3PLR – UDO ISANG UMOREN 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]
UDO ISANG UMOREN
V.
THE QUEEN
FEDERAL SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA
16TH SEPTEMBER, 1960.
F.S.C.181/1960
3PLR/1960/93 (SC)
OTHER CITATIONS
BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS
SIR ADETOKUNBO ADEMOLA, C.J.F. (Presided)
EDGAR IGNATIUS GODFREY UNSWORTH, F.J. (Read the Judgment of the Court)
JOHN IDOWU CONRAD TAYLOR, AG. F.J.
REPRESENTATION:
Mr. J. A. COLE -for the Appellant.
Mr. F. O. NWOKEDI, Senior Crown Counsel -for the Respondent.
MAIN ISSUES
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE: – Murder – Deceased allegedly spitting on accused person – Whether sufficient defence of provocation
CHILDREN AND WOMEN LAW: Deceased woman murdered for allegedly insulting and spitting on the appellant – Whether sufficient provocation
MAIN JUDGMENT
UNSWORTH, F.J. (Delivering the Judgment of the Court):
This appeal was dismissed on the 13th September, 1960, when we stated that we would give the reasons for our decision at a later date. We now do so.
The appellant was, on the 24th May, 1960, convicted by the High Court of the Calabar Judicial Division of the murder on the 25th November, 1959, of one Okposi Udo Uko, who was the wife of the brother-in-law of the appellant. The case for the prosecution was that on the day of the crime the appellant went to the house of the deceased, where his wife was at that time living. He was carrying a matchet and resisted the embraces of a child who came to greet him, on the ground that he was annoyed. The deceased told the appellant not to make trouble, as the owner of the house was unwell, and in reply to a remark by the appellant said that she had the right to warn him even if she was not his mother-in-law. The appellant then struck the deceased while she was sitting down, first on the shoulder and then on the forehead, causing serious matchet wounds, from which the deceased died very shortly afterwards. The appellant did not deny the killing, but said that he was provoked by the deceased, who spat at him and said that if it were in the daytime she would have given him more words to think of.
The learned trial Judge accepted the evidence of the prosecution; rejected the allegation about the spitting, which was denied by the prosecution witnesses; and held that the insults were not sufficient to provoke such a brutal attack on the deceased woman.
The appellant appealed to this Court on the ground that the witnesses did not tell the truth and that the killing was due to provocation. In our view there was ample evidence to justify the finding of the learned trial Judge, and the appeal was accordingly dismissed.
ADEMOLA, C.J.F.: I concur.
TAYLOR, AG. F.J.: I concur.
Appeal Dismissed.
