Latifu Yusufu V. The State (1988)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

NNAMANI, J.S.C.

In the Criminal Division of the High Court of Lagos State the appellant was in Charge No.10/27C/82, charged with the following offence:

“Statement of Offence

Murder, contrary to Section 319 of the Criminal Code.

Particulars of Offence

Latifu Yusufu (m) on the 24th day of July 1980 at Egan Farm, Ibeju Epe in the Ikeja Judicial Division murdered Muinatu Latifu(f).”

At the trial, 5 witnesses testified for the prosecution. The accused gave evidence and called two witnesses. The learned trial Judge, Oshodi, J. after evaluating the evidence before him convicted the appellant and sentenced him to death. The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal but that Court on 4th November, 1986 dismissed the appeal. The appellant has now appealed to this Court.

Four grounds of appeal were originally filed, but learned Counsel to the appellant, Mr. Nwazojie obtained leave of this Court to file and argue grounds of appeal in substitution of those originally filed. The two grounds of appeal without the particulars were as follows:-

“1. The learned trial Judge and the Justices of the Court of Appeal F erred in law by not clearly drawing a distinction between the first limb and the second limb of Section 28 of the Criminal Code and thereby misdirected themselves in the evaluation of the evidence necessary to establish that a person was affected by delusions on some specific matter, as distinct from a person suffering from insanity under Section 28 of the Criminal Code.

2. The Court of Appeal, per Uthman Mohammed, J.C.A., gravely misdirected itself on the length and extent of delusive beliefs, giving the impression that it must have been prolonged or persistent for a considerable time before it can avail one under Section 28 (second limb) of the Criminal Code.

Both learned Counsel to the appellant, and learned Counsel to the Respondent, Mr. Arthur- Worrey filed very useful briefs of argument and I must commend them for their effort. In his own brief, Mr. Nwazojie set out the issues he perceived are for determination in the appeal. The 3 issues set out in paragraph 3 of appellant’s brief were,

“1. Whether the state of facts as conceived by the appellant, if they were real, could excuse the appellant as not criminally responsible for the murder for which he was convicted in view of provisions of Section 28 (second limb) of the Criminal Code.

2. Whether the conviction of the appellant for murder and affirmation thereof by the Court of Appeal is justifiable or could be sustained, having regard to the evidence of delusion suffered by the appellant at the time of committing the offence, and the provisions of Section 28 (second limb) of the Criminal Code.
3. Whether the learned trial Judge was not in error in holding that “the accused knew exactly what he had done although he believed what he did was right” when the defence of delusion as in Section 28 (second limb) of the Criminal Code does not require any such knowledge on the part of the appellant any more, once the accused cannot avail himself of the benefit of Section 28 (first limb). In other words, whether the provisions of the first limb and the second limb of Section 28 of the Criminal Code are mutually exclusive or one is a supplement to the other.”

In his brief of argument, learned Counsel to the appellant conceded that the defence of insanity cannot avail the appellant. What was relevant, he contended, was the defence of delusion. Both counsel agree on this and, as in my view, this appeal is to be determined on a narrow compass, I am attracted to the shorter formulation of issues for determination by learned Counsel to the respondent. His third issue is the same as the appellant’s counsel’s third. The 1st and 2nd issues are directly in point. They read,

“(1) Whether the defence of delusion raised by the Appellant was established on the evidence in this case.

(2) Whether the decision of the Court of Appeal can be supported having regard to the evidence in this case.”