CORAM

---

S.U. ONU, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

D. MUSDAPHER, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

A.M. MUKHTAR, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

W.S.N. ONNOGHEN, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

I.F. OGBUAGU, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

---

PARTIES

---

SULEIMAN DANTA ANNABI

APPELLANTS 

---

THE STATE

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

CRIMINAL LAW – DEFENCE OF JUSTIFICATION – PROVOCATION

 

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The appellant on receiving the information that someone had abused the Holy Prophet Mohammed, together with some others went to confirm the truthfulness of the information, and on the confirmation of the story, they caused the death of the deceased by slaughtering him with a knife.

 

 

---

HELD

---

The court dismissed the appeal and held that the defences of justification and provocation will not avail the appellant

 

 

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether or not the Court of Appeal was correct in law when it confirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant despite the fact that the trial court failed to consider and examine the defences open to the appellant on the record before convicting the appellant as charged.

2. Whether or not an accused person is under a legal obligation to call evidence in support of the defences open to him on the record or pinpoint the element constituting the defences before he is entitled to a consideration of the defences by the trial court.

3. Were the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal correct in law when they considered the record of proceedings suo motu and held that the defences of justification and provocation did not avail the appellant even when the appellant was not afforded the opportunity to canvass argument on the said point before their lordships arrived at such a conclusion?

 

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

ACCUSED HAS THE DUTY TO PROVE THE DEFENCE AVAILABLE TO HIM FROM THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD

---

When a person alleges on appeal that certain defences are available to him, it is his duty to prove same by reference to the evidence on record which if accepted by the court will establish the existence of such defences- Onnoghen  J.S.C.

 

 

---

THE COURT CANNOT CONSIDER A DEFENCE WHICH IS NOT MADE FROM THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD

---

While the trial court or any court for that matter is under an obligation or has the duty to consider all the defences possible or available to the accused or appellant on the facts; even though they may appear to be stupid, improbable or unfounded, the court cannot give the accused or appellant the benefit of defences which were not supported or reflected by the evidence on record – Onnoghen J.S.C

 

 

---

CASES CITED

---

1. Green v. Queen (1955) 15 WACA 73;

2. Nwuzoke v. The State (1988) INWLR (Pt.72) 529;

3. R v. Bio (1945) II WACA 46 at 48.

4. Asanya v. State (1991) 3 NWLR (Pt.180) 442 at 451;

5. Namsoh v. State (1993) 5 NWLR (Pt.292); 129 at 143;

6. Takida v. State (1969) BUNLL 53.

 

 

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

NONE

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT