) 100; Mohammed v. State (2024) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1941) 385 referred to.] (Pp. 83-84, paras. E-D)
SUNDAY V. STATE [2024]10 NWLR (PT. 1945) 177 SC
WHETHER FACT THAT WEAPON USED FOR THE COMMISSION OF ARMED ROBBERY IS FAKE IS MATERIAL
It is immaterial whether the weapon used for the commission of armed robbery is fake or not. What is material is the feeling of fear that the victim had at seeing the “weapon”. It is the intention of the user, and the manner of its usage to threaten, and the feeling of being threatened by the victim, that make the weapon an “arm” and changes the offence from simple stealing to “armed robbery”. Thus, in this case, the carved wooden guns qualified as “firearms” because of the use to which they were employed. Whether the pistol was a real pistol or an unloaded pistol was immaterial so long as it has successfully been used to threaten the victim to succumb to the stealing or whatever other crimes committed. (P. 199, paras. A-D).