Nwali Nnabo Vs The State (1994)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

OGWUEGBU, J.S.C.

The appellant (Nwali Nnabo) was arraigned before Offiah, J. sitting at the Abakaliki High Court in Anambra State with the offence of murder contrary to S.319(1) of the Criminal Code, Cap. 30 Vol. II, Laws of Eastern Nigeria applicable in Anambra State. He was alleged to have murdered one Agbe Nweke at Ivakpa Okpoitumo Ikwo in the Abakaliki Judicial Division on or about 15:1:84.

The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge. Eight witnesses were called by the prosecution. The appellant gave evidence in his own defence and called no witness. At the end of the trial, he was found guilty of the offence and sentenced to death. He unsuccessfully appealed to the Court of Appeal, Enugu Division against his conviction. He has further appealed to this court not being satisfied with the decision of the court below.

From the grounds of appeal filed, the following issues were formulated in the appellant’s brief of argument for determination:

“1. Does the defence of insanity avail the appellant under section 28 of the Criminal Code?

2. Was the trial court right to have considered the confessional statement of the appellant “Exhibit A” first before dealing with the issue of insanity.”

The respondent formulated the following two issues in its brief:

“(a) Whether from the facts of this case and the evidence available to the trial Judge, the appellant is entitled to the defence of insanity under S. 28 of the Criminal Code.

(b) Whether the consideration of the confessional statement of the appellant “Exhibit A” first before dealing with the issue of insanity affected the justice of the case.”

The two sets of issues are the same and I will however, consider the appeal in line with the appellant’s issues for determination. It will be necessary at this stage to state the facts briefly in order to appreciate the issues being canvassed.

The evidence showed that on 14:1:84, P.W.4 invited the deceased, a labourer to his compound to thresh rice for him. The appellant also arrived at the house of P.W.4 on 13:1:84 to stay and harvest the yams he planted in the area. On 15:1:84, the deceased was killed. The circumstances of his death were given in evidence by P.W.4 and P.W.5.

The deceased was doing the work for which PWA hired him when the appellant went to beg him for some tobacco snuff. The deceased gave him some and warned him not to come back to ask for more. At about 6 p.m. the same day after the deceased has finished the day’s work, the appellant went to ask him for more tobacco snuff and the deceased refused. P.W.5 (the wife of P.W.4) had earlier given the appellant 20 kobo to buy his own snuff. The deceased was resting in front of the house of P.W.4 when the appellant made this second request. When the deceased refused the second request, the appellant rebuked him and told him that he would suffer. In file meantime, P. W.5 had bought 20 kobo worth of tobacco snuff which she gave to the appellant.

In the night, P.W.4 showed the deceased where to sleep. The deceased opted to sleep where P.W.4 kept his rice in a room under the same roof. The appellant was shown another room to sleep. P.W.5 in her evidence stated that she woke up from her sleep to hear the appellant shout “Eko.” After this, the appellant shouted again:

“my father I have killed somebody for you today”