Oludayo Olowofoyeku V. The State (1984)
LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report
BELLO, J.S.C.
This is a case of premeditated murder. The appellant inflicted several cuts with a matchet on his wife and she died on the spot.
He committed this savage act because the wife had instituted divorce proceedings against him and had refused to refund N40 he had given to her for reconciliation.
The only point taken in the Court of Appeal was that the trial Judge did not pass the sentence of death in the terms of section 367(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act.
Exercising its power under section 20(3) of the Court of Appeal Act, the Court of Appeal complied with the section and dismissed his appeal.
The only complaint to this Court was against the sentence also. But later learned counsel for the appellant filed a supplementary brief in which, having regard to the decision of this Court in Adetokunbo v. The State SC.34/1981, delivered on 16th February 1984 (unreported), he withdrew the objection.
It is apparent on the record that the trial court complied with the provisions of section 367(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The record shows “sentence of death is pronounced on the accused.” We held in Adetokunbo v. The State (Supra) that such pronouncement sufficiently shows that the provisions of the section were complied with by the trial court.
The appeal has no merits and it is dismissed. The conviction and sentence are affirmed.
OBASEKI, J.S.C.: Having studied the record of proceedings and the judgments of the Federal Court of Appeal and the High Court together with the briefs filed by the learned counsel to the parties, I agree with counsel that there is no merit whatsoever in this appeal. This was a cold-blooded and calculated murder of the deceased by her husband, the appellant, for failing to withdraw the divorce suit she instituted against him. The only issue taken at the Federal Court of Appeal was of the failure to record in the judgment the exact statutory words of the sentence of death pronounced by the learned trial judge in the record of his judgment.
There is however, evidence on the face of the record of the judgment that the sentence of death was pronounced on the accused. Counsel for the appellant has properly in his brief drawn our attention to our decision in Ayodele Adetokunbo v. The State SC.34/81 delivered on 16th February, 1984 where this court held that there is substantial compliance with section 367(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act where trial judge records that the sentence of death was pronounced on the accused and advised the necessity to record the statutory words. I have no reason to depart from that decision. It was therefore unnecessary for the Federal Court of Appeal to proceed to supply the statutory words pronounced.
The appeal is therefore dismissed and the conviction and sentence of death passed by the High Court and affirmed by the Federal Court of Appeal are hereby affirmed.
ESO, J.S.C.: The appellant was convicted of murder in the Ijero Ekiti High Court in Ondo State. The appellant never denied killing the deceased (his wife) in his statement to the police. He did it in a savage manner. In the Court, the appellant put up a defence of provocation which was well considered by the trial Judge, Ogundare J. as he then was. He was convicted and sentenced. The only issue before the Court of Appeal and this Court is whether proper sentence was passed on the appellant. The record has been found to show as follows –
“Court – Sentence of death is pronounced on the accused. He is reminded of his right of appeal………..”
In Ayodele Tokunbo v. The State SC.34/81 delivered on 16th February 1984 (unreported) this Court has held that such pronouncement is sufficient for compliance with s.367(2) of the Court Procedure Act. I hold that a proper sentence according to law was pronounced on the appellant by the trial court and I agree with both learned counsel for the appellant and the State respectively that there is no merit whatsoever in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Conviction and sentence of the High Court are hereby affirmed.
ANIAGOLU, J.S.C.: I agree with both counsel that there is nothing that could possibly be urged in favour of the appellant – a cold-blooded wife killer, who upon a trivial dispute on a supposed debt owed to him by the wife, he got out his matchet and cut her to death. A little legal point arose in the court below on whether the sentence of death passed by the trial Judge could be sustained by reason of his not pronouncing, in the exact words of S.367(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the sentence of death. The decisions of this Court in Eyo Okpe v. The State (1972) 2 S.C.76 and Ayodele Adetokunbo v. The State, 34/81 decided on 16th February 1984 (unreported) have settled that issue. The Court of Appeal remedied the little defect by invoking its wide powers under S.20(3) of the Federal Court of Appeal Act, 1976, and correcting the error by pronouncing the very words of the statute and passing the sentence upon them. That correction was unnecessary but the correction has in any case remedied the point.
The appellant undoubtedly richly deserved to be sentenced to death, and after going through the record of proceedings, I can see nothing either in justification or in extenuation of his murderous act.
I will therefore dismiss this appeal, and hereby dismiss it. The judgment of the Court of Appeal is hereby affirmed and sentence of death passed on the appellant hereby confirmed.
NNAMANI, J.S.C.: The appellant hacked his wife (deceased) to death with a matchet apparently because she had filed divorce proceedings against him. She was unwilling to withdraw these proceedings notwithstanding the plea of several persons. The appellant claimed that he had given her N40 for purposes of withdrawing the proceedings and when he demanded his refund and the deceased did not return the money, he dealt severe matchet cuts on her. She died immediately from the wounds. The evidence against the appellant was overwhelming. The learned trial judge very painstakingly reviewed the evidence before him before arriving at the conclusion that the appellant was guilty. He also considered and rightly rejected the defences in law raised in favour of the appellant.
The only issue raised before the Court of Appeal was whether section 367 subsection 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act had been complied with. As was held by this Court in Ayodele Adetokunboh vs The State SC. 34/81 delivered on 16th February, 1984, the pronouncement of death, as was done in the instant appeal, complies with the said provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act. I agree with the submissions of both learned counsel that nothing in law can be urged in favour of the appellant. The appeal lacks merit and I would therefore dismiss it. The conviction and sentence of the appellant by the trial court which were affirmed by the Court of Appeal are further affirmed.
Appeal dismissed.
SC.15/1983
