CHIEF J. O. EHIKHAMWEN & ORS. v. PRINCE ILUOBE (THE ONOJIE OF UZEA) & ORS.
June 24, 2025NNANYELUGO ORAKOSIM V MENKITI
June 24, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2001) Legalpedia (SC) 80815
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri May 4, 2001
Suit Number: SC. 190/2000
CORAM
ALOYSIUS IYORGYER KATSINA-ALU JUSTICE, SUPREME COURTDAHIRU MUSDAHPER JUSTICE, SUPREME SUNDAY AKINOLA
IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD, JUSTICE, SUPREME CORUT
UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI
IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT (Lead Judgment)
KUMAJ BAYANG AKAAHS JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
Daniel Madjemu APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellant was arraigned before the High Court of the defunct Bendel State, charged with the murder of his wife, contrary to section 319 of the Criminal Code. He pleaded not guilty to the charge. At the conclusion of the trial, he was found guilty, as charged and sentenced to death by hanging, dissatisfied with the judgment hence the appeal.
HELD
There is total lack of evidence of insanity or insane delusion offered by the appellant in this case, and failure by the defence to adduce such evidence is in my opinion, enough to deprive the appellant of the defence under section 28 of the Criminal Code. ?
ISSUES
(1) whether from the evidence and circumstances of this case, the defence of insanity was established and available to the Appellant.(2) whether the Court of Appeal was right when it affirmed the decision of the learned trial Judge that it was not necessary to conduct a trial within trial before admitting the Appellant’s confessional statement in evidence when the appellant merely denied that he wrote the said confessional statement.”?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
GROUND FOR CONDUCTING TRIAL WITHIN TRIAL
Where an accused is merely disputing the correctness of contents of the written statement or that he made no statement at all it is not necessary to have a trial within trial”Per A. B. WALI, JSC.
PROOF OF INSANITY
“the defence of insanity involves on acceptance of responsibility for the act complained of. It therefore places the legal onus on the appellant to satisfy us that the evidence led before the High Court sufficiently proves insanity. Per A. B. WALI, JSC.”
CASES CITED
Hill v. Baxter (1958) 1 AII ER 193Nwuzoke v. The State (1988) 2 SCNJ 344 at 346Nkanu v. The State (1980) NS CC 114 at 117?
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Section 28 of the Criminal CodeSection 319 of the Criminal Code?
