Emmanuel Okoro V. The State

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

SALAMI, J.C.A. 

The accused was arraigned in the defunct Anambra State High Court of Justice, in the Nsukka Judicial Division holden at Nsukka on an information alleging murder of one Nnenaya Onu, contrary to section 319(1) of the Criminal Code Cap 30 of the Laws of erstwhile Eastern Nigeria, 1963 which was applicable in the former Anambra State. The particulars of the offence are that the accused on the 1st day of September, 1983 at Ugbo Okpondu in the Nsukka Judicial Division, murdered Nnenaya Onu.

At the trial parties joined issues when the accused pleaded not guilty to the one count information. Thereafter the prosecution called five witnesses in support of its case and the accused testified on his own behalf. He did not produce further evidence in support of his case.

The synopsis of the evidence adduced is that the deceased was a girl of about 18 years who was living with her sister, Angelina Onu, the fifth prosecution witness, at Ejeabali Camp. The accused age was also placed at about 18 years. He was on holiday and was living at the same Ejeabali Camp with his parents. It appears he made some amorous advances to the deceased who failed to reciprocate. She reported the advances to her sister, fifth prosecution witness, who discussed the matter with their elder, David Eze, first prosecution witness, who counseled against a moral relationship between the deceased and the accused on the ground of consanguinity. The accused was apparently not satisfied with the explanation proffered and was incensed by the deceased’s failure to requite his love.

On 31st August, 1983, the accused paid a visit to the deceased and the two quarreled. The accused left in annoyance threatening to deal with the deceased presumably because the deceased failed to submit to his suggestions. On the following day, first prosecution witness was in his wife’s shed at the Ejeabali Camp listening to news at 6 o’clock when he heard the accused inviting him to come for something. He fell for the bait as he was approaching him the accused dealt him a matchet cut on his head and first prosecution witness raised an alarm. The accused responded to this by dealing him two more matchet cuts, in quick succession, on the head. The witness raised up his hands to either fend off further attack or plead with the accused whereupon the accused dealt him a further matchet cut on the left hand. First prosecution witness attempted to escape but after managing a few steps he faltered and fell down. The blood thirsty hound pounced on him and inflicted further matchet cuts on the body of the first prosecution witness. Thinking that David Eze’s condition was hopeless he left the witness, hopefully, to die a painful death and turned upon the deceased who had meanwhile appeared at the scene in response to the distress call of the first prosecution witness. David Eze watched helplessly as the accused mounted vicious onslaught on the deceased and when the accused observed that there was still some flicker of life in the prosecution witness, he gave him another cut on the face with the matched. This was the final blow that broke the cannel’s back. David Eze fen unconscious or was unaware of events that was being enacted thereafter.

The sister of the deceased, who was away from the camp, returned in time to watch the accused butcher her sister to death. She saw first prosecution witness lying in front of the house of a man otherwise known as Picolo. At the back of the same house she observed the accused so engrossed in attacking the deceased that he was unaware of her presence. She stealthily rode back on her bicycle to whence she came. There she related the fact of her sister and Eze to the people before reporting the same to the police.

Two police officers who testified as third and fourth prosecution witnesses visited the scene and found first prosecution witness alive but the deceased was already dead. She was identified to the police officers as Nnenaya Onu by the villagers. Dr. Clews Eze, second prosecution witness, performed examination, post mortem, on the body of the deceased after the third prosecution witness had identified it to him. Dr. Eze traced the cause of death to brain damage consistent with head cuts inflicted by the use of a sharp edged metallic object such as a big knife like matchet or dagger or sword.

The accused made two extra judicial statements which were admitted as exhibits A and B. The accused, in his evidence in court, adopted as part of his defence his two statements but proceeded to narrate an account of the incident which was inconsistent with the two exhibits. The essence of his testimony in court was to resile from the two confessional statements he had made and to put up the defences of self-defence, provocation and accident.

The learned trial Judge in a reserved and considered judgment rejected the defence put up by the accused. Thereafter, he found that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly convicted the accused.

The accused being unhappy with the decision of the learned trial Judge has appealed to this court on four original and additional grounds of appeal.

Grounds 3 and 4 are omnibus grounds but while ground 3 is omnibus ground in a civil case the other one is good in a criminal appeal. The qualities of the four grounds of appeal are of little or no consequence in view of the steps subsequently taken by the learned counsel for appellant in the appellant’s brief. Learned counsel for appellant, in the appellant’s brief formulated only one issue which formulation was predicated upon the only additional ground. The four original grounds are for that reason deemed abandoned and are hereby struck out.

Learned counsel for appellant filed an appellant’s reply brief apparently on service or respondent’s brief on him. In reaction to the appellant’s reply brief, learned Deputy Director of Public Prosecution, Enugu State, also file further respondent’s brief which was struck out by this court differently constituted.

It seems to me that respondent’s counsel decided on replying to appellant’s reply brief because of the contents of that brief. In the appellant’s purported attempt to reply to respondent” s brief he proffered fresh arguments which are in fact not remotely related to the respondent’s brief of argument. The appellant by implication has filed two briefs because what he styled as appellant’s reply brief is in effect another or supplemental brief which he is not entitled to.

The approach is prejudicial to the respondent who is entitled to reply to the fresh argument but is denied the opportunity because Order 6 of the Court of Appeal Rules Cap 62 of the Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990 does not provide for a reply to appellant’s reply brief.