Having being corroborated by the evidence of 1st Defendant as DW1 and confirmed by the oral evidence of the 2nd Defendant as DW2, this court believed the evidence of PW4 and accepted it as the truth of what happened on the date of the incident. In the case of Oyeyemi V. State (2019) 34 WRN 75 at 91, the court clarified the position of the law that in robbery cases, it is not a requirement of the law that all the accused persons must be armed with an offensive or dangerous weapon as it suffices if one is armed. The court said:“The law is that it is not the requirement of the law that all the accused persons must be armed with dangerous weapon, the offence is complete once an offensive weapon is used by either of the accused persons.” - Bello V. State (2007) 10 WRN p 564. - Osetola V. State (2012) 17 NWLR pt 1329 p 343. - Adekoya V. State (2017) 18 WRN 1. Furthermore, Exhibit ‘B’ which is a bond to produce Exhibit, shows that a Vivo model handset white colour was released to one Masa’udu Mohammed of Sama Road Gwiwa Area, Sokoto by the Exhibit Keeper of Sokoto State CID who testified as PW1 in person of Inspector Abubakar Ahmad on the 21/12/2018 which further corroborated the evidence of PW4 that one Mas’ud was violently dispossessed of his white Vivo handset during the robbery incident. In view of all the foregoing pieces of evidence, I am in complete agreement with the prosecution that the prosecution has proved all the essential elements of the offence of robbery contrary to Section 298(b) Page 18 of 27