ADAMU SHEIDU VS THE STATE

CORAM

PARTIES

ADAMU SHEIDU APPELLANTS

THE STATE  RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Accused/Appellant was charged before the Abejukolo High Court, Kogi for the offence of culpable homicide punishable with death contrary to section 224 of The Penal Code. The Accused/Appellant raised the defence of provocation in his extra-judicial statement but while presenting his case in the Court, he relied on the defence of self-defence. The trial Court upheld the Accused/Appellant’s defence of provocation and reduced the offence from culpable homicide punishable with death to culpable homicide not punishable with death and sentenced the Accused/Appellant to 10 years imprisonment. Dissatisfied with the decision of the trial Court, the Accused/Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal where the appeal was dismissed thus culminating into his further appeal to the Supreme Court.

HELD

Appeal Dismissed.

ISSUES

1. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal did not err in law when they dismissed the appellants appeal on the ground that the plea of the defence of self-defence was first raised and introduced by the appellant during his oral testimony at trial which thus was clearly insipid, impotent, wobbly, hypothetical, after thought not available to the appellant as the prosecution who has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt cannot controvert the plea of the defence of self-defence at that stage?

2. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal did not err in law when they held that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt all the ingredients of the offence with which the appellant was charged in spite of the failure and refusal to consider the plea of the defence of self defence properly and/or at all, thus Appellant was not heard at all and/or properly on his plea of self-defence?

3. Whether the entire decision of the Justices of the Court of Appeal is not unreasonable, unwarranted and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence before the panel of the honourable learned justices?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

BURDEN OF PROOF – HE WHO ALLEGES MUST PROVE

“The law is quite clear on this. It is trite that he who alleges must prove”.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL- PARTIES ARGUE ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION AND NOT GROUNDS OF APPEAL

“In appeals before this court, parties do not argue grounds of appeal but issues properly distilled from a ground or a combination of grounds of appeal.

GROUND OF APPEAL- MEANING OF A GROUND OF APPEAL

“A ground of appeal is the criticism of unfavourable decision or judgment made against a party being the appellant. It is the totality of the reason why the decision complained of is considered wrong in law or fact or a mixture of both law and fact by a party appealing.

SELF-DEFENCE- SUCCESS OF SELF-DEFENCE EXCULPATES THE ACCUSED FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY

“The provision of Sections 33(2) (a) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, and Sections 65 and 66 of the penal code declare that where a person is killed as a result of the use of reasonably necessary force to such extent and in such circumstances as is permitted by law in one’s personal defence from unlawful violence or for the defence of property, the death is justifiable and does not violate the right to life. Such a defence, where it avails an accused person, justifies or excuses by law the act or omission of the accused thereby rendering him not liable for the offence charged. It is usually a complete defence to the charge where it is upheld. The sum total of this is that where the defence of self-defence succeeds, the accused person must be discharged and acquitted because he was at the time of killing in reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm, and felt that it was necessary at the time to use the force which resulted in the death of the deceased in order to preserve himself from danger.

SELF DEFENCE- THE ONUS IS ON THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE THAT SELF-DEFENCE IS NOT AVAILABLE TO THE ACCUSED WHERE IT IS RAISED

“Whenever a defence of self-defence is raised by an accused person, apart from the accused leading evidence to show that he is entitled to the defence, the onus is still on the prosecution to establish that the defence in the circumstance is not available to the accused.

SELF-DEFENCE AND PROVOCATION – EFFECT OF A SUCCESSFUL PLEA OF SELF DEFENCE AND PROVOCATION

“While a plea of self-defence, if successfully raised, completely absolves the offender from criminal responsibility, a plea of provocation, if successful, reduces the offence of murder to manslaughter”.

PROVOCATION- INGREDIENTS AN ACCUSED PERSON MUST ESTABLISH IN A DEFENCE OF PROVOCATION

“In the defence of provocation, an accused person must show that:
1. There was sudden act of provocation by or from the deceased.
2. That he lost self control as a result of the provocation.
3. That he reacted in the feat of passion and before there was time for his passion to cool, and
4. That the acts were proportional to the provocation.

