Mfon Udo Mboho V The State (1966)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

IDIGBE, J.S.C.

The appellant was convicted of the murder of his brother, Edet Udo Mboho, and sentenced to death in the High Court of Eastern Nigeria (Nkemena, J.).

The motive for the murder does not appear from the record. Briefly, the facts given in evidence in support of the case for the prosecution are as follows: On Sunday, 4th October, 1964, the deceased was seen standing outside a house which he and the appellant had occupied together for many years; all of a sudden the appellant emerged from the house armed with a matchet with which he chased the deceased. Although the deceased ran for dear life he was soon overtaken by the appellant who inflicted several matchet cuts on him in consequence of which he (the deceased) died. No quarrel, immediately or remotely, preceded the action of the appellant.

In his written statement to the police (Exh 1), the appellant stated as follows:-

“….I know Akpan Udo Mboho, he is my brother. Both of us were living in one house …. I do not know where …. (he) is now…. I am now in the prison yard. I do not know why I was taken there …. I do not know why I killed my brother.” (brackets supplied)

The defence of the appellant, in court, was very much in keeping with Exh 1. The learned trial judge considered the defence of insanity and found that it was not established and he convicted the appellant as already stated earlier on.

The first ground of appeal put forward on behalf of the appellant reads-

”No evidence was led and there was no finding by the court that the appellant was fit to stand trial. The learned trial judge failed to draw a distinction between medical evidence relating to fitness to stand trial which the court upon its own motion had called for and evidence rebutting the defence of insanity.”

The second part of the ground of appeal set out above is directed against the fact that the court, while considering the defence of insanity put forward on behalf of the appellant, made use of the evidence given by the medical officer on the occasion when the court was investigating the appellant’s fitness to stand his trial; and the first part of that ground of appeal with which we are concerned in this judgment, is directed against the absence of any specific finding by the learned trial judge at the end of his investigation into the fitness of the appellant to stand his trial.

It all began like this: On 14th April, 1965 when the case came up for trial the court formed the impression that it was necessary to investigate the fitness of the appellant to stand his trial; and the following notes appear on the record.

“ ….charge read and explained in Ibibio (to the accused). Plea-not guilty. Court Order:-In view of the statement made by the accused to the police the accused is placed under medical observation for one month from to-day in order to ascertain his fitness to stand trial. The doctor is also ordered to appear on the next adjourned date to give evidence of his findings.”

(brackets and underline supplied)

Subsequently, the doctor gave evidence, and parts of his evidence read-

“…the accused is a man of low intelligence with a pre-morbid personality of introversion and emotional outbursts. During the interview he remained for most parts evasive, suspicious and unreliable. I can find no disturbance of his sensorium . My impression is that the accused is not suffering from any psychiatric disability and in my opinion cannot claim diminished responsibility for any act he might have committed.”