CORAM
ATANDA FATAYI-WILLIAMS, CHIEF JUSTICE OF NIGERIA
SIR UDO UDOMA, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
ANIAGOLU JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
ANTHONY N. ANIAGOLU, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
MOHAMMED BELLO, CHIEF JUSTICE OF NIGERIA
PARTIES
EGBE NKANU APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellant murdered the deceased with a machete and claimed he was insane due to intoxication. There was no evidence that the intoxication made him insane, he gave a vivid account of the incident the next day.
HELD
The court dismissed the appeal.
ISSUES
Whether the defence of intoxicated and insanity availed the appellant
RATIONES DECIDENDI
BURDEN OF PROOF OF THE DEFENCE OF INTOXICATION AND INSANITY
Intoxication is a question of fact to be established by evidence. It is not proved by the mere mention of the word. Similarly, insanity is not proved by the mere mention of the word. The burden of proof of intoxication as a defence rests on the person charged. Likewise the burden of proof of insanity rests on the person charged for there is presumption of sanity in every person charged under our Law – Lewis J.S.C.
WHILE SELF- INDUCED INTOXICATION WILL NOT AVAIL AN ACCUSED PERSON
It is necessary to recognise that there could be serious evil consequences to society if men should act on self-induced intoxication and seek to avoid to take the legal consequences of their act, upon a claim that they are insane- Aniagolu J.S.C
CASES CITED
D.P.P. v. Majewski (1975) 3 WLR 404
R. v. Hansen Qwarey 5 WACA 66
STATUTES REFERRED TO
The Evidence Act
The Criminal Code