Raji Afonja And 6 Others V. The Queen (1955)

LawGlobal Hub Judgment Report – West Africa Court of Appeal

Murder or manslaughter—provocation—when duty to direct jury or consider in Judgment—only when issue arises on evidence—definition of—accused’s cultural status to be considered.

Facts

As a result of a dispute between two political parties disturbances broke out and a leading member of one political party was injured. Some time later a large number of that party attacked the house of the deceased, and the deceased in trying to escape was attacked by the six appellants and died as a result ofinjuries he received.

On the appeal it was argued that from the Judgment of the Court below the trial Judge did not address his mind on the question as to whether there was provocation which would reduce the offence from murder to manslaughter.

There was no evidence that the deceased had anything to do with the attack on the leader of the opposite political party or that he had anything to do with any attack on that party.

Held

(1) That on the evidence in this case there was nothing which would have entitled
the Judge to find a verdict of manslaughter and that there was, therefore, no need for him to direct his mind on this issue.

(2) The Court adopted the definition of provocation as set out in the Judgment of Devlin, J. in Rex v Duffy (1) and held that the defence of provocation could not be sustained here as it was shown from the evidence that the deceased did not commit any provocative act against the appellant.

Note —The Court distinguished between the facts in this case and that in Rex v Udo
Ekpo (2) as in that case the deceased was a member of a group whose attack gave rise to the provocation, but in this case the deceased took no part in any hostile act. The Court also pointed out that the question of the cultural status of an accused person, as considered in the case of Rex v Adekanmi (3), had no application to this case as here the deceased committed no provocative act at all.

(1) That on the evidence in this case there was nothing which would have entitled
the Judge to find a verdict of manslaughter and that there was, therefore, no need for him to direct his mind on this issue.

(2) The Court adopted the definition of provocation as set out in the Judgment of Devlin, J. in Rex v Duffy (1) and held that the defence of provocation could not be sustained here as it was shown from the evidence that the deceased did not commit any provocative act against the appellant.

Note —The Court distinguished between the facts in this case and that in Rex v Udo
Ekpo (2) as in that case the deceased was a member of a group whose attack gave rise to the provocation, but in this case the deceased took no part in any hostile act.

The Court also pointed out that the question of the cultural status of an accused person, as considered in the case of Rex v Adekanmi (3), had no application to this case as here the deceased committed no provocative act at all.

Appeals dismissed.