MICHEAL OKAROH V THE STATE
July 18, 2025H. N. O. AWOYEGBE AND ANOR VS CHIEF OGBEIDE
July 18, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1988-03) Legalpedia (SC) 13311
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Mar 11, 1988
Suit Number: SC. 9/1987
CORAM
ANDREWS O. OBASEKI, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
NNAMANI, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
LATIFU YUSUFU
APPELLANTS
THE STATE
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
MURDER-DELUSION
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellant sought an order of the court acquitting and discharging him of the offence of murder by reason of delusion.
HELD
The Court held that the conviction and sentence of death previously passed on the appellant are further affirmed.
ISSUES
Whether the defence of delusion raised by the Appellant was established on the evidence in this case
Whether the decision of the Court of Appeal can be supported having regard to the evidence in this case
RATIONES DECIDENDI
DELUSION.
The law on delusion has been well settled. Basically it is this that if the accused person is not entitled to the benefit of the first limb of Section 28 of the Criminal Code (i.e. if it cannot be established that at the time of doing the act, he was in such a state of mental disease or natural mental infirmity as to deprive him of capacity to understand what he was doing, control his actions or know that he ought not to do the act or make the omission) he will be criminally responsible for the act to the same extent as if the subject of his delusional belief is real. In other words, if the subject of his delusional belief is taken as real, he would be liable only if the act he did in furtherance of that belief, is one that is punishable. – NNAMANI, JSC
ANALYSIS OF SECTION 28 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE.
“The first limb of Section 28 deals with the defence of insanity, and the second limb clearly relates to delusions (sometimes loosely – though not necessarily the same – referred to as “insane delusions”); insanity is not a sine qua non to the experience of a delusion or hallucination. It is, indeed, not easy to distinguish between delusion and insanity when these terms are used in their ordinary meaning; but as far as section 28 of the Criminal Code is concerned, there is a clear distinction for the purposes of establishing a defence under either limb of the section.”- – NNAMANI, JSC
CASES CITED
1. John Loke v. State (1985) 1 NWLR. 1 at 5
2. Ngene Arum v. The State (1979) 11 S.C. 91, 101
3. Benson lhonre v. State (1987) 4 N.W.L.R. pt.67 778.
4. Dew v. Clark (1826) 3 Addams 97
5. Waring v. Waring (1848) 6 Moop. C.C. 341353
6. Banks v. Goodfellow (1870) LR. 5 CB. 549, 570
7. R. v. Nassamu (1940) 6 WACA. 74
8. Effiong Udofia v. The State (1981) 11 – 12 S.C. 49 at 59
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Criminal Code
