IHEANYIGHICHI APUGO VS THE STATE - Legalpedia | The Complete Lawyer - Research | Productivity | Health

IHEANYIGHICHI APUGO VS THE STATE

AREWA PAPER CONVERTERS LTD V. N.I.D.C. (NIG. UNIVERSAL BANK) LTD
June 5, 2025
DR. AUGUSTINE N. MOZIE & ORS V. CHIKE MBAMALU & 2 ORS
June 5, 2025
AREWA PAPER CONVERTERS LTD V. N.I.D.C. (NIG. UNIVERSAL BANK) LTD
June 5, 2025
DR. AUGUSTINE N. MOZIE & ORS V. CHIKE MBAMALU & 2 ORS
June 5, 2025
Show all

IHEANYIGHICHI APUGO VS THE STATE

Legalpedia Citation: (2006-07) Legalpedia 29950 (SC)

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Abuja

Fri Jul 14, 2006

Suit Number: SC.199/2004

CORAM


I. L. KUTIGI JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

N. TOBI JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

G. A. OGUNTADE JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

M. MOHAMMED JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

W. S. N. ONNOGHEN JUSTICE SUPREME COURT


PARTIES


IHEANYIGHICHI APUGO

APPELLANTS 


THE STATE

RESPONDENTS 


AREA(S) OF LAW


CRIMINAL LAW- PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT

SUCCESSFUL PLEA OF DEFENCE OF SELF DEFENCE: WHETHER LEADS TO ACQUITTAL OR SENTENCE TO PRISON OF THE ACCUSED PERSON.

 

 


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) 251

2. Bob Daniels V. The State (1991) 8NWLR (Pt.212) p. 715

3. The Queen V. Anyiam (1961) All NLR 46; 1 SCNLR 78.

 

 


STATUTES REFERRED TO


1. Criminal Code

2. Evidence Act, 1990

 

 


CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT 

Comments are closed.