ANTHONY UMUKORO V. THE STATE (1982)

ANTHONY UMUKORO V. THE STATE

(1982) LCN/2164(SC)

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Thursday, October 7, 1982

Case Number:SC.52/1982

JUSTICES:

AYO GABRIEL IRIKEFE

KAYODE ESO

MOHAMMED BELLO

ANDREWS OTUTU OBASEKI

CHUKWUNWEIKE IDIGBE

BETWEEN

APPELLANTS

ANTHONY UMUKORO

AND

RESPONDENTS

THE STATE

RATIO

APPEAL: WHEN THE APPELLATE COURT IS NOT LIKELY TO REVERSE THE JUDGEMENT OR DECISION OF THE LOWER COURT

The appellant in this case mercilessly hacked to death the wife of his landlord over a dispute involving the sum of N4 which the said appellant paid in settlement of dispute adjudicated upon by a communal tribunal. The appellant felt that it was his landlord who had pressurised him into paying this unjust levy or fine. At his trial the appellant relied on 3 defences, namely (a) provocation (b) self defence and (c) insanity. In a very well written judgment, Kolawole, J., at the High Court, quite rightly in my view, accepted the case of the prosecution and rejected the defences of the appellant. The appeal to the Court of Appeal was, in my view, rightly dismissed. I find no grounds for faulting the decisions of the two earlier courts and I would also dismiss this appeal. Appeal dismissed and the decision of the Ijebu-Ode High Court (Kolawole, J) dated 19th February, 1979, wherein the appellant was convicted and sentenced to death is hereby affirmed. PER A.G IRIKEFE, J.S.C.

G. IRIKEFE, J.S.C.(Delivering the Leading Judgment): The appellant in this case mercilessly hacked to death the wife of his landlord over a dispute involving the sum of N4 which the said appellant paid in settlement of dispute adjudicated upon by a communal tribunal. The appellant felt that it was his landlord who had pressurised him into paying this unjust levy or fine.At his trial the appellant relied on 3 defences, namely (a) provocation (b) self defence and (c) insanity. In a very well written judgment, Kolawole, J., at the High Court, quite rightly in my view, accepted the case of the prosecution and rejected the defences of the appellant. The appeal to the Court of Appeal was, in my view, rightly dismissed. I find no grounds for faulting the decisions of the two earlier courts and I would also dismiss this appeal.
Appeal dismissed and the decision of the Ijebu-Ode High Court (Kolawole, J) dated 19th February, 1979, wherein the appellant was convicted and sentenced to death is hereby affirmed.

M. BELLO, J.S.C.:  Because he had some misunderstanding with her husband, the appellant inflicted several cuts with a matchet on Mrs. Agidi who died as the result. The trial Judge considered the defences of provocation and insanity which he rightly, in my view, rejected. He convicted the appellant of murder. The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal.
Learned counsel and the Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions have nothing useful to urge in the appellant’s favour at the hearing of the appeal in this court.

I agree the appeal is devoid of merits. It should be dismissed. I re-affirm the conviction and sentence.

C. IDIGBE, J.S.C.:  I agree that this appeal be dismissed. The facts in the High Court reveal that the appellant deliberately murdered the deceased because she and her husband P.W.2 (appellant’s landlord) had advised him (the appellant) to report to the village Chief a matter in which he the appellant had, albeit, erroneously, strong misgivings; he had been accused by his neighbour as having stolen his pots of palm wine. However, it happened that the Chief who intervened in the matter between the appellant and his neighbour found against the appellant on whom a levy or fine of N4 was imposed and the Chief believed he had settled the matter. Feeling aggrieved, again, albeit, erroneously, the appellant set upon the deceased and hacked her body almost into pieces. The learned trial Judge, rightly in my view, found there was neither provocation recognisable in law nor justification for the killing of the deceased and sentenced the appellant to death; his appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal was, in my view, rightly rejected. Both learned counsel for the appellant and the State rightly in my view, have nothing in favour of the accused to urge on this court. The defence of insanity was rightly rejected by both lower courts. The appeal lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed.

A. O. OBASEKI, J.S.C.:  I agree that this appeal be dismissed. The appellant was tried and convicted of the murder of Anike Ebun Agiri under Section 257(1) of Criminal Code L.W.N. 1959 by the High Court. His appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal was dismissed rightly in my view, after a consideration of the record of proceedings and judgment of the High Court and the submission of counsel that he had nothing to urge in favour of the appeal. Before this court, counsel has quite properly and correctly, in my view, conceded that nothing in law and fact can be urged usefully in favour of the appeal.

The facts proved and accepted by the trial Judge show that the appellant armed himself with a matchet and threatened to kill his landlord who was the husband of the deceased for reporting a confession of theft of 4 pots of illicit gin he made secretly to him to the Bale of Makun and involving him in payment of the fine of N4.00. The landlord, faced with the threat, fled for his life and made for the Bale’s place where he reported the threat. In the absence of the landlord, his wife, who had been away from home for 10 months for fertility treatment arrived into the cold embrace of an armed, blood-thirsty man. The appellant slew her and cut her to pieces.

Before the police, the appellant made an oral and written confession, Exhibit A. In court, he varied the confession to one of a fight but this was rejected by the trial Judge. The defences of provocation, self-defence and insanity were considered and rejected rightly, in my view.

The evidence on record in my view amply justify the conviction and I find no merit whatsoever in the appeal and I hereby dismiss it and affirm the conviction and sentence passed by the High Court and affirmed by the Federal Court of Appeal.

K. ESO, J.S.C.: I agree with both learned counsel that there is nothing that can be urged in favour of the appellant in this case. This is a deliberate and calculated murder. The learned trial Judge made a thorough consideration of the facts and considered the defences of insanity, self-defence and provocation raised by the appellant. The finding of the learned trial Judge, I think is unimpeachable. I agree with the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal that the appeal lacked merit. In this court nothing has been urged rightly in my view in favour of the appellant. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Decision of the High Court and Federal Court of Appeal affirmed.