CORAM

---

A.O. OBASEKI, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

M.L. UWAIS, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

S.M.A. BELGORE, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

P. NNAEMEKA-AGU, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

E.O.I. AKPATA, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

---

PARTIES

---

DONATUS NDU

APPELLANTS 

---

THE STATE

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

CRIMINAL LAW- INSANITY-MURDER   PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – ADDRESS OF COUNSEL- ADJOURMENT

 

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The appellant was charged and convicted for the murder of the deceased whose age was various stated to be 23 and 12. His counsel refused to address the court at the conclusion of evidence and asked for adjournment which was refused.

 

 

---

HELD

---

The court held that the refusal to grant adjournment to enable the appellant’s counsel to address the court did not occasion miscarriage of justice and that the prosecution sufficiently proved that the deceased died from the injuries inflicted by the appellant.

 

 

---

ISSUES

---

1. whether the Court of Appeal in holding that the refusal of the learned trial Judge to grant an adjournment to another date to enable the appellant’s counsel address him was not prejudicial to the appellant

2. whether the prosecution established that Jemilatu Shoetan in fact died as a result of the injuries inflicted on her by the appellant

3. whether there was sufficient evidence before the trial court to sustain the defence of insanity.

 

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

RIGHT OF ADDRESS

---

‘The right of address given to a party or his counsel does not confer on him the right to do so at his pleasure. A party or counsel may forfeit or be taken to waive his right of address if he fails to address when called upon by the Court to do so at the close of evidence’. Per Apata J.S.C

 

 

---

EVIDENCE OF A DOCTOR THAT IDENTIFIED A CORPSE

---

‘if there are facts from which it can be inferred that the corpse examined by the doctor was that of the deceased, the evidence of the person, dead or alive, said to have identified the corpse is not indispensable’. Per Apata J.S.C

 

 

---

DEFENCE OF INSANITY

---

‘The defence of insanity is a special plea which must be positively put forward by way of defence and evidence should be adduced in support’. Per Apata J.S.C

 

 

---

CASES CITED

---

Niger Construction Limited V. Okugbeni (1987)4 NWLR (Pt.67) 787

Enewoh V. The State (1990) 4 NWLR (Pt.145) 469

Sanusi V. The State (1984) 10 S.C.166

Onyekwe V. The State (1988)1 NWLR (Pt.72) 565

 

 

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

None.

 

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT