3PLR – UCHANWOGO 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]
UCHANWOGO
V.
THE QUEEN
SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA
F.S.C. 352/1963
18TH NOVEMBER, 1963.
OTHER CITATIONS
BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS:
SIR ADETOKUNBO ADEMOLA, C.J.N. (Presided and Read the Judgment of the Court)
JOHN IDOWU CONRAD TAYLOR, J.S.C.
SIR VAHE BAIRAMIAN, J.S.C.
MAIN ISSUES
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – Murder – Provocation – Proportionality of retaliation, a deciding factor.
REPRESENTATION
J.A. Cole -for the Appellant.
F.O. Nwokedi (with him, F.M. Ayalogu and K.K. Keazor) – for the Respondent.
ADEMOLA, C.J.N. (Delivering the Judgment of the Court): The appellant was on the 3rd August, 1963 convicted of murder and sentenced to death by the High Court of Eastern Nigeria Holden at Abakaliki. He appealed to this Court and on 1st November, 1963 we dismissed his appeal stating we would give our reasons later.
The case against the appellant in the High Court is shortly as follows:
The appellant’s son was discharged from prison. A few people went to the appellant’s house to drink. The deceased, a young man, during the merriment challenged the appellant’s son to wrestle with him: he boasted he would knock him down as many times as they engaged in wrestling. The appellant persuaded his son to accept the challenge and the young man reluctantly accepted. He was, however, knocked down by the deceased and later people there stopped the game and took the appellant’s son away. It is not clear from the evidence how the deceased and the appellant became engaged in a fight after this incident.
The appellant, according to the evidence, insisted he would continue the fight with the deceased. In his evidence he said that the deceased struck him in the ear with a stick, whereby he went into his house, took his matchet and dealt the deceased a blow which killed him.
The witnesses present at the scene were unable to say how the fight started, but they were all agreed that the deceased carried no stick and did not hit the appellant with one. It would appear he used his hands or fist on the appellant. The witnesses who were at the scene and who gave evidence stated clearly that the deceased carried no weapon.
For the appellant a defence of provocation was raised but it was rejected by the learned trial Judge. We do not think a slap on the face called for a severe blow with a matchet, which caused an injury which the doctor described as “large laceration on the centre of the chest about 7 long extending from the left clavic to the sternum midway. The laceration involving aorta, pulmonary vessels and lung tissues.”
In the circumstances, we were unable to differ from the trial Judge that this was not a case of provocation known to law, and we dismissed the appeal.
TAYLOR, J.S.C.: I concur.
BAIRAMIAN, J.S.C.: I concur.
Appeal Dismissed.
