N. Ekereke V. The State (1981)
LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report
S. SOWEMIMO, J.S.C. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This act of reckless killing is rather common in this area.
There is no justification whatsoever for the killing. Both counsel have nothing to urge in favour of the appellant.
There is no merit in the deliberate case of murder in this case. The appeal is dismissed.
A. NNAMANI, J.S.C.: The appeal of the appellant to the Federal Court of Appeal, Enugu Judicial Division, was struck out on the ground that his notice of appeal was wrongly headed “Federal Supreme Court”.
The appellant has appealed to this court. Mrs. Otu, learned Acting Director of Public Prosecutions of the Cross River State has submitted that though there are decisions of this court on striking out of suits where notice of appeal has been wrongly headed, she would not support striking out of appeals for such reasons in murder cases.
I agree with this having regard to the facts that these are capital cases and that the appellants in these cases do not always have advantages of the services of counsel while filing their notices of appeal.
However, having read the records, and after hearing both learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent, I am satisfied that there is no substance in the appeal. This was, as the trial Judge found, a deliberate killing of the deceased. There were eye witnesses whom the trial Judge rightly believed and who testified that appellant matcheted the deceased to death while the deceased was merely asking to have his gari bag returned to him.
These eye witnesses included appellant’s wife. The learned trial Judge duly considered the defences of provocation and self defence which the appellant raised and rightly rejected them.
Though the appellant appears to have gone on a rampage that night killing people and burning huts, there was no evidence before the trial court of any abnormality of mind nor did the defence in that court rely on it. I think this appeal ought to be dismissed.
The conviction and sentence of the appellant are hereby affirmed.
SC.5/1980
