CORAM

---

Mohammed Lawal Garba – Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Adamu Jauro – Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Moore Aseimo Abraham Adumein – Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Obande Festus Ogbuinya – Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Abubakar Sadiq Umar – Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

---

PARTIES

---

MAILUMBO ADAMU

APPELLANTS 

---

THE STATE

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

CRIMINAL LAW, CULPABLE HOMICIDE, SELF-DEFENCE, PROVOCATION, EVIDENCE, BURDEN OF PROOF, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, FAIR HEARING, APPEALS, RESPONDENT’S NOTICE, PREMEDITATION, MENS REA, ACTUS REUS

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

On October 18, 2008, the Appellant Mailumbo Adamu returned from work to find his eldest daughter Adama missing from home. Upon inquiry, his other daughters claimed not to know her whereabouts. The Appellant directed his eldest son (DW2) to search for his sister. DW2 found his sister’s voice coming from the house of Ibrahim Garba (the deceased), broke down the locked door, and discovered his sister naked in bed with the deceased. DW2 dragged his sister home and informed the Appellant of the situation.

The Appellant and DW2 went to report the matter to the District Head (PW1), who promised to investigate. While returning home, the deceased accosted them, challenging why they had reported him to the District Head. In the ensuing confrontation, the Appellant stabbed the deceased with a knife. The deceased was taken to hospital where he was confirmed dead. The Appellant was arrested and charged with culpable homicide punishable with death under Section 221 of the Penal Code Law of Bauchi State.

At trial, the prosecution called six witnesses (PW1-PW6) while the defence called two witnesses – the Appellant (DW1) and his son (DW2). The Appellant pleaded self-defence, claiming the deceased first attacked him. The trial court accepted this defence and discharged and acquitted the Appellant. However, on appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the plea of self-defence would not avail the Appellant given the circumstances, set aside the trial court’s decision, and convicted the Appellant. The Appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.

 

---

HELD

---

1. The appeal was dismissed.

2. The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s conviction, finding that the prosecution had proved all elements of culpable homicide punishable with death beyond reasonable doubt.

3. The Court held that neither the defence of self-defence nor provocation availed the Appellant based on the evidence on record.

4. The Court found that there was no credible evidence to support the Appellant’s claim that the deceased first attacked him with an iron rod.

5. The Court held that the Appellant’s action was premeditated, evidenced by his possession of two knives when going to report the matter.

6. The Court found that the Appellant’s Respondent’s Notice was incompetent and that no denial of fair hearing occurred.

7. All five justices unanimously dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Court of Appeal’s judgment.

 

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in its finding that the Appellant is guilty of culpable homicide punishable with death when all the necessary ingredients of the offence were not proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution?

2. Whether the Court of Appeal was right to have ignored the defences of self-defence and provocation made out when the Appellant stated in unchallenged evidence that DW2 met the Appellant’s daughter naked in the deceased room yet the deceased blocked the Appellant’s way and inflicted several injuries on Appellant?

3. Whether despite the fact that the deceased inflicted the Appellant with several injuries, the Court of Appeal was right in holding that the death of the deceased was premeditated by the Appellant?

4. Whether the failure of the Court of Appeal to hear and determine the Appellant’s filed Respondent’s Notice before the lower Court did not lead to a denial of fair-hearing and occasioned a miscarriage of justice when the Appellant was convicted and sentenced to death by hanging?

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

PROSECUTION’S BURDEN IN CRIMINAL CASES

---

It is trite law that the onus to prove the guilt of an accused person in a criminal charge rest on the prosecution. The placement of this onus on the prosecution in our criminal justice administration system is rooted in the concept of presumption of innocence encoded in Section 36(5) of our Constitution (Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended).”– Per ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR, J.S.C.

 

---

STANDARD OF PROOF REQUIRED

---

“To prove the guilt of the accused person, the prosecution is required to prove beyond reasonable doubt each and every element of the offence. Where the prosecution is unable to meet this standard, the onus is not discharged and the accused person is entitled to go home a free man.“– Per ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR, J.S.C.

 

---

ELEMENTS OF CULPABLE HOMICIDE PUNISHABLE WITH DEATH

---

“In the instant appeal, the charge of culpable homicide punishable with death proffered against the Appellant is required to be proved with the following elements (a) that the deceased has died; (b) that the death of the deceased was caused by the act of the accused and, (c) that the act of the accused which caused the death of the deceased was intentional with knowledge that death or grievous bodily harm was its probable consequence.”