ELF-DEFENCE- INGREDIENTS FOR ESTABLISHING SELF DEFENCE IN AN OFFENCE OF CULPABLE HOMICIDE

“For a successful plea of the defence of self defence by an accused person charged with the offence of culpable homicide punishable with death under the penal code, the following must be established by credible evidence:
1. That his life was actually threatened or endangered by the acts of the deceased;
2. That the only option that was opened to him to save his or her life was to use force which was necessary on the deceased at the material time;
3. That the amount of force used on the deceased was proportionate to the threat or danger posed by the acts of the deceased;
4. That he did not take an undue advantage of the deceased in the process of saving his own life from the danger or threat posed by the deceased;
5. Show that he did not want to fight and that he was at the material time prepared to withdraw from the danger posed to his life by the deceased.

CULPABLE HOMICIDE- INGREDIENTS THE PROSECUTION MUST PROVE TO GROUND A CONVICTION FOR AN OFFENCE OF CULPABLE HOMICIDE PUNISHABLE WITH DEATH

“Under Section 221(b) of the penal code, the prosecution has to prove the following ingredients in order to secure a conviction for the offence of culpable homicide punishable with death. That is to say:
1. That the death of a human being actually occurred.
2. That it was caused by the act or acts of the accused.
3. That the act/ acts were done with the intent of causing death or
4. That accused knew that death was the probable consequence of his acts.

PROVOCATION- MEANING OF PROVOCATION

“Any act or words may be provocation. Provocation is an act or series of acts done by the deceased (when alive) to the accused person which would cause a reasonable person, a sudden and temporary loss of self control rendering the accused person so subject to passion as to make him for the moment not master of his mind.

MURDER- EFFECT OF A SUCCESSFUL DEFENCE OF PROVOCATION IN A CHARGE OF MURDER- POWER OF THE COURT TO GIVE ANY RANGE OF SENTENCE IN MANSLAUGHTER AND MURDER

“In a charge for Murder a successful defence of provocation has the effect of reducing the charge to Manslaughter. Once the accused person is convicted for manslaughter the trial judge has discretion on sentence. Sentence can be a custodial sentence ranging from one day to life imprisonment. Whereas for a conviction for murder there is no discretion. The sentence is death” –

DEFENCES- THE COURT SHOULD NOT UPHOLD CONFLICTING DEFENCES BY THE ACCUSED PERSON

While it is the law that in a criminal trial the trial court should consider all defences available to an accused person irrespective of its merit or stupidity, I hold the view that that principle does not mean that the court can uphold conflicting defences. Where the defences raised by an accused person conflicts with one another, the trial court, in my view, though obliged to consider all the conflicting defences must decide on the defence applicable to the case having regard to the evidence on record. Where the facts disclosed in evidence support one as against the other as in this case, the court will adopt the established defence –

CASES CITED

Akpan V. Bob (2010) 77 NWLR (pt. 7223) 427|Apugo V. State (20061 16 NWLR (pt. 10021 227|Asanmonvi v. A.G. Bendel State (1987 N.S.C.C. Vol.18 (Pt.1 ) p.30|Audu V. State (2003)7NWLR (pt. 810) 516|Biruwa V. State (7992) 1 NWLR (pt. 219) 511, (1992) 1 SCNJ 121,|Baridam V. State (1994) 1NWLR (pt. 320) 250.|Edoho V. The State (2010) 14 NWLR (pt.1214) 651,.|Ehinlanwo V. Oke (2008) 16 NWLR (pt. 1113) 357 at 395.|Grace Abraham V. The State (1994) 7 NWLR (pt. 359) 635.|Igago V. The State (1999) 14 NWLR (pt. 637) 1(1999) 10 – 12 S.C. 84,|Mgboko V. The State (1972) SC (Reprint) 113,|Nwozoke V. State (1988) 1 NWLR (Pt. 72) 529,|Obaji V. The State (1965) NMLR 417.|Okonji V. State (1987) 3 SC 175,|Omini V. The State (1999)12 NWLR (pt. 630) 168.|Oladele V. State (1991) 1 NWLR (pt.170)708.|Oladiran V. State (1985) 1 NWLR (pt. 14) 75|Queen v. Eseno (1960) N.S.C.C. Vol.1p.36.|R. V. Onyeamaizu (1958) NRNLR 93,|R. V. Oshunbiyi (1961) ALL NLR (pt. 41 453|Uraku V. State (1976) 6 SC. 128.|Ukwunnenyi V. The State (1989) 4 NWLR (pt.114) 131,|Stephen V. State (1986) 5 NWLR (pt. 46) 979;|The State V. Fatai Baiyewunmi (1980) 1N.C.R. 183

STATUTES REFERRED TO

The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999

Penal code

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT