Friday Njoku V. The State (1972)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

ADEMOLA, C.J.N.

We dismissed this appeal on the 12th January, 1972, at Ibadan. We now give our reasons for doing so.

The appellant was tried in the High Court at Ondo by Piper, J., on a charge of murder contrary to Section 257 (1) of the Criminal Code, laws of Western Nigeria. He was found guilty and sentenced to death. From that verdict he appealed to the Western State Court of Appeal which dismissed his appeal. He then appealed to this court.

The facts of the case against the appellant as put by the prosecution and believed by the Judge are briefly as follows:- The appellant on the afternoon of the 11th day of September, 1969, was seen by one Adesanmi Akinmade (3rd witness for prosecution) holding a gun. One Godwin was walking along at this time and the appellant aimed at him with the gun. He pulled the trigger but the gun did not fire. The top of the gun came off. The 3rd witness for prosecution rushed at him, held him and took the gun from him. The appellant said he wanted to kill Godwin.

He was later taken to the Police Station. At the Police Station, the appellant stated that what he had been brought there for was a small matter and that he had killed somebody in his room. The 3rd witness and policemen went to the appellant’s compound. He opened the door of his room. On a chair seated in the room was the dead body of one Monica Moses (f) with two extensive cuts, about 6 inches in length on the left side of the neck. The dead body was removed to the hospital. The appellant later made a statement to the Police. In his statement, the appellant stated that he and two others were asked by Monica to grind “taba” (tobacco) for her which they did. She gave each of them kola nut which they ate. Later, she gave another piece of kolanut to him alone which he ate. Since eating the Kola nut he started to cough and felt unwell.

He came to the conclusion that Monica had give him poison and that it was Godwin who gave the poison to Monica to put in the Kola nut. Godwin who also was a farm labourer as the appellant worked in a different farm from the appellant, but they appeared not to be friendly. Monica (deceased) was a wife of another farm labourer called Moses. The appellant added that when he became ill, Godwin came to his house and said to him “Ogberu” in Yoruba, meaning “he had carried a load.” He told Godwin that he (Godwin) and Monica had planned to kill him but he would kill them both before he died.

He said he invited Monica to his room and inflicted the wounds on her with his matchet. When she died he locked up the room and went in pursuit of Godwin with his gun; that it was when he tried to kill Godwin, but failed that he was arrested. It was on this account he was taken to the Police Station and he disclosed the fact there that he had killed Monica in his room where he took the police.

In his own defence the appellant gave evidence. He retracted portion of the statement made by him to the Police. He however admitted killing the deceased but stated that she had come to his room where he was lying in bed ill and had confessed that it was Godwin who gave her the kolanut to be given to him. He said this provoked him; he thereby got up from his bed, took his matchet from under the bed and struck at the deceased who died on the spot. The learned trial Judge considered this aspect of the defence but did not believe the appellant that he was so provoked. Other aspects of the case were considered by the Judge; one was the failure of the prosecution to call Godwin as a witness about which counsel for the defence made a fuss.

He, (Judge) rightly in our view, saw no reason why Godwin, alleged to have given kola nut to the deceased for the appellant, should have been called. Lastly, the learned Judge considered the fact that there was no eye-witness to the killing and the evidence against the appellant at the beginning of the trial was mainly his statement. We agreed with the view taken by the learned Judge that there were other evidence against the appellant to show that the confession was probably true, as for example appellant’s room following his statement to the Police.

Also in his evidence at the trial, the appellant admitted killing the deceased but appeared to base his action on provocation, which as we stated earlier, the learned Judge did not believe. The Western State Court of Appeal saw no merit in the appeal, and before us learned counsel for the appellant had nothing to urge in his favour.

We therefore dismissed the appeal for want of substance.

Other Citation: (1972) LCN/1559(SC)