– Per ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR, J.S.C.

 

---

PRESUMPTION OF INTENTION

---

“From these facts both the actus reus and mens rea are proved because in law a person is presumed to have intended the natural consequence of his action. In other words, when the Appellant stabbed the deceased with knife he is presumed to have intended or to have known or ought to know that grievous bodily injury or death may result from the knife stab.“– Per ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR, J.S.C.

 

---

SHIFTING OF BURDEN AFTER PRIMA FACIE CASE

---

“The Appellant having admitted stabbing the deceased which led to the death of the deceased, the elements of the offence have been established and the burden on the prosecution discharged. The onus has shifted to the Appellant to justify the stabbing. This is the import of Section 135 (3) read together with Section 139 (1) of the Evidence Act, 2011 as amended in 2023.”– Per ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR, J.S.C.

 

---

REQUIREMENTS FOR SELF-DEFENCE

---

“For self-defence to avail the appellant, the onus is on the defence to show, cumulatively, that: (1) that he was not the aggressor but the deceased (2) that he was in reasonable apprehension of death or grievous harm to himself, he acted to avert same (3) That he could not reasonably disengage or withdraw from the encounter with the deceased (4) His force or means of retaliation is not disproportionate to the deceased’s initial act of aggression.”

– Per ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR, J.S.C.

 

---

BINDING NATURE OF COURT RECORDS:

---

“It is trite that both parties and the Court are bound by the record of the Court. Thus whatever that transpires in Court that does not form part of the record of the Court cannot be a basis for the decision of the Court.”

– Per ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR, J.S.C.

 

---

FAILURE TO PROVE SELF-DEFENCE

---

“There is also a contradiction in the evidence of the Appellant and that of his son DW2 as to the instrument used by the deceased to hit the Appellant while the Appellant claimed the deceased used an iron rod, the DW2 claimed the deceased used a cutlass. From the foregoing, the allegation that the deceased hit the Appellant first is not supported by any credible evidence and in the absence of any credible evidence the plea of self-defence raised by the Appellant crumbles like a pack of cards.”– Per ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR, J.S.C.

 

---

COURT’S DUTY TO CONSIDER ALL POSSIBLE DEFENCES

---

“Unlike, in civil matters, where the issues that can be raised are circumscribed by the pleadings, in criminal matters, the Court is enjoined to consider all possible defences available to the accused person based on the evidence on record. More so because the issues involved in this appeal is a matter of life and death, this Court is always inclined to consider such a complaint even if it was not raised before the trial Court so long as the evidence discloses such a defence.”

– Per ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR, J.S.C.

 

---

NATURE OF PROVOCATION AS PARTIAL DEFENCE

---

“Provocation, unlike self-defence, is a partial and not a complete defence. It is not an exculpatory plea but a mitigating plea capable of commuting the sentence that would, otherwise, have been death sentence to life imprisonment in case it avails the accused person.”– Per ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR, J.S.C.

 

---

REQUIREMENTS FOR DEFENCE OF PROVOCATION

---

“For the defence to avail the accused person, the following factors must coexist: (1) The act which led to the action of the accused person must be truly provocative in nature. 2. The accused person must have acted in the heat of anger occasioning loss of self control and before there was time for passions or emotion to cool. (3) The force or means employed in retaliation must be proportionate to the provocation offered.”– Per ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR, J.S.C.

 

---

EVIDENCE OF PREMEDITATED ACTION

---

“The fact that the Appellant was found to be in possession of two knives at the point of going to report the matter to the PW1 lends credence to the fact that the Appellant’s action of stabbing the deceased was premeditated and negates the trial Judge’s erroneous conclusion that the Appellant did not really want to be aggressive at first instance.”– Per ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR, J.S.C.

 

---

GUIDING PRINCIPLES OF SELF-DEFENCE

---

“It is now settled that the guiding principles of self-defence are necessity and proportion. In other words, self-defence will only avail an accused person where there was a necessity for taking the life of another, in the sense that there was no other way for the accused person to preserve his life than to kill the deceased; and where the injury inflicted was proportionate, not excessive to the threat offered.”– Per ADAMU JAURO, J.S.C.

 

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

– Penal Code Law of Bauchi State – Section 221

– Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) – Section 36(5), Section 33(2)

– Evidence Act 2011 (as amended 2023) – Section 135(3), Section 139(1)

– Penal Code – Section 59, Section 38

– Criminal Code – Section 32(4)’

 

---

OTHER CITATIONS

---

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT