ANOWELE V. THE STATE (1965) LCER-351(SC) #
Case Summary #
This appeal borders on the offence of Housebreaking and stealing.
Brief Facts: #
This appeal originates from the High Court of Eastern Nigeria. The two appellants, along with two others, were convicted on several charges: (1) conspiracy to commit housebreaking and theft; (2) breaking into a store; (3) theft of goods from the store; (4) possession of housebreaking tools at night; (5) possession of shortened firearms; and (6) possession of cartridges.
The appellant has appealed to the Supreme Court specifically against the conviction under count 4. It is acknowledged that the first appellant, in whose portmanteau the crowbar and hammer were found, was rightly convicted on this count.
Legal Issues: #
The Court considered the argument of the appellant on his conviction on Count 4 together with their complaint against their sentence that it was wrong to make the terms of seven years on the 1st count of conspiracy and of fourteen years on the 2nd count of store breaking run consecutively on the ground that they were in substance one transaction.
Ratio Decidendi #
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION – Whether unlawful possession of weapon by one of two or more persons for a common object is the possession of all #
“Mr Emembolu for the State referred to Reg. v. George Thompson (1869) 11 Cox, 362. There the trial Court reserved the question whether the possession of housebreaking implements by one of two persons for a common object is the possession of each; and the Court of Crown Cases Reserved, after hearing argument for the prisoner, said as follows: “The possession of one is the possession of all. Under the Game Laws it has been held that where several persons go out poaching in the night time, and one is armed with a gun, all are armed: (See Reg. v. Goodfellow & Anor, 1 Den. C.C.81).” We adopt that view: it is but common sense. Per VAHE ROBERT BAIRAMIAN, JSC in ANOWELE V. THE STATE (1965) LCER-351SC) (Pp 1 – 2, Paras F – C)
Decision/Held: #
On the whole, the Court dismissed the appeal of the first appellant against his conviction. The appeal of the second appellant was dismissed on counts 1,2,3,4 but was allowed in counts 5 and 6 where the verdict of acquittal was entered, the Court further ordered that the terms imposed on the first appellant shall run together, but otherwise the High Court Order on sentence shall stand and the terms imposed on the second appellant in regard to counts 5 and 6 be quashed but that on counts 1, 2, 3 and 4 shall stand but they run together.