Otigidi Origbo V. The State (1972)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

G. S. SOWEMIMO, J.S.C.

 The appellant was the accused in Charge No. C/34C/71.  He was accused of the offence of murder of one Ogara Okoko on or about the 1st day of August, 1970. The offence was alleged to have been committed at Unakanla, Obubra. The accused was tried at the Calabar High Court, in the South Eastern State, and on the 18th of August, 1971, was convicted of the offence of murder and sentenced to death by Kooffreh, J. His appeal to this Court against his conviction was heard on the 15th of August, 1972, and was dismissed. We now give our reasons for doing so.

The material facts in this case are straight-forward. The  accused was a farmer and was mainly concerned in the cultivation of yam. The deceased, Ogara Okoko, was a “native” doctor reputed for making medicine for farmers, which was alleged to have the effect of producing large yields of yams annually. The accused had been a customer of the deceased for sometime. Before the farming season of 1970, the accused approached the deceased for the usually annual lucky medicine. When procured it was usually buried in the farm before the cultivation of the yam roots for that season. He paid the usual charge and the deceased gave the accused the requisite medicine.

It appears, however, that after some time the accused became apprehensive that the yield of yams in his farm for that year might be poor. Because of this, he approached the deceased for another medicine, which would have the effect of changing the poor yield into a rich and prosperous harvest. According to the accused, he gave the deceased some money to prepare the necessary medicine. The accused produced the medicine which, on the direction of the deceased he administered orally. The accused complained that, as a result of this medicine which he drank he felt certain heat sensations all over his body.

The accused, finding himself in this ailing condition, coupled with the fact that there was no improvement in the yield of yam in his farm, went to the deceased for an antidote against the harmful effects of the medicine that the deceased gave him to drink. The deceased then demanded 2(pounds), a goat, a fowl, palm wine, two yams and the tip of his left small finger. These, the deceased told him, were to be used in the preparation of the antidote.

The accused stated that he complied with these requests. He later paid several visits to the deceased, but he was never given any antidote in spite of promises. The accused alleged that he had to approach other “native” doctors for help, but the treatments he received were of no avail. When the accused became impecunious having spent on medical treatment all the money he had, but did not recover and there was no prospect of a good yield of yams, he called on the deceased either to give him the promised antidote or to refund his money, yams, palm wine and the tip of his finger. Instead of acceding to this request the deceased drove him away. The accused, annoyed at this treatment, seized a matchet and inflicted cuts on the deceased from which he later died.

The medical-officer, Dr. Augustine J.  Essien, who gave evidence as the 1st Prosecution Witness, deposed to his findings on the post mortem examination he performed on the body of the deceased, Ogara Okoko.  He said as follows:

“The body was that of an African male of about 60 years of age. He was 5ft. 8 inches in height and wore a pant of brown colour.

Externally there were multiple lacerations as follows:-

(1)  Laceration 3″ long and one inch deep at the junction of the proximal 2/3 and distal 1/3 at the back of the right forearm.
(2)  Laceration of about 4″ long and 2″ deep on the front of the right elbow.
(3)  Laceration about 4″ long and 3″ deep in front of the upper right quadrant of the abdomen.
(4)  Semi lonar laceration about 2″ across the anterior aspect of the left upper arm about 6″ long.  This penetrated to the underlying bone.
(5)  There was a complete amputation of the left finger near the tip.
(6)  There was an almost complete amputation of the left ring finger and left little finger at their base.

Internally:- There were no abnormal findings.

The cause of death in my opinion was profused haemorrhage from the multiple lacerations. Any sharp rigid instrument could have caused the injuries described. A matchet is within that description of rigid instrument. The matchet shown to me before in court could have caused the injuries I have described.”

The accused gave evidence in his defence that, when he demanded either the antidote or the refund of his money, the deceased attacked him and beat him up. It was as a result of this treatment that he became annoyed and got hold of a matchet, which he found in the premises of the deceased, and inflicted matchet cuts on him.

The learned trial Judge considered the evidence adduced by the prosecution and the defence. He found on the evidence that it was the injuries caused by the matchet cuts, which caused the death of the deceased. He next considered the defences of provocation and self-defence. He rejected the evidence of the accused that the deceased attacked and beat him up. He held that the accused, being dissatisfied with the poor yield of yams in his farm, demanded a refund of the money and a return of the materials he gave for the medicine for a rich yam harvest which failed. The learned trial Judge held that when the deceased demanded the return of his medicine before refunding money to the accused, the latter got hold of a matchet and inflicted fatal matchet cuts on the deceased. He concluded that, on the facts, as found by him, the accused was never provoked and that he was not beaten up by the deceased. He therefore rejected the defences of provocation and self-defence. In our view, there was abundant evidence before the learned trial Judge which would support his findings, including the rejection of the two defences.

The learned trial Judge also considered the possible defence of insanity, on the basis of the allegation of the accused that the second medicine, which the deceased gave him, and forced down his throat, caused such sensation in his body as might possibly affect his mental capacity. He, however, held that, even if he accepted this story of the accused, there was no suggestion whatsoever by the accused himself that, apart from the body sensation, the medicine otherwise influenced or affected his action. The medical officer, the 1st prosecution witness who had observed the accused whilst he was in prison custody for a period of one month, stated in evidence that the accused was mentally normal. There was no other evidence of any antecedent strange or peculiar behaviour of the accused which might raise any issue of abnormality. The learned trial Judge therefore rejected the defence of insanity.

Learned counsel assigned to argue this appeal stated that on a perusal of the records, he could not find anything useful to urge in favour of the appellant.  We had ourselves also read the records, considered the evidence and the judgment of the lower court and the argument before us on this appeal and we were satisfied that the learned trial Judge came to a correct verdict and so dismissed the appeal.

SC.266/1971