Joseph Okosun V. The State (1979)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

G. IRIKEFE, J.S.C.

Before the Robbery and Firearms Tribunal of the then Mid-Western State of Nigeria (now Bendel State) the above appellant was charged as follows:

“That you Joseph Okosun (m) on the 20th day of September, 1973 at Benin City in the Mid-Western State of Nigeria robbed one Amenaghawon Igbinovia (f) of a tape recorder values N100 and at the time of the robbery you were armed with a knife and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 1(2)(a) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Decree “No. 47 of 1970. ” For the prosecution, it was proved that in the morning of 20th September, 1979 when P.W.4 a civil servant, who lived at No. 32 Nosayaba Street, West Circular Road, Benin City was leaving for work, he left his junior sister, P.W.1 (the complainant) in the house.

The door to the 4th P. W’s apartment from the street was closed (but not locked). This door opened into 4th P. W’s sitting room (parlour) while another door led from there into the rear of the premises. This door was similarly shut but not locked). Among the personal effects of P. W.4 in the sitting room that day, were a radiogram, a tape recorder and a record player.

The tape recorder and the record player were placed on top of the radiogram. P. W.1 remained in the sitting room for some time after P. W. 4 had gone to work and at about 11.30am., she decided to go into her own room in the house. While there, she heard a noise coming from the direction of the sitting room and decided to go and investigate. On getting there, she saw the appellant standing close to the radiogram while the record player (one of the two items previously lying on top of the said radiogram) had been removed by someone unknown and placed near the front door.

At this point in time, the front door was still shut and when P.W.1 challenged the appellant about his presence in the sitting room, he brought out a knife and threatened to stab her with it if she uttered a word. P.W.1 thereupon quickly rushed out through the rear door, locked it from behind with a key which she kept with her. P. W.1 then rushed to the front of the house from the rear, held on to front door from the outside in an endeavour to prevent the appellant from coming out through it and began to shout. Her shouting attracted several persons to the scene. Among those who came to the scene were: P. W .2, P. W.3 and P. W.4. The people outside were able to see the appellant where he was in the sitting room through the louvres on the window.

While the appellant was still threatening to kill anyone who came near him, P.W.2 (one of those who ran to the scene and father of P.W.4) rushed to the rear of the premises to fetch an iron rod with which, after some struggle, he was able to dislodge from the appellant one of the knives he was holding.

The printed record of the case shows that after the first knife had been smashed into two by the blow from P. W’s iron rod, the appellant pulled out another knife, but this was also knocked out of his grip before he was eventually overpowered and held down.

Shortly after this, the police who were brought to the scene by P.W.4, took the appellant away into custody.

The appellant testified to his defence and stated that he found himself at No. 32, Nosayaba Street in his attempt to trace the resident of a friend, a Lieutenant Olukoya of the Nigerian Army. He had stood at the front of this address after he had seen through a window of the house that someone in the sitting room was playing records. He had knocked on the front door which was opened by P. W.1. He asked if she could help him in regard to his quest for Olukoya and she suggested that he should sit down until the record then on the player came to an end. She had in the meantime assured him that some army officers lived behind her house.

When the record stopped playing, he and P. W.1 got up and came out into the street in order to commence the search for Olukoya. As they did this, it occurred to the appellant that P. W.1 bore a striking resemblance to someone he knew and he told her so. The apparently harmless remark drew anger from P.W.1 who, there and then, formed the view that the appellant was trying to take liberties with her. She stated that she was married and that it was a flagrant breach of their native custom for a married woman to be spoken to in the manner that the appellant had done.

She then began to shout, calling appellant a “thief’ and all efforts by the appellant to apologise and remonstrate with her fell on deaf ears. The shouting by P.W.1 brought other persons to the scene and these others had assisted in forcibly taking him back to the sitting room of P. W.4. To the crowd then assembled P.W.1 falsely complained that he had tried to make love to her by force and also that he was a thief. It was only after P. W.4 had come home that the record player (the subject of the charge) was brought down from where it was placed near him and the allegation made that he had tried to steal it. In short, in the eyes of the appellant, the case made against him by the prosecution was fabricated.

The tribunal, after receiving the above evidence, listened to addresses by counsel and adjourned for judgment.

In its judgment, the tribunal accepted the case made by the prosecution and rejected that of the appellant. It accordingly convicted him and sentenced him to death either by hanging or by firing squad as might be deemed appropriate.