Emmanuel O. Ubani v. The State

CASE IDENTIFICATION

Court

Supreme Court of Nigeria

Judicial Division

Abuja

Suit / Appeal Number

SC.207/2000

Date of Judgment

13/12/2001

NLC Citation

UBANI v. STATE (2001) NLC-2072000(SC)

Coram

ABUBAKAR BASHIR WALI, JSC
UMARU ATU KALGO, JSC
SAMSON ODEMWINGIE UWAIFO, JSC
AKINTOLA OLUFEMI EJIWUNMI, JSC
EMMANUEL OLAYINKA AYOOLA, JSC

EDITORIAL SUMMARY

Editorial — not part of the judgment as delivered

Facts of the Case

The appellant was convicted of murder by the trial court and his conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeal. The prosecution’s case was that the appellant went to a venue where a meeting for marital reconciliation between his family and his in-laws was holding. Upon arrival, he disrupted the proceedings and exhibited violence from the outset, slapping one of the in-laws at the meeting. The appellant later fetched a machete and pursued PW1, Appolus Onyendi. When PW1 escaped to safety, the appellant chased the deceased who had mounted a bicycle in an attempt to escape, caught up with him, and struck him with the machete on the neck. The deceased fell off the bicycle and died instantly.

The appellant raised defences of provocation, self-defence, and accident before the trial court. The trial court considered these defences and found them unavailable to the appellant. The Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, holding that the trial court had adequately considered the appellant’s defences. The appellant further appealed to the Supreme Court, raising essentially the same issues regarding the availability of these defences.

Issues for Determination

ISSUE: Whether the defences of provocation, self-defence, and accident were available to the appellant in the circumstances of this case.

Decision / Holding

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as lacking in merit and affirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant for murder. The concurrent findings of the two lower courts were upheld, and the defences of provocation, self-defence, and accident were found to be unavailable to the appellant on the evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

1. APPELLATE PRACTICE – Concurrent Findings – Supreme Court Will Not Interfere Unless Manifestly Erroneous

"I see no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings by the two courts below. The appeal lacks merit and I hereby dismiss it."

Per Wali, JSC, in Ubani v. State (2001) NLC-2072000(SC) at p. 1; Paras E–A.

2. CRIMINAL LAW – Defences – Self-Defence – Availability Requires Evidence That Accused Acted in Protection of Self

"Where the defence of the appellant charged with murder rests on the circumstances of the killing, and the trial court has found that upon the evidence those circumstances do not exist, that should be the end of the matter, unless it is demonstrated by the appellant that the finding that those circumstances do not exist is erroneous."

Per Ayoola, JSC, in Ubani v. State (2001) NLC-2072000(SC) at p. 5; Paras A–B.

3. CRIMINAL LAW – Defences – Provocation – When Unavailable to Reduce Murder to Manslaughter

"The defences of provocation, mistake or accident were fully considered by the trial court and the Court of Appeal and were found to be not available to the appellant. I agree with this conclusion."

Per Wali, JSC, in Ubani v. State (2001) NLC-2072000(SC) at p. 1; Paras D–E.

4. CRIMINAL LAW – Defences – Accident – Unavailable Where Acts Are Deliberate and Intentional

"There was no evidence of self-defence, provocation or accident with which the appellant could avail himself. The two courts below considered those defences and rejected them. I have no doubt that the appellant intended to kill the deceased when he went straight for his neck and fatally attacked it."

Per Uwaifo, JSC, in Ubani v. State (2001) NLC-2072000(SC) at pp. 2–3; Paras E–A.

5. CRIMINAL LAW – Murder – Intent to Kill Inferred From Use of Weapon on Vital Part of Body

"I have no doubt that the appellant intended to kill the deceased when he went straight for his neck and fatally attacked it."

Per Uwaifo, JSC, in Ubani v. State (2001) NLC-2072000(SC) at p. 3; Paras A–B.

6. CRIMINAL LAW – Murder – Standard of Proof – Prosecution Must Prove Case Beyond Reasonable Doubt

"The learned trial Judge carefully considered and evaluated the prosecution's evidence and came to the right conclusion that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt."

Per Wali, JSC, in Ubani v. State (2001) NLC-2072000(SC) at p. 1; Paras D–E.

7. EVIDENCE LAW – Witnesses – Evidence of Blood Relations – Caution Required

"The learned trial Judge warned himself on the evidence of the blood relations. He said: 'The court is not unaware of the caution with which evidence of blood relations should be viewed.' Having so cautioned himself he accepted evidence of the prosecution witnesses."

Per Ayoola, JSC, in Ubani v. State (2001) NLC-2072000(SC) at p. 4; Paras D–E.

Orders of Court

Appeal dismissed
Conviction and sentence of the appellant affirmed
Decision of the Court of Appeal confirming that of the trial court affirmed

APPEARANCES

Counsel for the Appellant(s)

Chief C.A.B. Akparanta (with him, R. M. Emem, Esq.)

