N. EKEREKE V. THE STATE
In The Supreme Court of Nigeria
On Thursday, the 19th day of February, 1981
SC.5/1980
JUSTICES
GEORGE SODEINDE SOWEMIMO Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
MOHAMMED BELLO Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
ANDREWS OTUTU OBASEKI Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
AUGUSTINE NNAMANI Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
MUHAMMADU LAWAL UWAIS Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
Between
- EKEREKE Appellant(s)
AND
THE STATE Respondent(s)
S. SOWEMIMO, J.S.C. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This act of reckless killing is rather common in this area. There is no justification whatsoever for the killing. Both counsel have nothing to urge in favour of the appellant. There is no merit in the deliberate case of murder in this case. The appeal is dismissed.
M. BELLO, J.S.C.: The appellant was convicted of murder and sentenced to death in the High Court of Cross River State. The Federal Court of Appeal struck out his appeal in that court on a technical ground. At the hearing of his appeal in this court, counsel has nothing to urge in his favour.
The facts proved at the trial were: simply because the deceased had caused the appellant to spill some garri the appellant was emptying from one bag to another, the appellant drew his matchet and cut the throat of the deceased who fell down and died on the spot. This is a staightforward case of murder. There is no merit in the appeal and it is dismissed. The conviction and sentence be affirmed.
A. O. OBASEKI, J.S.C.: The appellant was charged with the murder of Udo Akwa Isua contrary to Section 319 of the Criminal Code.
Ten witnesses testified before the trial Judge, two of which were eye witnesses to the unprovoked slaughter. The appellant testified in his own defence. The trial Judge (Umoh, J.), fully considered the evidence, accepted the fact that the appellant, without provocation inflicted a deep matchet cut on the neck of the deceased from which he died immediately. He convicted the appellant and sentenced him to death.
His appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal was not successful. He has now appealed to this court. We note that the appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal was struck out for improperly heading it to the Federal Supreme Court. I think that in view of the fact that the appellant is illiterate and he filed the Notice of Appeal himself, regard should have been had to that fact and the error amended. In any case, the appeal was before that court.
In this court, learned counsel on both sides have rightly observed and announced that there is nothing to urge in favour of the appellant. I have read the record and found that the conviction was justified by the evidence which was overwhelmingly against the appellant.
It appeared the appellant was blood thirsty that day because the evidence showed that he ran amok setting fire on houses and killing people.
I agree that there is no merit in this appeal and that it be dismissed. I hereby dismiss it and affirm the conviction and sentence passed by the High Court and affirmed by the Federal Court of Appeal.
A. NNAMANI, J.S.C.: The appeal of the appellant to the Federal Court of Appeal, Enugu Judicial Division, was struck out on the ground that his notice of appeal was wrongly headed “Federal Supreme Court”. The appellant has appealed to this court. Mrs. Otu, learned Acting Director of Public Prosecutions of the Cross River State has submitted that though there are decisions of this court on striking out of suits where notice of appeal has been wrongly headed, she would not support striking out of appeals for such reasons in murder cases. I agree with this having regard to the facts that these are capital cases and that the appellants in these cases do not always have advantages of the services of counsel while filing their notices of appeal. However, having read the records, and after hearing both learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent, I am satisfied that there is no substance in the appeal. This was, as the trial Judge found, a deliberate killing of the deceased. There were eye witnesses whom the trial Judge rightly believed and who testified that appellant matcheted the deceased to death while the deceased was merely asking to have his gari bag returned to him. These eye witnesses included appellant’s wife. The learned trial Judge duly considered the defences of provocation and self defence which the appellant raised and rightly rejected them. Though the appellant appears to have gone on a rampage that night killing people and burning huts, there was no evidence before the trial court of any abnormality of mind nor did the defence in that court rely on it. I think this appeal ought to be dismissed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant are hereby affirmed.
M. L. UWAIS, J.S.C.: There is no merit in this appeal. The appellant struck the deceased with a matchet following some argument about a bag of garri which belonged to the deceased. The evidence adduced against the appellant was overwhelming. There was an eye-witness to the incident – his wife. I accordingly agree that the appeal should be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. The conviction and sentence of death are hereby affirmed.
Appearances
A.E Ikweme For Appellant
AND
E.B. Otu (Mrs.), Ag. D.P.P. Cross-River State For Respondent
