LAMIDI KARIMU V. THE STATE
In The Supreme Court of Nigeria
On Thursday, the 8th day of July, 1999
SC.138/1997
RATIO
JUDGMENT: WHEN THE COURT WOULD BE RELUCTANT TO UPSET THE FINDINGS OF THE LOWER COURT
This court is very reluctant to upset such finding unless in very exceptional circumstances e.g. where the judgment appealed against is perverse. PER E. O. OGWUEGBU, J.S.C.
JUSTICES
SALIHU MODIBBO ALFA BELGORE Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
EMMANUEL OBIOMA OGWUEGBU Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
ANTHONY IKECHUKWU IGUH Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
ALOYSIUS IYORGYER KATSINA-ALU Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
EMMANUEL OLAYINKA AYOOLA Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
Between
LAMIDI KARIMU Appellant(s)
AND
THE STATE Respondent(s)
M. A. BELGORE, J.S.C (Delivering the Leading Judgment): The appellant, a farmer of Eleyele Ijeja village was passing through Ikereku village on 31/8/89 and he was accosted by Yekini Saidu in connection with an alleged threat by the appellant against one Rabiu Bello. As a result, an argument ensued leading to a fight between the appellant and Yekini Saidu (P.W.3). The deceased Sunday Aremu who was living near the scene came out so as to separate the two combatants. In the heat of the struggle between the appellant and Yekini Saidu the appellant brought out his matchet and attacked the deceased with it. As a result of this attack, a wound was inflicted on the deceased in his left arm. The wound, on his left humerus was about six inches long. This wound extended to the left ulna thereby severing artery and vein in the arm leading to massive bleeding that led to his death. The evidence of the appellant is that he was mobbed by many people about five – and he had to defend himself. This contention has not been supported by evidence brought in for defence.
Learned trial Judge, after reviewing the entire evidence before him came to the conclusion that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Court of Appeal, faced with all the evidence on record and the findings of fact before the trial judge, had no reason to interfere with the lower Court’s decision.
In this Court there is nothing to indicate any reason for setting aside findings of fact of the two Courts below. There is no satisfactory evidence of self-defence. The appellant at least exceeded his right of self-defence by using matchet, a very dangerous weapon. I find no reason to interfere with the decision of the Court of Appeal which upheld the judgment of the trial Court. I therefore dismiss this appeal.
E. O. OGWUEGBU, J.S.C.: This appeal is against the judgment of the court below delivered on 16-5-97, affirming the conviction and sentence of death passed on the appellant by the trial court.
The appeal to this court is predicated on two issues namely self defence which is said to be available to the appellant and was not adequately considered by the courts below and secondly, that the prosecution did not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
As to self defence, the courts below found that the deceased had nothing to do with the enquiry originated by P. W. 3 with the appellant and did not take part in the fracas between P.W.3 and the appellant.
The learned trial judge on the facts rejected the plea of the defence. In confirming the finding of the trial judge, the court below said:
“Consequently from the facts and circumstances of the present case and from which ever angle or version it is looked upon, the defence of self defence does not avail the appellant and it is rightly rejected by the trial court.
………………..”
The court below also rejected the defence of provocation. Having read the record of appeal and the respective briefs of argument, I am unable to see where the courts below went wrong. It should also be remembered that this appeal is against concurrent findings of two lower courts.
This court is very reluctant to upset such finding unless in very exceptional circumstances e.g. where the judgment appealed against is perverse.
This appeal lacks merit. I hereby dismiss it and affirm the conviction and sentence of death imposed on the appellant by the courts below.
A. I. IGUH, J.S.C.: The appellant was arraigned before the Abeokuta High Court on the 14th June. 1991 upon an information which charged him with the murder of one Aremu Sunday punishable under section 319(1) of the Criminal Code Law, Cap. 29, Laws of Ogun State of Nigeria 1978. On the facts found established by the trial court and affirmed by the Court of Appeal, the appellant was engaged in a road fight with P.W.3 as a result of which the deceased and some others who lived near the scene rushed out to separate the fight and make peace between them. At this stage the appellant pulled out a matchet and dealt blows thereof on the deceased who bled profusely therefrom and died before he could get to the Hospital for treatment.
It was not in doubt that the deceased died as a result of the injuries he received from the appellant. Although the deceased raised the defences of provocation, self defence and accident, these were carefully considered by both courts below and resolved against the appellant. It was established not only that the deceased had nothing to do with the fight but that it was the appellant who provoked it and that the same appellant without cause matchetted the deceased with the intention of inflicting grievous bodily harm on him. None of these findings of fact found by the trial court and affirmed by the court below has been attacked before us as perverse. I cannot therefore find my way clear to interfere with the said findings.
This appeal lacks substance and the same is hereby dismissed.
A. I. KATSINA-ALU, J.S.C.: I entirely agree with the judgment of my learned brother Belgore, J.S.C. in this appeal. There have been concurrent findings of fact by the trial High Court and the Court of Appeal. This court can only interfere with concurrent findings if it has shown that they are perverse and have occasioned a miscarriage of justice. The appellant has been unable to show on the evidence that the findings of the trial court were not supported by the evidence before the court.
P.W.3 gave an eye witness account of what happened on the fateful day. The learned trial Judge who saw and heard him believed his testimony. The lower court also believed him. We have not been given any good reason to upturn the decision of the trial court.
In the circumstances, I too will dismiss this appeal and accordingly affirm the conviction and sentence c of the appellant.
E. O. AYOOLA, J.S.C.: This is a case in which the High Court and the Court of Appeal have made concurrent findings of fact on the material issues: namely, that the appellant made an unprovoked attack on the deceased in circumstances which were not of self defence or provocation. The trial judge having found that the appellant had inflicted the injury that led to the deceased’s death ruled out the defences, of provocation and self defence which he duly submitted for his consideration.
The Court of Appeal also considered the two defences and came to the conclusion that the High Court was right in holding that they did not avail the appellant. On this appeal from the decision of the court below, it has been argued that the court below was right in holding that the injury inflicted by the appellant was the cause of the death of the deceased. Reliance was placed on pieces of evidence which show that the deceased had some substance applied to his wound and that there was difficulty in getting him to the hospital in time. These pieces of evidence are evidently inconsequential in the face of the expert evidence of the doctor as to the cause of death which he described as bleeding to death, i.e acute haemorrhage. There is no evidence of any other intervening cause. Besides, section 312 of the Criminal Code, rightly referred to by counsel for the appellant; puts it beyond peradventure. That it is immaterial that death from the injury which caused death might have been prevented by proper care or treatment.
In my judgment, there is really no substance in this appeal. The issues of fact have been properly dealt with by the high Court and the Court of Appeal. The appellant has not shown that there was any perversity in the findings made by the High Court to which the Court of Appeal concurred. There is thus no reason why this court should interfere with concurrent findings of fact or even with findings based on evidence believed by the trial court. This appeal is clearly a try-on.
For these reasons, I would dismiss this appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
Appearances
Jibola A, Olanipekun For Appellant
AND
Mobekoyi (Solicitor-General, Ogun State) (with him. Y. Oresanya, Mrs.)
Senior State Counsel) and B.A. Adebayo (Senior State Counsel) For Respondent
