Monday Nwaeze V. The State (1996)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

ADIO, J.S.C.

The charge, which was preferred against the appellant, was murder contrary to section 319 of the Criminal Code. Cap. 30 of the Laws of Eastern Region, 1963 applicable in the Imo State of Nigeria. The allegation made against him was that he the appellant on the 31st day of March, 1982, at Amazu Umuacha Village, Ngwa in the Isiala Ngwa Judicial Division murdered Nwaeze Ogolo (m).

Sometime on the 31st day of March, 1982, at Amazu Umuacha Village, Isiala Ngwa, one Rose Nwaeze, a nursing mother who was also the sister-in-law of the appellant and the daughter-in-law of the deceased, heard someone groaning. She, as a result, got up and went in the direction of the groaning. On the way to the place where the sound was coming from, she saw the appellant running out of a room holding a matchet in his hand. On reaching the said room she found, on the ground, the corpse of the deceased who was the father of the appellant. She discovered that there were some matchet cuts on the corpse of the deceased and that the deceased was dead. Apart from her young baby, there was no other person at the scene other than the deceased, the appellant and herself (Rose).

The matter was reported to the police. As a result, the appellant was arrested. He made, through an interpreter, a statement to the police which was said to be confessional. The said statement was tendered and admitted during the trial of the appellant though the police constable who interpreted it for the purpose of recording by the recorder could not testify because he was ill during the proceedings. The matchet which the investigating officer recovered from when the appellant said that he kept it was sent to the forensic laboratory for examination. It was not tendered during the proceedings as it had not been returned.

The evidence of the medical doctor, who conducted the post mortem examination on the corpse of the deceased, was that the deceased died as a result of the injury inflicted upon him. In the opinion of the medical doctor, the injury was caused by a sharp object like a matchet. There was no evidence that the injury was self-inflicted.

The appellant denied the charge. He agreed that he was in the room with his father the deceased, immediately before the incident. His evidence was that there was misunderstanding between him and the deceased about the soap of the deceased as a result of the allegation that he (appellant) used the soap. The deceased attempted to flog him (appellant) with a broom and the appellant pushed the deceased who fell down. The appellant observed that the deceased did not get up again. He (appellant) returned to the room with P.W.5, at whose instance he (appellant) called the deceased but the deceased did not answer.

The learned trial Judge duly considered the totality of the evidence before him and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. He accepted the evidence led by the prosecution and rejected the defence put forward by the appellant. He found the appellant guilty of the charge and convicted him accordingly. The appellant was sentenced to death.

Dissatisfied with the judgment of the learned trial Judge, the appellant lodged an appeal to the Court of Appeal. The court affirmed the finding of the learned trial Judge that, inter alia, it was the appellant that caused the death of the deceased and that the said act of the appellant was not accidental.

Dissatisfied with the judgment of the court below, the appellant has now lodged a further appeal to this court. The parties duly filed and exchanged briefs. The appellant filed an appellant’s brief and the respondent filed a respondent’s brief. There were five main issues identified in the appellant’s brief. Issue 3 was divided into two issues, issue 4 was divided into three issues, and issue 5 was divided into two issues. In short, there was proliferation of issues and in many cases one question was raised under one or more issues. Be that as it may, one has to make the best of the situation and make use of the issues formulated in the appellant’s brief for the determination of the appeal. Only two issues were formulated in the respondent’s brief. The issues formulated by the appellant in his brief which will be used for the determination of this appeal were as follows:-

1. “Whether the ingredients and standard required of circumstantial evidence had been satisfactorily proved by the prosecution and if not whether the trial court was not in error in convicting, and appellate (court) affirming such conviction of the appellant on such evidence when there was no proof of the act and intent.
2. Whether the conflicts, contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence of the prosecution were not material enough to create doubt in the mind of the court to sufficiently render evidence of the prosecution grossly fall short of the standard required to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt.

3(a) whether the trial court admitted and considered and the Court of Appeal rejected but considered such extra judicial statement resulting in misdirection of law and perverse findings occasioning miscarriage of justice.

3(b) If the answer is in the affirmative, whether this was not an error in law which perversely affected the finding and occasioned a grave miscarriage of justice.

4(a) Whether the trial court was not in error by importing a (i) non existing evidence: (ii) wrongly inadmissible evidence and (iii) excluding otherwise material and necessary evidence for the just determination of the case, and (iv) wrongly affirmed by the Court of Appeal.

4(b) If the answer to (a) above is affirmative whether there had not been perverse findings and conclusions which occasioned miscarriage of justice.

4(c) If the answers to (a) and (b) above are in the affirmative, whether the affirmation of this by the Court of Appeal did not result in perverse findings occasioning grave miscarriage of justice. 5(a) whether the trial Court and the Court of Appeal sufficiently considered and the Court of Appeal reviewed the totality of the evidence before them respectively in respect of both the prosecution and the defence.