–
REX
V.
GBENU JHUNU AND ANOTHER
THE WEST AFRICAN COURT OF APPEAL HOLDEN AT LAGOS, NIGERIA
7TH DAY OF APRIL, 1943
2PLR/1943/37 (WACA)
OTHER CITATION(S)
2PLR/1943/37 (WACA)
(1943) IX WACA P. 61
LEX (1943) – IX WACA P. 61
BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS:
DONALD KINGDON, C.J., NIGERIA
PETRIDES, C.J., GOLD COAST
GRAHAM PAUL, C.J., SIERRA LEONE
–
BETWEEN:
REX – Respondent
AND
1. GBENU JHUNU
2. HOTEYIN KUNBONU – Appellants
–
ORIGINATING COURT(S)
HIGH COURT OF THE IBADAN DIVISION IN A TRIAL HELD AT ABEOKUTA
–
REPRESENTATION
S. A. McKinstry — for Crown
Appellants in person
–
ISSUE(S) FROM THE CAUSE(S) OF ACTION
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE:— Burglary and Stealing — Inadequacy of sentences by trial court — How determined — Relevant considerations
–
CASE SUMMARY
Appellants were members of an unarmed gang of eight men who burgled a house by force. They were sentenced to 3 years’ I.H.L. each.
–
DECISION(S) OF THE WEST AFRICAN COURT OF APPEAL
Held that:
1. There was evidence that the two appellants were part of a gang who descended by night to burgle a house by force.
2. The public must be protected against burglary of this nature carried out by gangs by the imposition of penalties more severe than the three years’ I.H.L. awarded in this case, even though there is no evidence that either of the accused or any other members of the gang were armed.
3. If there had been such evidence of the accused being armed, even a more severe punishment would have been called for.
Sentence inadequate. Sentences increased to 5 years’ I.H.L.
–
–
MAIN JUDGMENT
The following joint judgment was delivered:-
KINGDON, C.J., NIGERIA, PETRIDES, C.J., GOLD COAST AND GRAHAM PAUL, C.J., SIERRA LEONE.
In this case the appellants were convicted in the High Court of the Ibadan Division in a trial held at Abeokuta of Burglary and Stealing and sentenced each to three years’ I.H.L.
The facts proved were that the two appellants were part of a gang of eight men who descended by night upon the house of one Ogunbiyi and burgled his house by force.
We are of opinion that the public must be protected against burglary of this nature carried out by gangs by the imposition of penalties more severe than the three years’ I.H.L. awarded in this case, even though in this case there is no evidence that either of the accused or any other members of the gang were armed. If there had been such evidence, a punishment even more severe than that which we are about to impose would have been called for.
In the case of each appellant the sentence passed at the trial is quashed and in substitution therefor each appellant is sentenced to five years’ I.H.L.