The Queen Vs Mattew Moses (1960)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgement Report

ADEMOLA, CJF

The appellant has appealed against the conviction and sentence of death passed upon him by Morgan, J., on the 21st June, 1960, at Ward in the High Court of the Western Region.

The circumstances leading up to the death of the deceased are not known. His body was found, early in the morning of 27th February, 1959, lifeless, at Ohrere Village, with multiple wounds and lying outside the compound where he and the appellant lived, but in different apartments. In the evening preceding the morning before this discovery, the deceased paid a visit to his wife (1st witness for the Crown) who did not live with him. After taking his meals there he left for his own compound.

From the injuries on the body of the deceased, it would appear he was attacked from the back with a sharp instrument and according to the evidence of the medical officer, he died as a result of the injuries, which could not have been self-inflicted.

There was no eyewitness to the killing. The evidence against the appellant was purely circumstantial. In the first place, the Crown tried to establish motive on the part of the appellant. Evidence was adduced that the appellant and the deceased were not on friendly terms. It is hardly necessary to state that in law evidence of motive is not an essential ingredient in a case of murder. If there is a motive, it strengthens the case for the Crown and becomes part of it. The learned trial Judge, however, dismissed the evidence of motive “to be rather weak.”

Then, there was the evidence, purely circumstantial, about the matchet found in the room of the appellant and claimed by him. The matchet was sent to the Analyst for examination. It was established by the Analyst that the matchet was bloodstained, and it was human blood. The learned trial Judge, relying on the evidence about the matchet, stated as follows in his judgment:-

“….the real nexus between the prisoner and the crime is the matchet. The prisoner admits the matchet is his own and laboratory tests have shown that its blade and parts of the handle are stained with human blood…….”

In the penultimate paragraph of his judgment the learned trial Judge said:-

“…and in my view the human blood stains on the matchet establish a nexus between the prisoner and the crime and affords sufficient circumstantial evidence to sustain a conviction of the prisoner for the murder of the deceased…..”

Mr. J.A. Cole, Counsel for the appellant, has attacked this part of the judgment. He sought for and obtained leave to argue two additional grounds of appeal which are as follows:-

1. The learned trial Judge misdirected himself by finding that the matchet, Exhibit G, established a nexus between the appellant and the murder of the deceased.

2. The decision is altogether unwarranted, unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the weight of evidence.

First, it was submitted that it was wrong to connect the matchet, and the blood on it, with the blood of the deceased.

This contention is not without weight. It is not uncommon to find people in the village carrying matchets, even with blood stains on them. It might have been blood of the owner of the matchet himself; he might have been wounded in the hand at one time and the blood might have touched the blade or the hilt of his matchet where blood stains were found in this case. There was no evidence as to the quantity of blood so found on the matchet, nor was it stated how old the blood stains were. There is also the possibility, which should not be excluded, of the matchet having been used earlier on somebody else and not on the deceased in this case.