JOHN MAMUDA BUBA VS THE STATE

CORAM

S.M.A BELGORE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

A.B WALI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

I.L KUTIGI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

M.E OGUNDARE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

U.MOHAMMED JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

PARTIES

JOHN MAMUDA BUBA

APPELLANTS

THE STATE

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

None.

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The appellant was the husband of the deceased. The appellant, who lived at Jos. plateau State, had been separated from the deceased since 1978. The deceased, Lucy Agbange, left with the two children of the marriage and finally settled at Katsina-Ala, Benue State. Several efforts at reconciliation failed and what seemed to be a further attempt turned sour. On 14th July 1983, the appellant, in what seemed to be a final desperate move, decided to visit the deceased in company of a policeman from Jos, Inspector Idris Umaru (P.W.8) and one Joseph Abdul (PW2). They got to Katsina-Ala on 15th July, 1983 and at a house saw a man the appellant suspected to be living with his estranged wife, a lot of argument followed, the appellant rushed at her and pursued and stabbed her to dead.

HELD

APPEAL DISMISSED

ISSUES

Whether the Court of Appeal entered into the realm of speculations in sustaining the conviction of the appellant for the offence of culpable homicide by the trial court

Whether there were fundamental contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that vitiated the conviction of the appellant for the offence of culpable homicide.

Whether there were irresistible circumstantial evidence to sustain the offence of culpable homicide found against the appellant.

Whether the failure of the prosecution to call one Ukeji, the taxi driver, who was present at the scene of crime, was fatal to the prosecution’s case

Whether in the circumstances of this case, Exhibit 4, the extra judicial statement of appellant was a confessional statement or an exculpating defence for the offence of culpable homicide for which he was charged, convicted and sentenced by the court.

Whether the defence of accident was available to the appellant in the circumstances of this case