May 9, 2025
Legalpedia Citation: (2014-06) Legalpedia 71132 (CA) In the Court of Appeal Holden at Calabar Thu Jun 26, 2014 Suit Number: CA/C/354c/2013 CORAM Chima Centus Nweze -Justice of […]
CORAM
Chima Centus Nweze -Justice of the Court of Appeal
Onyekachi Aja -Justice of the Court of Appeal
Paul Obi Elechi-Justice of the Court of Appeal
PARTIES
OKOKON JOHN
APPELLANTS
THE STATE
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE LAW, APPEAL, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, POLICE REGULATIONS, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, HUMAN RIGHTS, SELF-DEFENCE
SUMMARY OF FACTS
This case revolves around the conviction of the Appellant, Okokon John, for the offence of manslaughter under Section 325 of the Criminal Code Law C16 Volume 111 Laws of the Cross River State 2004. The Appellant and the deceased (Miriam Sampson) were neighbors residing at No. 34 Esierebom Street, Calabar, and shared a common kitchen facility that was built by the deceased and located close to her room. The deceased had complained that smoke from the kitchen when used by the Appellant caused her inconvenience and advised him to build his own kitchen.
On October 13, 2011, when the Appellant attempted to use the kitchen, the deceased refused and an altercation ensued. The deceased picked up firewood and hit the Appellant on the back lightly to scare him away. In response, the Appellant pulled out a long mangrove stick pinned to the ground and struck the deceased on the head with force, causing serious injury and bleeding. The deceased died the following day, October 14, 2011, as a result of the head injury.
The Appellant was subsequently arrested, charged to court for manslaughter, convicted, and sentenced to ten years imprisonment with hard labor by the High Court of Justice, Calabar on September 16, 2013. Dissatisfied with the conviction, the Appellant filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal.
HELD
1. The appeal was dismissed.
2. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment and conviction of the trial Court.
3. The Court found that the trial judge did not rely on hearsay evidence to convict the Appellant but on other credible and convicting evidence, including the confessional statement (Exhibit 1).
4. The Court held that Exhibit 1 was rightly admitted in evidence despite the absence of a jurat, as non-compliance with the Illiterates Protection Law did not render the document inadmissible.
5. The Court determined that the defence of self-defence was not available to the Appellant in the circumstances of the case.
6. The Court found that the prosecution had proved the Appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
ISSUES
1.Whether the learned trial Judge was right to have relied on hearsay evidence to convict the Appellant.?
2. Whether the learned trial Judge was right to have admitted Exhibit 1 (the Appellant’s statement) in evidence when the document did not strictly comply with the provisions of Section 3 of the Illiterates Protection Law of Cross River State.?
3. Whether, given the facts of this case, the trial Court was right to hold that the defence of self-defence was unavailing to the Appellant.?
4. Whether or not the prosecution proved the Appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt as required by Law.?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
HEARSAY EVIDENCE – WHETHER CONVICTION CAN BE BASED ON HEARSAY EVIDENCE:
“The Learned trial Judge did not rely on hear-say evidence to convict but with other credible and convicting evidence to arrive at the conclusion which led to the conviction of the Appellant. One of such evidence is the confessional statement Exhibit 1 which if alone as it is capable of being acted upon in convicting the Appellant. And so I resolve issue No. 1 against the Appellant.” – Per PAUL OBI ELECHI, J.C.A.
CONFESSIONS – ADMISSIBILITY AND WEIGHT OF CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT:
“Confession if direct and voluntary can ground a conviction as a result; it ought not to have been admitted in evidence. That same objection has as well surfaced here on appeal.” – Per PAUL OBI ELECHI, J.C.A.
ILLITERATES PROTECTION LAW – WHETHER NON-COMPLIANCE RENDERS DOCUMENT INADMISSIBLE:
“From what I have said above, that the Learned trial Judge was right to have admitted Exhibit 1 in evidence and that the non inclusion of a jurat did not make the document inadmissible or void.” – Per PAUL OBI ELECHI, J.C.A.
THUMB PRINTING – WHETHER SYNONYMOUS WITH ILLITERACY:
“The fact that a document was thumb printed is not sufficient to render it null and void as being demonstrated by learned Appellant counsel. Infact, there is nothing in Law which prevents a literate person from affixing his thumb impression on a document. So the mere fact that one is able to write or sign his name on a document does not mean he is a literate person.” – Per PAUL OBI ELECHI, J.C.A.
