CHIEF VICTOR WOLUCHEM & ORS VS CHIEF SIMON GUDI & ORS
July 29, 2025PATRICK O. IGA V. THE STATE
July 29, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1981) Legalpedia (SC) 81112
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Thu May 28, 1981
Suit Number: SC. 34/1979
CORAM
OLABODE RHODES-VIVOUR
GEORGE S. SOWEMIMO, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
KAYODE ESO, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
ANIAGOLU JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
ANTHONY N. ANIAGOLU, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
GODWIN ANYANWU APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellant murdered the deceased with a machete as a result of dispute over ownership of bicycle carriage.
HELD
The court affirmed his conviction for murder.
ISSUES
1. Can it be safely concluded that Exhibits C and D were indeed the confessional statements personally made by the appellant to the police?2. Whether the provisions of section 33 subsection (6)(e) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1979, as amended, which were designed to guarantee fair hearing to every person who is charged with a criminal offence (such as the appellant in this case) were fully complied with in the instant case and, if not, did such non-compliance not nullify the entire proceedings and judgment of the trial court?3. Whether the provisions of section 33(7) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1979, as amended, were fully complied with in this case and, if not, did such non-compliance not render the trial unfair.4. Was the court below right in holding that the appellant was not entitled to the defence of provocation to mitigate his criminal culpability from murder to manslaughter?”
RATIONES DECIDENDI
USE OF INTERPRETER DURING TRIAL – WHEN NECESSARY
The use of an interpreter only becomes mandatory where a person charged with a criminal offence does not understand the language used at the trial – Ogundare J.S.C.
USE OF INTERPRETER DURING TRIAL MUST BE RECORDED BY THE JUDGE
Where an interpreter is provided at the commencement of the trial and a record of this is made, it is desirable, and indeed a constitutional duty of the trial judge to record this fact also on the subsequent days of the trial when use is made of the interpreter. Where, however, the judge fails to make a record of the use the interpreter in subsequent days the trial is not, per se, there vitiated – – Ogundare J.S.C.
CASES CITED
Peter Lockman & Anor. v. The State (1972) ANLR 498 Fawehinmi Construction Co. Ltd. v. Obafemi Awolowo University (1998) 6 NWLR (Pt. 553) 171 Godwin Josiah v. The State (1985) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1) 125 The State v. Salihu Mohammed Gwonto and Ors. (1983) 1 S.C.N.L.R. 142
STATUTES REFERRED TO
The 1979 Constitution ?
