Monday Chukwu V. The State (1994)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

ADIO, J.S.C.

The charge preferred against the appellant at the High Court, Imo State, Owerri Judicial Division, was murder contrary to section 319 of the Criminal code, Cap. 30 of the Laws of Eastern Nigeria, 1963, applicable in Imo State. The allegation against him was that he, on the 6th day of September, 1980, along Owu Mbaise Road in Owerri Judicial Division unlawfully murdered one Vincent Chukwu.

When the charge was read and explained to the appellant, for his plea, he pleaded:

“I murdered him by right.”

The learned trial Judge, in view of the plea of the appellant, entered a plea of “not guilty” for the appellant. The evidence led by the prosecution was that on the 6th day of September, 1980, at about 5.30 p.m., the 1st P.W., was going from her home in Ikeduru to a maternity home in Mbaise when she saw the appellant hiding in a bush. The deceased was riding a bicycle towards the place where the appellant was hiding. When the deceased got there the appellant came out of the bush and attacked the deceased with a stick. The deceased fell down and the 1st P.W., ran home for assistance. The corpse of the deceased was found at the scene of the incident and was removed to the hospital for post-mortem examination. The deceased was the father of the 1st P.W. and the appellant was her uncle. He (the appellant) was a brother of the deceased.

The appellant, in his statement to the police, Exhibit “A”, and in his oral evidence in the court, agreed that he attacked the deceased. He gave reasons for the aforesaid attack and he alleged that it was the deceased who first attacked him.

There was evidence that the appellant was once mentally ill and that he had been cured since 1977 when he returned home. Since then it did not appear that there was a relapse.

The learned trial Judge, after due consideration of the evidence before him, found the appellant guilty of the charge and sentenced him to death. He held that the death of the deceased was caused by the act of the appellant. He considered whether any of the usual defences, such as provocation, self-defence and insanity, was available to the appellant and came to the conclusion that none of them was available to him. Dissatisfied with the judgment of the learned trial Judge, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal which dismissed the appeal. He has further appealed to this court.

In accordance with the rules of this court, the parties duly filed and exchanged briefs. Two issues were identified for determination in the appellant’s brief and two issues were identified for determination in the respondent’s brief.

The two issues for determination identified in the appellant’s brief, which were based on the grounds of appeal, as suitably amended, are sufficient for the determination of this appeal. They are follows:-

(1) Whether the Court of Appeal was right in endorsing the way in which the learned trial Judge dealt with the plea of the appellant.

(2) Whether the Court of Appeal was right in affirming the decision of the learned trial Judge that there was no evidence that the appellant was mentally ill at the time that he killed the deceased.

The question under the first issue is whether the Court of Appeal was right in endorsing the way in which the learned trial Judge dealt with the plea of the appellant. The learned trial Judge caused the charge to be read and explained to the appellant. That was on the 30th September, 1983 and the following was the plea of the appellant as recorded by the learned trial Judge:

” murdered him by right.”