CORAM
PARTIES
IHEANYIGHICHI APUGO APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appeal was against the judgment of the Court of Appeal which found the defence of self defence availed the appellant in a charge of murder and substituted the sentence of death with 20years imprisonment. While the respondent cross-appealed with respect to the finding of the trial court that the appellant acted in self defence.
HELD
In taking the two issues together the court held that the Court of Appeal having found that the defence of self defence availed the appellant was wrong to have substituted the conviction of murder for manslaughter. Hence the appellant ought to have been acquitted. ?
ISSUES
1. Whether or not there was sufficient evidence of manslaughter before the learned justices of the Court of Appeal which warranted a substitution of a conviction for manslaughter instead of an outright acquittal and discharge.2. Whether the defence of self defence will avail the Appellant/ Cross Respondent
RATIONES DECIDENDI
EFFECT OF SUCCESSFUL PLEA OF SELF DEFENCE
“it is settled law that a defence of self defence, where it avails and accused person justifies or excuses by law, the act of the accused thereby rendering him not liable for the offence charged. It is usually a complete defence to the charge where it is upheld, as in the instant case”. ( Per W.S.N. ONNOGHEN, JSC)
CASES CITED
1. Amayo V. State (2001) 18 NWLR (Pt 745) 2512. Bob Daniels V. The State (1991) 8NWLR (Pt.212) p. 7153. The Queen V. Anyiam (1961) All NLR 46; 1 SCNLR 78.?
STATUTES REFERRED TO
1. Criminal Code2. Evidence Act, 1990?