Sale Dagayya V The State (2006)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

TOBI, J.S.C.

This is yet another murder appeal. Like most murder cases, the facts are pathetic, traumatic, and revealing not necessarily because human life was taken but because of the circumstances and the way it was taken.

Let me briefly tell the story as accepted by the learned trial Judge. Sabuwa Muhammed was the deceased. PW1, Gambo Muhammed, was the granddaughter of the deceased. She was 14 years old at the time of the incident. She gave evidence as an eyewitness. This is what she said in examination-in-chief.

She saw the appellant running towards her, her grandmother (the deceased) and one Abba. The appellant asked the deceased to stop and she stopped. He further instructed the deceased to go back to Gidan Gamji village but the deceased refused; telling the appellant that she did not leave anything there to collect and that she would not go back.

The appellant performed his mission. He cut the deceased on her hand with a machete. Not satisfied, he also macheted the deceased on both sides of her head as well as the middle of the head. The deceased then fell down. Even in that pathetic, traumatic and gruesome stage, the appellant did not stop cutting the deceased. He continued cutting her with the machete. PW1 made efforts to lift up the deceased but to no avail. She left for Ubba, their home, and lodged a report of what happened. And so Sabuwa Muhammed died gruesomely on that 10th day of December, 1999. Fourteen years old Gambo Muhammed was the only witness to the murder of the grandmother. She must have had so much trauma and pain.

The learned trial Judge heard the evidence of Gambo and others, including the appellant. He was not satisfied with the evidence of the appellant and his witnesses. He was satisfied with the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. He therefore convicted the appellant and sentenced him to death. He followed the procedural requirements of sentencing for murder meticulously when he pronounced:-

“I have listened with rapt attention to the plea of leniency very powerfully put by the learned defence counsel on behalf of the convict. The sentence that I am about to pronounce is filed (sic) by law, i.e. it is mandatory to pronounce same once a court is convinced of such an offence. Having said that, the convict is sentenced to death by hanging. He is to be hanged by the neck till he is dead.”

Dissatisfied with the judgment, the appellant lodged an appeal at the Court of Appeal Kaduna. After a careful examination of the appeal, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence of the learned trial Judge. Ba’aba, JCA, in his judgment, said in the final paragraph:-

“In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The judgment of the learned trial Judge delivered on 31/7/2001 by the learned trial Judge, Abdullahi, J is hereby affirmed by me.”

By our rules of procedure in criminal proceedings, the appeal has come to us almost automatically, to enable the final court of appeal to look at the complaint of the appellant.

As usual, briefs were filed and duly exchanged. The appellant formulated three issues for determination as follows:-

“1. Whether their Lordships of the Court of Appeal were not in error in their evaluation of the evidence of PW1 against the appellant regard being had to the provisions of section 183(1) and (3) of the Evidence Act in confirming the conviction and sentence of the appellant by the High Court.

2. Whether in the light of the serious and material contradictions, doubts and inconsistencies in the case of the prosecution, the Court of Appeal was not in error to have affirmed the Judgment of the trial High Court bearing in mind that the prosecution had the duty to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
3. Whether the decision of the trial High Court was properly sustained by the Court of Appeal having regard to its evaluation of the plea of alibi put forward by the appellant.”

The respondent formulated the following two issues:-

“2.01 Whether the Court of Appeal was light when it held that the trial court followed the procedure laid down in section 183(1) & (3) of the Evidence Act governing the reception and treatment of the evidence of a child.