Edet Willie Umoh V. The State (1972)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

S. SOWEMIMO, AG. J.S.C

This appeal was heard on the 6th of January, 1972 and dismissed. We now give our reasons.

The appellant (then accused) was charged with the murder of one UKPUHO alias NMAMA Sam Udofia (hereinafter referred to as deceased) on the 12th January, 1970. He was tried at the High Court of Ikot Ekpene in the South Eastern State and on the 20th of September, 1971 was found guilty and sentenced to death by Allswell-Uranta, Ag. Judge. He subsequently appealed to this court against his conviction.

The appellant and the deceased became lovers in 1967. Sometime in 1969 they became separated as a result of an allegation of unfaithfulness made by the appellant against the deceased. Attempts were made by some people, including the parents of the deceased, one Sam, Udofia Ukpuho and I Akpanyang who were the 1st and 3rd prosecution witnesses. This intervention was not successful, and the deceased, in spite of entreaties from the appellant, decided not to return to him. The appellant therefore demanded a refund of 6pounds according to 1st prosecution witness or a sum of 12pounds according to the one William Umoh, who was the 5th prosecution witness. This amount he alleged he had spent on the deceased.
The appellant also demanded another sum of 2pounds and four cups of salt which he gave to the mother of the deceased, the 3rd prosecution witness.

At the instance of her husband, the 1st prosecution witness, the mother of the deceased (3rd prosecution witness) offered the sum of 2pounds.10.0d to the appellant but he refused to accept it insisting that the other amount of 12pounds should also be refunded at the same time. At this stage the conciliatory meeting dispersed.

On the 12th January, 1970, another daughter of the 1st prosecution witness, who bore the name of Mamie Ukpuho returned from somewhere in the then rebel area. There was a little ceremony arranged to welcome her.  The deceased was later sent to fetch water from a stream to be used at the ceremony. She left with a basin. When she failed to return the parents became anxious and her mother (3rd prosecution) went to look for her. She returned later with the basin and stated she could not find the deceased. A search party then went out in search of the deceased. Her body was later found in the bush, lying on the ground face downward. There were matchet cuts on the head and shoulder. The fingers were also cut off. Report was later made to the Police and the corpse was removed to St. Lukes Hospital, Annua, where a post mortem examination was performed by a Dr. McSweeny. The doctor was out of country at the time of the preliminary Inquiry at the Magistrate court, and during the trial at the High Court and so did not give evidence. The report issued after the post mortem examination was admitted in evidence as Exh. J. The wounds found on the body of the deceased were set in Exh. J., and reads:-

“1. Extensive wound at back and left side of neck involving all tissues including spine.
2. Laceration scalp 3″ approx.
3. Extensive laceration of right shoulder involving all tissues.
4. Multiple lacerations of right hand – all fingers involved.
5. Extensive laceration left fore arm 6″ – 7″ long.
6. Uterus enlarged to size of approx. 3 months pregnancy Foetus corresponds – size sac intact.

I certify the cause of death in my opinion to be bleeding and shock due to multiple injuries.”

After the discovery of the corpse of the deceased, there was a search for the appellant and he was later apprehended in the premises of his father on the third day after the search commenced. As a matter of fact it was the father of the appellant who gave him up, when he turned up at his house after disappearing for two days. Police were contacted and the appellant was handed over to them. The confessional statement of the appellant was tendered in evidence as Ex. D (English translation Exh. D1).

In his statement to the Police the appellant narrated how he and the deceased became lovers and later fell out. He also gave his version as to what happened at the conciliatory meeting. He demanded a refund of the money he had spent on the deceased and this was not forthcoming. The statement then continues as follows:-

“I was told that before her mother refunded all the money I gave to her, that I must take an oath. I replied that, when I gave this money to her mother I did not take an oath. I told them that until they refund all what I spent on her behalf then I will take an oath, then her father said that he is not going to give me other for general expenditure only for the mother’s expenditure. I refused. Then I was asked they have the whole matter to her father, and that any other day I temper with the girl, she should take any action she likes against me, I went away, since then nothing said about it again. I was annoyed, then on 12/1/70 I was sent by my father to fetch him some roots, on my way returning, I met Mna Nma Ukpuho returning from the stream with basin of water on her head, I told her to put down the water which she was carrying, she refused, and then pour down the water from the basin. I took her to the bush track gave her three matchet cuts on her shoulder and neck also her hands I left the corpse and went away to my house.”

The appellant gave evidence at the trial in his defence. He adopted Exh. D. as part of his defence and said that he had something to add to it. He said thus:-

“On the day in question when I met the deceased I asked her whether she was not going to return my money to me. She spat on my face and poured water on my body. She asked me if I did not hear that her sister had returned from rebel-held area and that her father is a road overseer. She said I should not tamper with her. It was annoyance over what I spent on her and what I gave her mother that provoked me into killing her.”

At his trial, his counsel raised the defence of provocation. The learned trial Judge considered the facts especially that part of the defence where the appellant stated that it was as a result of annoyance due to failure to refund the money that he spent on the deceased that made him kill her. There were also the allegations by the appellant that the deceased spat on him and drenched his clothes with water when he met her on her way back from a stream. These latter allegations, which were not contained in his – appellant’s – statement to the Police, were rejected by the learned trial Judge as untrue and an afterthought.

He then referred to the law on provocation and considered all the authorities cited before him, as well as others, and expatiated on the facts in each case, which were considered to amount to a defence of provocation. He then examined the facts as found in the case before him and held, quite rightly in our view, that what the appellant stated had prompted him to kill the deceased, did not amount to provocation in law. He therefore rejected the defence of provocation.

Mr. E.A. Akinola, who appeared for the appellant before us had nothing to urge in favour of the appellant. We were satisfied after having carefully perused the records in this case that the appellant was rightly convicted and dismissed the appeal.

SC.346/1971