CORAM
M MOHAMMED, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
F F. TABAI, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
P O. ADEREMI, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
J A. FABIYI, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
O O. ADEKEYE, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
GAMBO MUSA
APPELLANTS
THE STATE
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
CRIMINAL LAW – PROVOCATION – CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACTS
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellant was convicted for the murder of the deceased, Idris. He raised a defence of provocation and self-defence. His conviction and sentence by the trial court was affirmed by the Court of Appeal. He has further appealed.
HELD
Appeal dismissed
ISSUES
NONE
RATIONES DECIDENDI
CONTRADICTION THAT WILL VITIATE A TRIAL
1.Contradiction, to be worthy of note, must relate to the substance and indeed the vital ingredients of the offence charged. Trivial contradiction should not vitiate a trial. Per FABIYI, JSC
WHAT WILL AMOUNT TO PROVOCATION
The utterance or action of the Deceased to the Accused must be such that would cause a reasonable person and actually caused the Accused a sudden and temporary loss of self-control, so much so that for the moment he is not a master of his mind. Per FABIYI, JSC
CASES CITED
1. Nwosu v. Broad of Customs & Excise (1988) 5 NWLR (Pt. 93) 225;
2. Nneji v. Chukwu (1996) 10 NWLR (Pt. 378) 265.
3. Ankwa v. The State (1969) All NLR 133,
4. Omisade v. Queen (1964) 1 All NLR 233
5. Sele v. The State (1993) 1 NWLR (Pt. 269) 276; (1993) 1 SCNJ 15 at 22-23.
6. R. V Duffy (1949) 1 All E.R. 8932; Mancini v. D.P.P (1942) A.C. 19.
7. R. V Blake (1942) WACA 118.
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Panel Code