Counsel for the Respondent(s)

Chief Mike Ozekhome (with him, Marcel E. Eriofoloh)

Amicus Curiae

None

JUDGMENTS / OPINIONS OF THE COURT

Authoritative judicial text as delivered

Lead / Majority Opinion

— (DELIVERED BY WALI, J.S.C. (DELIVERING THE LEAD JUDGMENT):)

Having read the record, the written briefs filed by learned counsel on both sides and having heard the oral submissions in elaboration of the respective briefs, I have no hesitation in dismissing the appeal.
The evidence adduced before the trial court by the prosecution that the appellant brutally murdered the deceased on the fateful day by cutting his neck with a machete is unimpeachable. The defences of provocation, mistake or accident were fully considered by the trial court and the Court of Appeal and were found to be not available to the appellant. I agree with this conclusion.
The learned trial Judge carefully considered and evaluated the prosecution’s evidence and came to the right conclusion that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

P.1

The Court of Appeal was right in confirming the judgment of the trial court. I see no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings by the two courts below.
The appeal lacks merit and I hereby dismiss it. I affirm the conviction and sentence.

KALGO, J.S.C.: There is no merit in this appeal. The trial court and the Court of Appeal have carefully considered the evidence in the case and have in my view come to the correct conclusion in convicting the appellant of the offence of murder contrary to section 319 of the Criminal Code. The defences of accident, self defence and provocation raised by the appellant at his trial were properly considered in the light of the evidence and were properly found in my view, to be unavailable to the appellant in the circumstances of this case. It appears to me that this is a clear case of deliberate murder committed by the appellant for which the wrath of law must be applied. So I find.
For these reasons and the more reasons stated in the leading judgment, I find that the appeal lacks merit. It is accordingly dismissed. I affirm the decision of the Court of Appeal confirming that of the trial court. The conviction and sentence of the appellant are hereby confirmed.

Concurring Opinion(s)

— UWAIFO, J.S.C.:

I agree with the judgment of my learned brother Wali JSC that this appeal lacks merit for the reasons he has given.
The appellant went to the venue where a meeting for marital reconciliation between his family and his in-laws was holding and disrupted the proceedings. He exhibited violence right from the outset when he slapped one of those in-laws at the meeting. He later fetched a machete and pursued PW1, Appolus Onyendi. When PW1 escaped to safety, he chased the deceased who had mounted a bicycle in an attempt to escape, caught up with him, and gave him a blow with the machete on the neck. He fell off the bicycle and died on the spot.

P.2

There was no evidence of self-defence, provocation or accident with which the appellant could avail himself. The two courts below considered those defences and rejected them. I have no doubt that the appellant intended to kill the deceased when he went straight for his neck and fatally attacked it. The two courts below arrived at the proper verdict. I too, find no merit in this appeal and dismiss it.

— EJIWUNMI, J.S.C.:

The facts of this case have been properly reviewed by the court below while considering the appeal of the appellant against his conviction for the offence of murder by the trial Court. It is manifest that the appellant killed the deceased with a matchet. The deceased was at the time he was attacked by the appellant, on his way to call the Councillor in the area to intervene in the dispute between the parties.
The court considered each of the defences of provocation, self defence and accident in connection with the facts of the case. The learned trial Judge then held that none of these defences was open to the appellant. The court below also considered the entire case and also whether any of these defences could be available to the appellant. The court came to the conclusion, quite rightly, that the trial court was right in the view held that none of the defences was open to the appellant. His conviction for murder was affirmed.
In this court, the learned counsel for the appellant has raised the question again. I think that he has not satisfied me that the court below was wrong in the view held that none of the defences of provocation, self-defence and accident was available to the appellant.

P.3

In the result, I see no reason to disturb the judgment of the court below. I will therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. The conviction of the appellant for the offence of murder is accordingly upheld by me. The appeal is dismissed for the above reasons and for reasons given in the judgment of my learned brother, Hon Justice Wali, J.S.C.

— AYOOLA, J.S.C.:

I agree that this appeal should be dismissed. The appeal turns on facts. It is common ground that the appellant killed the deceased. The only question is: in what circumstances did the appellant kill the deceased? The appellant’s case was that he killed the deceased in circumstances of accident, provocation and self defence. The trial Judge rejected the appellant’s case and amply stated reasons for so doing. The reasons were stated from page 87 of the record. The trial Judge rejected the evidence of the appellant as to the circumstances in which he killed the deceased. He pointed out what he described as the “endless lies” of the appellant. At the end of the day, after considering the evidence before him he held that “the defence of accident, provocation and self-defence are not available to the accused person.” He warned himself on the evidence of the blood relations. He said:
“The court is not unaware of the caution with which evidence of blood relations should be viewed.”
Having so cautioned himself he accepted evidence of the prosecution witnesses.
On the appellant’s appeal to the Court of Appeal from his conviction for the murder of the deceased, the main question was whether the trial Judge considered adequately the defence of the appellant. The court below had no difficulty in holding that he did.
The court below meticulously narrated how the trial court considered the defence. It is therefore surprising that on this further appeal counsel for appellant made the same issue the main stay of his appeal.

P.4

Where the defence of the appellant charged with murder rests on the circumstances of the killing, and the trial court has found that upon the evidence those circumstances do not exist, that should be the end of the matter, unless it is demonstrated by the appellant that the finding that those circumstances do not exist is erroneous. That has not been done in this case. This appeal is clearly without substance. It is accordingly dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.

P.5

Dissenting Opinion(s)