CORAM

IDRIS LEGBO KUTIGI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

AKINTOLA OLUFEMI EJIWUNMI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

DAHIRU MUSDAPHER JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

IGNATIUS CHUKWUDI PATS-ACHOLONU JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

PARTIES

MBANENGEN SHANDE APPELLANTS

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The appellant was charged for the death of the deceased, her husband’s lover, who had come to spend the night in the husband house. The trial court convicted the appellant without considering the defence of provocation and the fact that the deceased slept in the same room with the appellant’s children.

HELD

The court held that there was doubt whether the appellant killed the deceased and that the trial court ought to have considered the defence of provocation.

ISSUES

1. Whether the Learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right in law in holding that the appellant committed culpable homicide punishable with death even though the prosecution has failed to discharge the onus placed upon it to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.2. Whether the defence of provocation can avail the appellant to reduce the offence from murder to manslaughter considering the circumstances of this case.

RATIONES DECIDENDI

CASES CITED

1) Abodundu v. Queen (1959) S.C.N.L.R. 622) Queen v. Itule (19The Evidence Act61) ALL N.L.R. 481 at 484

STATUTES REFERRED TO

The Evidence Act

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT