CORAM
LEWIS JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
MADARIKAN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
SOWEMIMO JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
JOHN MGBOKO APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The deceased in response to a taunt by the appellant gave him some matchet cuts. In retaliation, the appellant cut the deceased to death. He relied on the plea of self defence and provocation.
HELD
The court held that the plea of self defence was not available to the appellant but he certainly received grave and sudden provocation.
ISSUES
Whether the defense of self-defense would avail the appellant considering the fact that the deceased was heavily pregnant at the time.
Whether the defense of provocation was available to the appellant, since the deceased first used a matchet to cut him.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
ESSENTIALS FOR PROOF OF SELF DEFENCE
<br< p=””></br<>
ESSENTIALS FOR PROOF OF PROVOCATION
“The plea of self defence could not avail the accused because he could not at anytime feel that he had reasonable grounds for believing that the only way to protect himself from death or grievous harm was to kill the deceased but we think that in the circumstances, he certainly received grave and sudden provocation and that what he did, was in the heat of passion before that passion had time to cool. Such provocation as to reduce the crime to manslaughter.
CASES CITED
MCINNES V R (1971) 55 C.R.APP.R.551 AT 560
PALMER V R (1971) 55.CR. APP. 233, (1971) 2 WLR 840
JULIEN (1969) 53 CR. APP. 407
MARTINDALE V REG (1966) 50 CR. APP. R 273
REG V BAILEY
STATUTES REFERRED TO