Henshaw Edet Bassey V. State (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

JOSEPH OLUBUNMI KAYODE OYEWOLE, J.C.A.(Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is in respect of an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Akwa Ibom State sitting at Uyo in Uyo Judicial Division, delivered by Isua J. on the 17th November, 2011.

The appellant had been arraigned on a one count charge of murder of one Imo Samuel Edet contrary to Section 326 (1) of the Criminal Code, Cap 38, Vol 11, Laws of Akwa Ibom State, 2000.

At trial, 7 witnesses testified for the prosecution including the parents and sister of the deceased while the Appellant testified from the witness box denying the allegation.

The summary of the prosecution’s case was that the Appellant and his friends had a dispute with PW1 and PW2 over the price of bottles of palm wine sold to them at PW1’s bar, which dispute attracted PW3 and PW4 who tried to intervene but with the Appellant remaining implacable. A couple of hours later, the Appellant encountered the deceased son of PW1 who was returning home oblivious of any simmering dispute, and inflicted machete cut on him which resulted in his death shortly thereafter. The Appellant subsequently escaped but he was

1

apprehended by the village youths and brought to the Police Station. Autopsy was performed by PW5 while PW6 and PW7 were the police investigators.

On his part, the Appellant confirmed the earlier dispute over the price of bottles of palm wine but stated that PW1 and PW2 assisted by some sympathizers were the aggressors while he simply took cover from their attacks until he escaped the scene and travelled to another village where he heard of his father’s arrest and detention. He denied killing the deceased.

After listening to the final addresses of counsel, the learned trial Judge in a considered judgment believed the witnesses for the prosecution and disbelieved the Appellant. His lordship held that the allegation was proved beyond reasonable doubt, convicted the Appellant and sentenced him to death accordingly.

Exercising his constitutional right of appeal, the Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal on the 6th December, 2011 to which 5 additional grounds of appeal were added on the 28th June , 2013.

?

At the hearing of the appeal, neither of the parties was represented in Court despite notifications as required by law. Their respective briefs

2

were accordingly deemed adopted and argued pursuant to Order 18, Rule 9 (4) of the Rules of this Court.