Criminal Law

PUL 301

Common Intention to
prosecute an unlawful purpose
Section 8 Criminal Code Act

 8.Offences committed in prosecution of

common purpose
 When two or more persons form a common
intention to prosecute an unlawful purpose in
conjunction with one another, and in the
prosecution of such purpose an offence is
committed of such a nature that its commission
was a probable consequence of the prosecution of
such purpose, each of them is deemed to have
committed the offence.
Section 8

 When two or more persons form a common

intention to prosecute an unlawful purpose in
conjunction with one another…
 an offence is committed of such a nature that
its commission was a probable consequence of
the prosecution of such purpose…
 EACH OF THEM IS DEEMED TO HAVE
COMMITTED THE OFFENCE
AKINLOLU v. STATE (2017) LPELR-42670(SC)

 "Even though there was no clear-cut evidence that the 2nd accused
person pulled the body of the deceased away from the murder site
to a nearby swampy area where she was buried in shallow grave
and covered with shrubs and wood, there was evidence that he was
around at all times and that all the accused persons left the murder
scene together at the same time. ?None of them reported the matter
to the police. There can be no doubt that the 1st and 2nd accused
persons, on the evidence before me were jointly concerned and
therefore CRIMINIS PARTCIPES in the murder of the victim. It is
the law that where these accused persons embarked on a joint
enterprise each is criminally liable for the act done in pursuance of
the joint enterprise and even including the usual consequence
arising from the execution of the joint enterprise”.
AKINLOLU v. STATE (2017) LPELR-42670(SC)

 Indeed, it is difficult to disagree with what the two

Courts below found in reaching their conclusion.
This is so because the appellant and his cohorts
had the common intention to rape the deceased
and in the process, one of them inflicted the fatal
injuries on the deceased with a view to concealing
the rape committed by all of them including the
appellant, that injury inflicted by one of the
accused deemed the eye of the law to have been
inflicted by all the accused present and aiding.
AKINLOLU v. STATE (2017)
LPELR-42670(SC)
 "Where more than one person are accused of joint commission of
a crime, it is enough to prove that they all participated in the
crime - see Ikemson v. The State (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 110) 455
SC wherein this Court, per Belgore, JSC (as he then was),
observed as follows - The question is - - whether there was a
robbery. If there was one, the next question is whether any of the
Appellants participated in the robbery. If they participated, that is
enough, for it does not matter what each one did in the
furtherance of the commission of the crime. The mere fact of
common object to commit armed robbery and manifesting at the
scene of the crime to execute that object in law rendered all the
Accused Persons guilty of the offence of armed robbery."
 Per AMINA ADAMU AUGIE ,J.S.C ( Pp. 85-86, paras. C-A )
DSP Godspower Nwankwoala & Anor
v. The State (2006) 12 SCM (Pt. 2) 267
 "Where more than one person are accused of joint
commission of a crime, it is enough to prove that they
all participated in the crime. What each did in
furtherance of the commission of the crime is
immaterial. The mere fact of the common intention
manifesting in the execution of the common object is
enough to render each of the accused person in the
group guilty of the offence…Where common intention
is established, a fatal blow or gun shot though given by
one of the party, is deemed in the eyes of the law to
have been given by all those present and participating."
Alarape vs. The State (2010) FWLR
(Pt. 41) 1872 at 1898 - 1894
 "The point that needs to be emphasized in these sorts of cases is
that once it is firmly established that two or more persons formed
the necessary common intention to prosecute an unlawful purpose,
an offence of such a nature of such purpose is committed, each of
them is deemed to have committed the offence. In such
circumstances, the Court, once the execution of the common
intention or design is established would be right in asserting that it
does not matter on such facts which of the accused person does
what. This is for the simple reason that under such circumstances
a fatal blow, though given by one of the accused persons involved,
is deemed in the eyes of the law to have been given by the rest of
his co-accused person. The person actually delivering the blow is
said to be no more than the hand by which the others all strike ."
Is the crime a foreseeable consequence
of the unlawful purpose?

Classwork:
Examine the facts of Akinlolu’s case and
Alarape’s case and determine whether the
crimes committed are foreseeable
consequences of the prosecution of the
unlawful purpose.
Is the crime a foreseeable consequence of the
unlawful purpose?

 In the instant case, from the available bundle of evidence

adduced by the prosecution, there was indeed an agreement
between the appellant and the 1st and 3 rd accused persons to
lure the deceased to the farm for the purpose of raping her.
The learned appellant's counsel has however argued that, if at
all, the offence that the appellant could be connected with was
rape but not murder. One wonders whether forcefully having
carnal knowledge of a woman by several persons known to
the victim is a mere tea party or play of game of ludo or draft.
It should be borne in mind that both the deceased and all her
rapists live in the same community. It cannot be imagined
that after the gang rape by the trio, including the appellant,
the deceased would be left to return home clean.
Is the crime a foreseeable
consequence of the unlawful
purpose?
 Therefore, the act of the 1st accused in stabbing
the deceased on the neck, jaw and throat before
the others took their turn in having carnal
knowledge of the deceased, in order to prevent
her from returning home to narrate the story,
was the act of only the 1st accused. It is a
necessary foreseeable act of the three accused
as none would have expected to allow her safely
return home without telling the story of her
ordeal.
WAHEED BALOGUN v. STATE (2018)
LPELR-44215(SC)


 The prosecution's case at the High Court of Oyo State holden at
Ogbomoso is that the Appellant and three other persons who are
members of Odua Peoples Congress (OPC) conspired and
kidnapped one Raji Tiamiyu, a traffic warden (policeman) at Taki
area of Ogbomoso and conveyed him in a taxi to Odo-Oba area at
the outskirt of Ogbomoso town where they took him into the bush
and shot him dead with a dane gun fired by one of them. The killing
of Raji Tiamiyu a traffic warden was carried out in revenge for the
killing of one Alfa Kasali Shittu, a member of Odua Peoples
Congress (OPC) allegedly shot by the police on the 26th November,
2002 as a result of a gun shoot out confrontation between the police
and the members of Odua Peoples Congress (OPC).
WAHEED BALOGUN v. THE
STATE
 "By taking the first oath before the deceased was
killed, the Appellant had consented to the killing
of the deceased and after the deed had been
accomplished, he joined the rest in taking the
oath of secrecy. By the procedure adopted at the
scene of the crime, the Appellant and his
accomplices had clearly formed common
intention to kill the deceased, and therefore it did
not matter who fired the gun that killed Raji
Tiamiyu.
Section 79 of the Penal Code
 Section 79 of the Penal Code states that: "When a criminal act is done by
several persons in furtherance of a common intention of all, each of such
persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him
alone." In view of the provisions of 79 supra, when several persons are
involved in a criminal act in furtherance of a common intention of all of
them, each of them is liable for that act as if it were done by him alone.
All the three elements in Section 79 of the Penal Code are present, and
they are: (a) There was common intention of the Appellant and his co-
accused person to commit armed robbery; (b) In furtherance of the
armed robbery properties of the victims were stolen at gun point. (c) The
robbery, stealing with violence satisfies the law and in the circumstances
the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable ground”
 Per OLABODE RHODES-VIVOUR ,J.S.C ( P. 16, paras. A-F ) in
ASIMI v. STATE (2016) LPELR-40436(SC)