llwrharg•IJ- f o ,t 1. r i:- l 11r ( ou, t 1·, on,~ n ( Arm1.-d robh@ry onlv r ouri~I I rhargt• for a t l f"l nµti·ci "' n1ecl I ubt.;,~, y 1 h(\r t> no •~ tor rne St.He r.annot at th14, 4 pomt bq;II\ t o l rilk ol ( onv1ct1uri/t1llt-rnptt-d robbery wtH.:n tht> court ''> no t r hl· ~l? ,~t?d of t hl' wh o lP 1:v1dtnce bdort: ,t "has the prosecution qu1,-,uon ,,., mode out a prima /a cie case oqotnst thi> defendants > Th,c, ,,., the formu lat e for dl•ter1ni nt1t11 n ar tJ ,. 1 \,s ft t I shofl 1\\ue (\ r t '1U 1 •\ c towc1 l tu• Pw l I'> th e Police lnvest,gat1ng Off ,cpr (IPUJ th,l P :. l ,s tlw ch,lo ot tfw coniplaman t ·m Coun t J while th e• Pw ~ ,.• thn co,11pl.1111, 111t • ,,. \t t 1\ looL oa t h d oes not >uppor t t lw c ll,u 1,, o f .,11w•c! '<>bl • , , Llt th t..·•r •• .r1clence on tu 11wd ,ohb.-r tM!) I been defin ed as ·and I quolt.. violen ce, u sed or threa tc:>ned ,J<, dc• f 11wd STATE (201 l) LPl:I R - 113 ~ (",( (1990) 9 \•·t 11l 11 th~· Cci•.•· ,A EMMANU EL El<E v THE ~ht· ~ ARUNA v THE STATE 1,t 10 5( Whil e robbery Il a) bel'n dl.'lmt:d 1mmed1at e ly befor e o r dft e , til e 11111t• of \tc,1ling ,t l1~m~ 0 1 ov c: r to me , l'~r•:d,tlltt· o l 11 H'lclH1 being -.tolPn 1h al or o, thr~alemng to use otn.un o, actu al violen ce lO any pe, '>O il or p,upl·t ti n l rn,·, lt sto len or to prev en t ,m Hung .incl ~thdtn~ ,1~ lhe t hing 01 1 l' tcuned ' Per Pet er -Odil, JSC in t he cdse u f TAOHEK ADEL EKE v THE STATE (2013 } LPELR - 20971 (SC) . I have look ed Jt t h e ev1dL1 fltl' ol all t hft'L' µro<:,ecu t 10n w,tness e-.; and ther e is n owhere they gav e ev1de1Ke 0f ;rnyHw,g being stole n or th rea tened to be stolen through viol ence All the ev id ence led point s t o u se of violence or assault on the Pw 2 and Pw3 by the defendan ts allegedly This fact has been admitted by t he pro secu t111 g uJu11':iel 111 t, 1<:, addrl:' ~~ wh en he suggests th at an attempt at armed robbery w a) prov ed and I hold tha t ,n suc h a matt er is bound only by th e charge before it, see the case of STATE ·. !,Ills----1s t lw - - - - Jt 1dy,1 11v11 1 dvl 1v(• 1 (·d liy I l 1J11 I 11 ' , l 111 , I l / \ () 11v1• I 11 I 11 1 , • co urt v IBRAHIM (2014) ' 11() 1 ' (11 H 111 1 - • c1