3PLR – HALILU LILO DAN GAMBO JAMA’ARE ACIKA V. KANO NATIVE AUTHORITY
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]
HALILU LILO DAN GAMBO JAMA’ARE ACIKA
V.
KANO NATIVE AUTHORITY
FEDERAL SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA
12TH DECEMBER, 1956
FSC 219/1956
3PLR/1956/74 (SC)
BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS:
OLUMUYIWA JIBOWU, AG. F.C.J. (Presided and Read the Judgment of the Court)
M.C. NAGEON DE LESTANG, F.J.
PERCIVAL CYRIL HUBBARD, AG. F.J.
MAIN ISSUES
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – Murder – Confession under Maliki Law – Effect.
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – Murder – Provocation – Not known to Maliki Law.
RELEGIOUS LAW – SHARIA LAW: Murder –
COUNSELS:
Applicant not represented.
- O. Kazeem, Crown Counsel -for Respondent.
MAIN JUDGMENT
JIBOWU, Ag. F.C.J. (Delivering the Judgment of the Court):
The applicant’s appeal to the High Court of the Northern Region sitting at Kano from his conviction for murder by the Emir of Kano’s Court was dismissed by the Chief Justice and Smith, J., of the Northern region on the 2nd September, 1956. His application for leave to appeal to this Court was refused on the 7th December, 1956, and we now give reasons for our decision.
It is a well established rule of Maliki Law under which the applicant was tried that a person may be convicted of intentional homicide on his confession proved by the evidence of two witnesses.
The 2nd, 4th, 5th and 6th witnesses testified to having heard the applicant confess that he killed the deceased because he was carrying on affairs with his wife.
There was also evidence of the 7th witness who stated that he saw the applicant standing with a stick in hand, over the deceased, who was lying on the ground and “rattling” to death, and that the applicant ran away when he saw the witness approaching.
His defence was a bare denial which the Emir’s Court rejected and so found him guilty.
At the High Court applicant’s Counsel argued on self defence and provocation. The defence of provocation is unknown to Maliki Law and could not properly be raised on appeal in view of section 67 of the Northern Region High Court Law, 1955. There was no evidence on Record to suggest that the deceased was killed in self defence.
The High Court therefore dismissed the appeal as the learned Judges were satisfied that the conviction was correct according to Maliki Law. We were satisfied that the High Court was right in saying that the applicant was rightly convicted according to Maliki Law and the application for leave to appeal was accordingly refused.
DE LESTANG, F.J.: I concur.
HUBBARD, AG. F.J.: I concur.
Application refused
