Okokon John Vs. The State (2017)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

KUDIRAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBOKEKERE-EKUN, (JSC)

The appellant in this appeal was charged before the High Court of Cross River State on a one count charge of manslaughter contrary to section 325 of the Criminal Code. He was alleged to have unlawfully killed one Miriam Sampson on the 13th day of October 2011 at No. 34 Esierebom Street Calabar in the Calabar Judicial Division.

The facts are that the appellant and the deceased lived in the same compound at No. 34 Esierebom Street, Calabar and they shared a common kitchen built by the deceased and which was close to her room. The deceased complained that smoke from the appellant’s cooking was causing her inconvenience and she advised him to build his own kitchen. On 13th October 2011, the appellant wanted to cook in the kitchen and was prevented from doing so by the deceased. A struggle ensued between them and the deceased was alleged to have used the firewood she was holding to hit him on his back, He retaliated by grabbing the firewood from the deceased and hitting her on the head. She died from her injuries the following day, 14th October 2011.

The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge. The prosecution called two witnesses and tendered two exhibits: the appellant’s extra judicial statement, Exhibit 1 and a stick, Exhibit 2. The appellant testified on his own behalf and did not call any other witness. At the conclusion of the trial, in a considered judgment delivered on 16/9/2013, the trial court found the appellant guilty as charged and sentenced him to 10 years imprisonment with hard labour. On 26/6/2014, the Court of Appeal, Calabar Division dismissed the appellant’s appeal and affirmed the judgment of the trial court. The appellant is still dissatisfied and has further appealed to this court vide a Notice of Appeal filed on 4/7/2014 containing four grounds of appeal.

In the appellant’s brief settled by GODWIN OMOAKA ESQ. which was deemed duly filed on 12/01/2017, four issues were distilled for the determination of this appeal as follows:

(i) Was the court below right to have affirmed the conviction of the appellant for the offence of manslaughter on evidence that is substantially hearsay? (Ground 1)

(ii) Given that Exhibit 1 did not comply strictly with the provisions of section 3 of the Illiterates Protection Law of Cross River State, was it properly admitted in evidence and therefore legal evidence upon which a conviction for manslaughter could be found?

(Ground 3)

(iii) Were the learned Justices of the court below right to affirm the finding of the learned trial Judge that the defence of self defence did not avail the appellant in the circumstances of this case?

(Ground 2)

(iv) Having regard to the evidence, did the prosecution prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt as required by law?

(Ground 4 6)

The respondent’s brief also deemed properly filed and served on 12/01/2017 was settled by E.I. HENSHAW ESQ., Solicitor General/Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Justice, Calabar, in conjunction with P.S. BISONG ESQ. Director Public Prosecutions and J.I. EMECHI ESQ. Assistant Director both of the Ministry of Justice. Learned counsel adopted the issues as formulated by the appellant. The appellant equally filed a Reply Brief, which was deemed filed on 12/01/2017.

I shall consider Issues 1 and 2 together. I have rephrased Issue 2.