3PLR – EDWARD ANI V THE QUEEN
POLICY, PRACTICE AND PUBLISHING, LAW REPORTS 3PLR
[PDF copy of this judgment can be sent to your email for N300 only. Just order through lawnigeria@gmail.com and info@lawnigeria.com or text 07067102097]
EDWARD ANI
V
THE QUEEN
FEDERAL SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA
F.S.C. 62/1963
20TH JUNE, 1963
3PLR/1963/33 (FSC)
OTHER CITATIONS
BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS:
SIR LIONEL BRETT, F.J. (Presided and Read the Judgment of the Court)
JOHN IDOWU CONRAD TAYLOR, F.J.
SIR VAHE BAIRAMIAN, F.J.
REPRESENTATION
J.A. Cole -for the Appellant.
F.O. Offiah, Crown Counsel -for the Respondent.
MAIN ISSUES
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE: – Murder – Duty of prosecution – When facts are deemed amply proved – Defence of provocation – Failure thereof
ETHICS – PROSECUTION/JUDGE: – Admission of witness of spouse of an accused person –Whether proof of nature of marriage is a condition precedent – Attitude of appellate courts to failure thereto
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – EVIDENCE: – Admissibility – Evidence of spouse of accused person – When admissible – Conditions precedent – S.160 of the Evidence Act
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – EVIDENCE – S.160 of Evidence Act – Absence of proof of nature of marriage – Whether fatal
CHILDREN AND WOMEN LAW: – Women and Murder in the family – Woman killed by brother-in-law – Whether verbal abuse amounts to provocation – Relevant considerations
MAIN JUDGMENT
BRETT, F.J. (Delivering the Judgment of the Court):
The appellant was convicted of murdering Nweke Nede, the wife of his brother, Nwobodo Ani. Having lost the sight of one eye, he had for some months before the murder been living with his brother, and it would appear that he and his wife were to some extent dependent on his brother. His wife had given birth to a child shortly before the murder, and had gone to live in her father’s house, not far away, and he was living on food cooked by Nweke Nede. Rightly or wrongly, he had formed the impression that Nweke Nede was turning his wife against him and keeping him short of food.
On the day in question Nwobodo Ani had prepared two pots of palm wine for the market by diluting it. There was a cupful to spare, and he sent Nweke Nede to offer it to the appellant, but the appellant refused it, saying it was too sweet. Nwobodo Ani then told his wife to take the two pots to the market, and went off to see about having some palm fruits cut. Before Nweke Nede left for the market the appellant insisted on taking one of the two pots from her. There was no serious dispute over this and she set off with only one pot. The appellant followed her and cut her down with a matchet.
The facts were amply proved, indeed the appellant has never denied that he killed Nweke Nede. He alleged that she had used abusive language to him, but even on his own showing there was no provocation sufficient to reduce the offence from murder to manslaughter, and a verdict convicting him of murder was the only one to which a reasonable tribunal could have come. His appeal was, therefore, dismissed.
One further matter calls for mention. The witnesses for the prosecution included Cecilia Edward, who described herself as the wife of the appellant, and said nothing about the nature of their marriage. Under section 160 of the Evidence Act, the wife or husband of a person charged with murder is not a competent witness for the prosecution if the marriage is a monogamous one, and it was held in R. V Idiong (1950) 13 W.A.C.A. 30, that when once it appears that the witness and the accused person are husband and wife the onus is on the prosecution to establish that the witness is competent by proving the nature of the marriage. Since this was not done in the present case, the evidence of Cecilia Edward was inadmissible. She did not testify to any facts tending to establish the appellant’s guilt, so that it cannot be suggested that any substantial miscarriage of justice resulted from her being called, but it is important that the rules of law governing this matter should be remembered and complied with both by counsel and by Judges.
TAYLOR, F.J.: I concur.
BAIRAMIAN, F.J.: I concur.
Appeal Dismissed.