ILLITERATES PROTECTION LAW – PURPOSE AND APPLICATION:
“The Illiterates Protection Law which the Appellants alleged that Exhibit ‘g’ contravenes was made for the protection of illiterate persons. It is the illiterate Person at the request of whom any person writes a letter or document that requires protection as he is the one who may seek the protection given by the Law by complaining that the letter or document written at his interest and which was signed with his signature or his mark was not, prior to its being so signed, read over and explained…” – Per PAUL OBI ELECHI, J.C.A.
SELF-DEFENCE – INGREDIENTS REQUIRED FOR SUCCESSFUL PLEA:
“The ingredients that would constitute the defence of self defence are stated in Rtd. Captain Jairo Musel Liya vs The State (1998) 2 NWLR Pt. 538, Page 397 viz: a) The accused must be free from fault in bringing about the encounter. b) There must be present on impending peril to life as to create honest belief of an existing necessity. c) There must be no safe or reasonable made of escape by retreat and d) There must have been a necessity for taking life.” – Per PAUL OBI ELECHI, J.C.A.
APPLICATION OF SELF-DEFENCE – ASSESSMENT OF CIRCUMSTANCES:
“I have said it earlier in the course of this judgment that hitting the deceased at the back pre-supposes that the deceased was already leaving the scene of crime otherwise the hitting may be could have been in front. Looking at this case passionately, the deceased hit the Appellant only at the back while the Appellant hit her at the head. It is common knowledge that the head and neck region are among the vulnerable parts of the human body and that a cutlass or indeed any other lethal object applied to those regions of the body would almost certainly lead to death or grievous bodily harm.” – Per PAUL OBI ELECHI, J.C.A.
MANSLAUGHTER – PROVING THE OFFENCE:
“After reviewing this case, I come to the conclusion that the appeal lacks merit. It is not proven and as such I have no cause to disturb the finding and conviction of the Appellant by the trial Court. I affirm the judgment and conviction of the Lower Court. The appeal is hereby dismissed.” – Per PAUL OBI ELECHI, J.C.A.
MANSLAUGHTER – TYPES AND ELEMENTS:
“The Appellant was convicted for the offence of manslaughter. Manslaughter could be involuntary or constructive. Involuntary manslaughter is accidental killing of a human being, such killing not being premeditated or intentional, Ejeka vs State (2003) 7 NWLR (PT 819) 408. The killing of a human being by an unlawful and dangerous act is constructive manslaughter.” – Per ONYEKACHI AJA OTISI, J.C.A.
CONSTRUCTIVE MANSLAUGHTER – ELEMENTS TO BE PROVED:
“To secure conviction, the prosecution must prove:
1. The commission of the unlawful act;
2. The unlawful act caused the death; and
3. That unlawful act was dangerous in the sense that it was likely to cause harm to another; whether or not the accused person realized his act is unlawful or dangerous.” – Per ONYEKACHI AJA OTISI, J.C.A.
MANSLAUGHTER – PROOF OF INTENT:
“For the offence of manslaughter it is not necessary to prove any intent to kill or do grievous bodily harm provided there is proof that the unlawful act of the accused caused some harm to the deceased which caused his death – see R. v. Church (1965) 2 All E.R. 72.” – Per ONYEKACHI AJA OTISI, J.C.A.
PROOF OF MANSLAUGHTER – OBJECTIVE TEST:
“An accused person will be found guilty of manslaughter if it is proved that he intentionally committed an act which was unlawful and dangerous and which inadvertently caused death. The test is an objective one. In judging whether the act is rash, dangerous, and unlawful, the test is not that the accused recognized its danger.” – Per ONYEKACHI AJA OTISI, J.C.A.
MEDICAL EVIDENCE – NECESSITY IN PROVING CAUSE OF DEATH:
“Although there was no medical report, it is settled that where the cause of death is apparent or can be inferred, and, is traceable to the act of the accused person, a medical report can be dispensed with, Ogbu vs State (2007) 2 S. C. 273; Liman vs The State (1976) 6 UILR (pt.11) 248; Uyo vs Attorney-General Bendel State (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt.17) 418- Oforlete vs The State (2000) 7 SCNJ 162.” – Per ONYEKACHI AJA OTISI, J.C.A.
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
• Criminal Code Law C16 Volume 111 Laws of the Cross River State 2004
• Illiterates Protection Law of Cross River State
• Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)
• Evidence Act 2011
• Police Act 2011