JOHN OFUJE V. THE STATE(1982)

JOHN OFUJE V. THE STATE

(1982) LCN/2161(SC)

In The Supreme Court of Nigeria

On Thursday, the 28th day of October, 1982

SC.75/1981

RATIO

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE: DEFENSE OF PROVOCATION: WHEN THE DEFENSE OF PROVOCATION WOULD NOT AVAIL THE ACCUSED

I have carefully gone through the records of proceedings.I think that both learned counsel were right in their submissions that there isnothing in law that can be urged in favour of the appellant. The appellantslaughtered a young girl of 14 like a goat because she refused him sex andbecause he feared that he might lose her in marriage to someone else. It seemsthat as he stated in his confessional statement to the police, rather than seeher married to someone else on earth both of them would go to heaven andcontract their marriage there. The evidence against the appellant wasoverwhelming. The learned trial Judge very fully and fairly evaluated it. Inaddition he considered, and rightly rejected, the defences of self defence andprovocation raised in favour of the appellant. I think the appeal was rightlydismissed by the Federal Court of Appeal after that court had again fullyconsidered the defence of provocation. I agree that the appeal be dismissed andit is hereby dismissed. The judgments of the High Court and the Federal Courtof Appeal are hereby affirmed. PER A. NNAMANI, J.S.C.

JUSTICES

GEORGE SODEINDE SOWEMIMO Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria

CHUKWUNWEIKE IDIGBE 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

JOHN OFUJE Appellant(s)

AND

THE STATE Respondent(s)

G. S. SOWEMIMO, J.S.C.(Delivering the Leading Judgment): I have carefully considered the record of proceedings of the High Court and the Federal Court of Appeal. I agree with both counsel that there is nothing useful that can be urged in favour of the appellant who had cut the throat of a young primary school girl in the belief that she was unlikely to get married to him. There is no defence whatsoever to such a brutal act. The appeal lacks merit and is dismissed.

C. IDIGBE, J.S.C.: This is indeed a sad case. The deceased a young school girl was slaughtered, in cold blood, by the appellant who slashed her throat with a knife after placing her on a table apparently in quasi-kneeling position and leaving her absolutely nude. Appellant had asked to have the young girl (i.e. deceased) as a wife; his request was not entirely rejected but the mother told the appellant that his request would be considered later and gave an undertaking to the appellant that she would give the deceased to him in marriage after she left the primary school of which she was, at all material times to this case, a pupil. The appellant confirmed this in his evidence. The appellant persisted in his request and on the fateful day slaughtered the deceased as already stated. The learned trial Judge’s decision that appellant is guilty of murder was affirmed by their Lordships of the Court of Appeal. Both learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent appearing before us have nothing to urge in favour of the appellant and I consider that they are right in the view they take of the matter. I can find nothing in favour of the appellant who, in law, rightly and richly deserves the punishment meted out to him. I agree that this appeal be and is hereby dismissed.

A. O. OBASEKI, J.S.C.: I have read and studied the record of proceedings in the courts below and I agree with both counsel that there is nothing that can be urged usefully in favour of the appellant.

The appellant slaughtered the deceased by the throat for refusing to marry him and as he said in his statement to the police, he must follow the deceased to wherever she is.

There is therefore no merit in this appeal and I agree that it be dismissed. I hereby dismiss it and affirm the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal which affirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the High Court of Justice, Bendel State.

A. NNAMANI, J.S.C.: I have carefully gone through the records of proceedings. I think that both learned counsel were right in their submissions that there is nothing in law that can be urged in favour of the appellant. The appellant slaughtered a young girl of 14 like a goat because she refused him sex and because he feared that he might lose her in marriage to someone else. It seems that as he stated in his confessional statement to the police, rather than see her married to someone else on earth both of them would go to heaven and contract their marriage there. The evidence against the appellant was overwhelming. The learned trial Judge very fully and fairly evaluated it. In addition he considered, and rightly rejected, the defences of self defence and provocation raised in favour of the appellant. I think the appeal was rightly dismissed by the Federal Court of Appeal after that court had again fully considered the defence of provocation. I agree that the appeal be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. The judgments of the High Court and the Federal Court of Appeal are hereby affirmed.

M. L. UWAIS, J.S.C.: I agree with both counsel for the appellant and the respondent that there is nothing useful that can be urged in favour of the appellant. The evidence before the trial Judge clearly proved that the appellant murdered the deceased by slashing her throat with a knife on the ground that the mother of the deceased would not allow him to get married to the deceased who was a primary school pupil. There was no substance in his defence. I am therefore of the opinion that the learned trial Judge was right in convicting him of the murder of the deceased. Accordingly I will dismiss the appeal and confirm the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal which affirmed the decision of the High Court.

Appearances

Shola Rhodes, (with him, Miss C. E. Eguh) For Appellant

AND