3PLR – EGEDE UGBO 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]
EGEDE UGBO
V.
THE QUEEN
FEDERAL SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA
29TH JUNE, 1957.
F.S.C. 98/1957
3PLR/1957/77 (SC)
OTHER CITATIONS
BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS:
OLUMUYIWA J1BOWU, AG. F.C.J. (Presided and Read the Judgment of the Court)
M.C. NAGEON DE LESTANG, F.J.
MYLES JOHN ABBOTT, AG. F.J.
MAIN ISSUES
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE:- Murder – How proved – Where accused asserts facts tending towards delusion as motivation for the crime – Belief in witch-craft – Effect thereof – whether falls within Section 28 Criminal Code
CHILDREN AND WOMEN LAW:- Security of homestead and neighbor – A man killed by third party while he was lying down outside his house with wife and baby – Attitude of court thereto
REPRESENTATION:
Applicant not represented by Counsel.
S.O. OKURIBIDO, Crown Counsel -for Respondent.
MAIN JUDGMENT
JIBOWU, Ag. F.C.J. (Delivering the Judgment of the Court):
The applicant, Egede Ugbo, was convicted of murdering Egede Nwamgba at Igbeagu in the Province of Ogoja on the 3rd October, 1956, and sentenced to death by Hughes, J., sitting at the High Court at Abakaliki on the 9th April, 1957, His application for leave to appeal against the said conviction was refused by this Court on the 28th June, 1957, and we now give reasons for the refusal.
The prosecution proved that the deceased, Egede Nwamgba, died of shock and haemorrhage from the multiple severe wounds inflicted on him on the night in question by the applicant.
The applicant admitted both in his voluntary statement to the police and in his evidence at the trial that he went armed with a matchet from his house to the house of the deceased and that he attacked and wounded the deceased who was lying down outside his house with one of his wives and their baby. He also handed over to the police the matchet with which he inflicted the injuries. His explanation for this dastardly act was that the deceased had about five days previously poisoned him and made him ill by coming to his house at night and calling out his name.
The following were the injuries found on the body of the deceased at the post mortem examination by Dr. Peterside, Medical Officer, Abakaliki:
“Incised wounds,
(1) across the left jaw 2½” long and penetrating into the mouth;
(2) across the lateral aspect of the upper part of the left upper arm 4″ long with section of the humerus;
(3) across the left hand 3″ long with complete section of the lateral four fingers;
(4) across the medial aspect of the right fore-arm 3″ long and 2″ deep;
(5) longitudinally through the antero-medial aspect of the right knee, 4″ long with penetration of the knee joint;
(6) across the back of the left loin 6″ long with penetration of the abdominal cavity and extrusion of the intestines;
(7) across the back 7″ long and deep to the level of the dorsal spines;
(8) across the left buttock 4″ long and 2″ deep.”
The applicant stated that he did not intend to kill the deceased but only wanted him to suffer pain as he was suffering, but there could be no doubt from the nature of the multiple wounds that the applicant intended not merely to do grievous bodily harm to the deceased but to kill him.
There was no evidence to support the allegation that the deceased had poisoned the applicant but the learned Judge was convinced that the applicant strongly believed he had been poisoned and that the belief was the result of a delusion.
In our view, the learned trial Judge properly considered the question of the mental condition of the applicant and reached the right conclusion on the evidence that the case of the applicant came within the proviso to section 28 of the Criminal Code.
Even if the deceased had poisoned the applicant as he believed, the killing of the deceased in the circumstances was an act of revenge which would make the killing murder.
We were satisfied that the learned trial Judge was right in holding that there was no proof of provocation that could reduce the offence committed from murder to manslaughter.
The applicant applied for leave to appeal firstly on the ground that he committed the offence unintentionally, and secondly on the ground that he killed the deceased during a fight as the deceased wanted to kill him.
We found no substance in the first ground and found the second ground unsupported by the evidence given at the trial. As we were satisfied the applicant was rightly convicted of murder, we refused his application for leave to appeal.
DE LESTANG, F.J.: I concur.
ABBOTT, AG. F.J.: I concur.
Application Refused.
