The Appellants were charged with the offence of conspiracy to commit an offence contrary to section 384 whereas in the second count, they were charged with the offence of armed robbery contrary to section 287 A both of the Penal Code. The trial court found that there was no evidence proving the offence of conspiracy as a cognate offence. They were however convicted on the second count and sentenced to 30 years’ imprisonment. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial court, they appealed to the High Court. Their appeal was unsuccessful hence this second appeal.
The Appellants argued that their conviction was based on insufficient evidence of identification, cautioned statements which were retracted/repudiated by the Appellants. They stated that the judge erred in failing to find that the evidence of identification parade was invalid because the conduct of the parade was irregular. They also stated that their defence raised a reasonable doubt in the prosecution case but it was ignored.