OLOWONIYI AJISOGUN V. THE STATE
In The Supreme Court of Nigeria
On Thursday, the 7th day of October, 1999
SC.27/1999
RATIO
COURT PRACTICE: DUTY OF THE COURT AS REGARDS TERMS USED BY EXPERTS
It is the duty of the court to clearly understand the technical terms used by experts, this was the case in this matter. PER M. A. BELGORE, J.S.C.
JUSTICES
SALIHU MODIBBO ALFA BELGORE Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
IDRIS LEGBO KUTIGI Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
UTHMAN MOHAMMED Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
UMARU ATU KALGO Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
SAMSON ODEMWINGIE UWAIFO Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
Between
OLOWONIYI AJISOGUN Appellant(s)
AND
THE STATE Respondent(s)
M. A. BELGORE, J.S.C. (Delivering the Leading Ruling): The evidence clearly before the trial court is that the deceased was attacked by the accused persons by kicking her in the belly and all over her body. Unknown to the accused and the mother of the deceased, PW 1, the deceased was carrying a partial abortion. As a result or the severe beatings and kicking she sustained not only bruises but she lapsed into unconsciousness. She came round several hours later at a private clinic but lapsed into a state of unconsciousness again. She was transferred again to State hospital where she died without regaining consciousness. Her blood count was low and PW4, the medical officer who performed the post mortem examination concluded that in her opinion the deceased died as a result of septic abortion shock. She in her evidence in court explained this to mean that her precarious condition was aggravated by shock brought about by the severe beatings and kickings in the tommy.
To say that the learned trial Judge descended into the arena by asking a few questions to clear the forensic terms by the doctor, to my mind, is unfair. It is the duty of the court to clearly understand the technical terms used by experts, this was the case in this matter. I find no substance in this appeal and I dismiss it. The decision of the Court of appeal is upheld.
I. L. KUTIGI, J.S.C.: I agree with the judgment of my learned brother Belgore, J.S.C. Having read the record in this appeal myself I have no doubt that the appeal lacks merit. The Court of Appeal was justified in convicting the appellant of manslaughter instead of murder as found by the trial High Court. The evidence galore that the deceased was beaten, kicked and dragged to unconsciousness by the appellant and the other accused person. The appeal is dismissed. Conviction and sentence by the Court of Appeal are hereby confirmed.
U. MOHAMMED, J.S.C.: The appellant was convicted together with one other for the offence of murder and sentenced to death. The evidence was that the appellant while in company of Frederick Akintola the 2nd accused quarreled with the deceased and beat her to unconsciousness. She was taken to Hospital and after two days she died. The trial High Court judge believed the evidence of the prosecution and convicted the appellant and the 2nd accused of murder and sentenced each of them to death. On appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the offence committed did not amount to murder and reduced the offence to manslaughter. The Court of Appeal thereafter sentenced the two accused persons to 5 years imprisonment each.
The appellant has come before this court and his counsel has urged us to disturb the Court of Appeal’s decision. I agree with the judgment of my learned brother, Belgore, JSC that this appeal has no merit. The learned counsel for the appellant has not advanced any convincing reason for me to disturb the decision of the Court below.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. I affirm the decision of the Court of Appeal.
U. A. KALGO, J.S.C.: I agree with the leading judgment of Belgore, JSC in this appeal. There is no merit in the appeal. The only point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is issue 1,that is the question of fair hearing as a result of the question put to PW4, the doctor who performed post mortem on the deceased. It is very clear on the record that this was done to clear some ambiguities and technicalities on the medical report Exhibit ‘D’. There was nothing now imported by the learned trial Judge in course of the questioning, and at the end of the questioning, she asked counsel if they had anything to ask arising from what questions she had asked. There was none and nothing came out of the cross-examination by the appellant’s counsel at the trial. The learned trial Judge has power under S.200 of the Criminal Procedure Law and under S. 223 of Evidence Act to ask such questions of a witness in a Criminal trial. Learned counsel for appellant later conceded that there was no merit on the point raised in issue 1 as question of fair hearing did not arise at all. The 2nd issue has no merit in my view, having regard to the ample evidence connecting the appellant with the offence charged and of which he was later convicted of a lesser offence by the Court of Appeal and sentenced to 5 years imprisonment.
I am satisfied that there is no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed and the decision of the Court of Appeal is hereby affirmed.
S. O. UWAIFO, J.S.C.: The appellant and one other were convicted of murder by the trial court and sentenced to death. The evidence is that they took part in beating the deceased, a young girl, to a state of unconsciousness. Her stomach was trampled upon after she was knocked to the ground. She died a couple of days later. The medical report showed that she was pregnant and had suffered an abortion following the trauma she went through as a result of the beating. The abortion was said to be an uncompleted septic abortion which was the primary cause of death. The secondary cause of death was classified as shock. The learned trial Judge asked a few questions of the doctor to clarify some issues regarding the uncompleted septic abortion. In the end she came to the conclusion that there was no doubt as to the connecting link between the beating and the abortion resulting in the primary cause of death. Of course, shock will usually result from such trauma. I can find nothing improper with the way the learned trial Judge intervened to be able to understand the usually unfamiliar medical terminologies, nor with the conclusion she arrived at that the act of the appellant and the other accused caused the death of the young girl.
I am in agreement with the court below that a more appropriate conviction is manslaughter in the circumstances of the case. I find no merit in this appeal. I agree with the judgment of my learned brother Belgore, JSC and accordingly I. too, dismiss the appeal. I affirm the decision of the lower court.
Appeal dismissed.
Appearances
Adedipe For Appellant
AND
Respondent unrepresented For Respondent
