CORAM
M.L. UWAIS, CHIEF JUSTICE, NIGERIA
ELFRIEDA OLUWAYEMISI WILLIAMS-DAWODU JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL
O. ACHIKE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
SUNDAY IHUEBEKA APPELLANTS
THE STATE RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The accused person gave his father a machete cut on the head. The father subsequently died from the said cut. He alleged that he was was provoked by his father’s utterances requesting him to leave his (father) house. He confirmed the killing to the police when arrested. He was convicted of murder.
HELD
The court held that he was guilty of murder and the defence of provocation would not avail him.
ISSUES
(i) Whether the trial of the Appellant on the 24th day of October, 1990 with the learned trial Judge acting as the prosecutor and the Judge was not contrary to section 33 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1979, which occasioned miscarriage of Justice. (ii) Whether Exhibit “I” can be classified as a confessional statement of the Appellant for murder. (iii) Whether the defence of provocation can avail the appellant to reduce the offence from murder to manslaughter.”
RATIONES DECIDENDI
PROVOCATION DEFINED:
“some act or series of acts done by the deceased to the accused which would cause in a reasonable person, and actually does cause in the accused, a sudden and temporary loss of self-control, rendering him so subject to passion as to make him for the moment not master of his mind.”…
PROOF REQUIRED FOR PROVOCATION
“I agree that words alone can constitute provocation as to reduce the offence of murder to manslaughter but from all I have said in this judgment, such word, if any, did not satisfy the requirements set out in Section 318 of the Criminal Code. The words themselves must be of such a provocative nature as to incense a reasonable man of the accused’s standing in life and education to lose his self control. …”
CASES CITED
1. R. v. Duppy (1949) 1 All ER. 932,|2. Akalezi v. The State (1993) 2 NWLR (Pt. 273) 1 at 114,|3. John v. Zaria N.A. (supra) Nomad v. Bornu Native Authority (1954) 21 NLR 31.|4. The Queen v. Akpakpan (1956) 1 FS. 1 at 2|5. Ruman v. Daura N.A. (1960) 5 FSC. at 93
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Section 318 of the Criminal Code|