FIRST BANK OF NIGERIA PLC. V KAYODE ABRAHAM
May 28, 2025HONOURABLE GOZIE AGBAKOBA VS INEC & ORS
May 28, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2008-12) Legalpedia (SC) 18215
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Dec 19, 2008
Suit Number: SC 301/2006
CORAM
GEORGE ADESOLA OGUNTADE, , JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
GEORGE ADESOLA OGUNTADE, , JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
GEORGE ADESOLA OGUNTADE, , JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
IKECHI FRANCIS OGBUAGU, (Lead Judgment), JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
GEORGE ADESOLA OGUNTADE, , JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
MAHMUD MOHAMMED, (Lead Judgment), JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
IKECHI FRANCIS OGBUAGU, (Lead Judgment), JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
GEORGE ADESOLA OGUNTADE, , JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
MAHMUD MOHAMMED, (Lead Judgment), JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
ALOYSIUS IYORGYER KATSINA-ALU, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
IKECHI FRANCIS OGBUAGU, (Lead Judgment), JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
GEORGE ADESOLA OGUNTADE, , JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
CHRISTOPHER MITCHEL CHUKWUMA-ENEH,,M JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT.
PARTIES
AGBONMWANRE OMOREGIE. APPELLANTS
THE STATE
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
This appeal is against the judgment of the Court of Appeal Benin Division which dismissed the appeal filed by the Appellant against the judgment of the trial High Court, which rejected the defence of the Appellant that he only acted in self defence in inflicting the injuries that caused the death of the deceased and thereby convicting the Appellant of the offence of murder and sentencing him to death.
HELD
The Supreme Court held that the defence of self-defence did not avail the accused person.
ISSUES
1. Whether the defence of self-defence raised by the appellant in his second statement to the police (Exhibit P.3) was belated as to justify the failure of the police to investigate same?
2. Whether the learned justices of the Court of Appeal were right to hold that the learned trial judge properly disbelieved the appellant’s evidence of self-defence?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
CONDITIONS AN APPELLANT MUST SHOW TO SUCCEED IN A PLEA OF SELF-DEFENCE
The Appellant to avail himself of this defence, however, must show that his life was so much endangered by the act of the deceased that the only option that was open to him to save his own life was to kill the deceased. He must show that he did not want to fight and that he was at all material times prepared to withdraw.
ATTITUDE OF APPELLATE COURT TO CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT BY LOWER COURTS
The law is well settled that the Supreme Court will not normally disturb concurrent findings of the High Court and the Court of Appeal, unless there is some miscarriage of justice or a violation of some principles of law or procedure.
CASES CITED
1. Iteshi Onwe v. The State (1975) 9-11 S.C. 23.2. See Baridam v. The State (1994) 1 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 320) 250 at 2623. Kirn v. The State (1992) 4 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 233) 17 at 49 4. Duru v. The State (1993) 3 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 281) 283 at 291 – 292?
STATUTES REFERRED TO
NONE?
