Rafiu V. People Of Lagos State (2021)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, J.S.C. 

This is an Appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division delivered on 5/4/2017 which affirmed the judgment of Hon. Justice S. A Onigbanjo delivered on 18/6/2013 in charge No ID/47C/2011 wherein the Appellant was found guilty of the lesser offence of manslaughter and sentenced to life imprisonment whereas he was charged initially for murder.

The facts that led to this appeal are as follows:

On 14th February 2010 at about 4:00pm, one Adeogun Kayode, a resident of No. 20, Alade Street, Oshodi, Lagos, now deceased, went to the Appellant’s barbing salon to shave. The deceased after being initially attended to, at the Appellant’s barbing salon returned back and inquired about the where about of his mobile phone, alleging that he left his mobile phone in the Appellant’s barbing salon. In response to the inquiry, the Appellant informed the said Adeogun Kayode that he did not know the where about of the mobile phone.

​Consequently, an argument ensued and the said Adeogun Kayode proceeded to the generator which powered the Appellant’s barbing salon and abruptly switched it off which resulted in a fight between the Appellant and the said Adeogun Kayode which led to the latter’s death after he suffered fatal injuries to his forehead and chest.

The Appellant was subsequently apprehended on the day of the incident by officers of the Nigerian Police and was taken to Akinpelu Police station.

At the trial, the prosecution called three witnesses while the Appellant gave evidence on his own behalf. P.W.1 Alli Shuarbu was a co-tenant of the deceased who did not witness the incident but was the one who reported the matter to the police after rushing to the scene where he found the body of the deceased in the gutter in a pool of blood. The deceased died at the General Hospital. P.W.2 was Vivian Taiwo (Sunday) the initial I.P.O at Akinpelu Police Station who took the confessional statement of the Appellant marked Exh C. The witness also tendered the post mortem/medical report signed by one Dr. O. Williams dated 14/2/10 as Exh. B. The D.C.O at Akinpelu Police Station had endorsed Exh C after the appellant signed it. She later transferred the case to Panti CID.

​P.W.3 was Inspector E. Enwereji who at the material time was at the Homicide Department at Panti. He recorded the statement of the Appellant which was retracted but nevertheless admitted as Exh G.

In his defence on oath at the trial, the Appellant stated that the deceased precipitated a fight in his barber shop during which he pushed the deceased and another person into the gutter. The statement of the Appellant in Exh. C & G showed clearly the defence of provocation.

My Lords, in this appeal, the only question for determination is whether on the evidence before it, the lower Court was right to have affirmed the conviction of the Appellant for manslaughter not murder.

The trial Court found that Exh. C which was tendered without objection showed the defence of provocation which was an excuse to reduce the charge from murder to manslaughter.

My Lords, before this Court, learned Appellant’s counsel in the brief settled by F. Ajibola Dalley, complained first against the findings of facts by the two lower Courts. His grouse is that the lower Court jumped to the conclusion that the deceased died and that the Appellant caused his death. Counsel argued that the lower Court’s failure to review the evidence and set aside the trial Court’s conclusions on those two findings of fact occasioned injustice to the Appellant. My lord, the brief of argument of the learned Appellant’s counsel is replete with references to the fact that the Appellant was charged with murder. There was hardly any reference to the conviction of manslaughter. There was no attempt to argue an absolute defence in favour of the Appellant. At trial, the offence of murder was found not proved and the Appellant was instead convicted of the lesser offence of manslaughter. Either learned counsel did not read the concurrent judgments of the lower Courts before writing the brief or he did not understand their import.

​

Be that as it may, the complaint of learned Appellant’s counsel is that it was wrong of the Court of Appeal to agree with the learned trial Judge that the evidence revealed that the deceased died and that the Appellant killed the deceased. Counsel submitted contrary to the evidence on record that there was no proof of the death of the deceased whereas P.W.1 saw him in a pool of blood and P.W.2 saw him in the mortuary after a post mortem was performed on him.