Sunday Igbani Green V. The Queen (1955)

Murder—provocation—section 318 of the Criminal Code.

Facts

The facts are fully set out in the Judgment. The only point for consideration was whether the trial Judge had properly directed his mind to the question of provocation. The Court, in finding that the Judge had adequately directed himself, stated that section 318 of the Criminal Code reduces murder to manslaughter when the act which normally would amount to murder was done in the heat of passion caused by strong provocation and before there was time for passion to cool.

Judgment

de Comarmond, Ag. C.J.

Sunday Igbani Green was found guilty of having murdered Anadogha Green on the 8th March, 1955.

The trial took place in the Port Harcourt Judicial Division before Dove-Edwin J. Sunday Igbani Green (hereinafter called “applicant”) has applied to this Court for leave to appeal. Although the application purports to be one for leave to appeal against sentence, it really amounts to an application for leave to appeal against conviction on the ground that the killing was done under provocation and the Court has dealt with it on that footing.

The facts are quite clear. The applicant has not denied responsibility for the killing but he has explained that the act was done because the victim, who was his wife, had left him and had taken a lover. The applicant gave his whole story on oath at the trial and it is a pathetic one. It seems that he was very attached to his wife and that he refused to quarrel with her in spite of repeated taunts and gibes (one of the taunts was that he could not give her a child).

There is no doubt that applicant’s wife, abetted by her mother, decided to break with applicant and accept the advances of one Shedrach Olawushola.

The latter’s story is that he was told that the woman was unattached and that he paid
twenty shillings to victim’s mother to introduce him as a prospective husband for her daughter.

When the applicant came home one day, his wife had removed her belongings from her house and gone to her mother’s house in the same village. The applicant made several attempts to win back his wife, but failed.

Then one evening he heard that his rival was with his wife in her mother’s house. According to the applicant’s story he found his wife and the stranger having sexual intercourse in his mother-in-law’s house. This was at about 9 p.m. He went back to his house and brooded over his misfortune.

At about 1 a.m. he decided to go back to his mother-in-law’s house and kill the stranger if he was still there. He took his matchet. He found his mother-in-law snoring and he heard his wife and the stranger talking in the room. He pushed the door open and entered. According to the applicant, the room was in darkness and he struck twice on the bed with his matchet and heard his wife cry out. He must have delivered at least four blows because the doctor found four incised wounds on victim’s body

There was a terrible wound across the left cheek and temple ; and a wound on the right shoulder which nearly severed the arm at the joint; and two other wounds, one on the left forearm and one across the right wrist. Death was due to shock and haemorrhage. Victim did not die immediately; she was taken to Bonny by canoe and died on arrival there.

The man Shedrach gave evidence and explained that he hid behind the door when the applicant burst into the room. He saw the applicant attack the victim and he then ran out of the house.

The applicant also killed his mother-in-law when she ran into the room. The one and only point for consideration is whether the learned trial Judge directed his mind properly and adequately on the question of provocation.

Section 318 of the Criminal Code reduces murder to manslaughter when the act which normally would amount to murder was done in the heat of passion caused by sudden provocation and before there is time for passion to cool. In the present instance there was grave provocation at about 9 p.m. when applicant saw his wife and Shedrach on the bed. Had he there and then killed his wife, the circumstances would almost certainly have called for a reduction from murder to manslaughter.

The period of waiting (about four hours) destroyed the excuse of “sudden provocation”, because the applicant had time for reflection. As he himself said, it
was after brooding over his trouble that he made up his mind to kill his rival. He thus went to his mother-in-law’s house with the premeditated intention of killing.

The fact that he killed his wife and not her lover does not alter his responsibility for the crime. The trial Judge dealt with the question of provocation as favourably as possible for the applicant, but he reached the conclusion (quite properly in our view) that the facts did not justify the application of section 318.

Whenever there is a sufficient interval for reflection during which a normal man can realise and understand the gravity of the act he intends doing, the excuse of provocation cannot be accepted in a case of murder.

This is not a case where granting leave to appeal against conviction would serve a useful purpose. Leave is therefore refused.

This tragedy was undoubtedly caused by the shameful treatment meted out to the applicant by his wife and his mother-in-law. Whether or not this is a case where a merciful view can possibly be taken is not a matter within our province, but we feel that a Jury would probably have made a recommendation for mercy.

Application dismissed.