Edet Okon V. The State (2014)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

JOSEPH SHAGBAOR IKYEGH, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

The appeal emerged from the judgment of the High Court of Justice of Lagos State (the court below) by which it convicted and sentenced the appellant to death by hanging for the murder of his wife, a Mrs. Blessing Edet, contrary to section 319 (1) of the Criminal Code Cap. C17, Laws of Lagos State, 1973 (the Criminal Code).

The gist of the case was that the appellant slept with his wife, Blessing Edet, and their eleven (11) months old baby in their rented room at No. 23, Alafia Street, Aloagba, Iyana Ipaja, Ikeja, Lagos State, in the night of 14.11.1996. The cry of the baby was heard from the locked room at day break of the following day. It alerted the appellant’s landlord. He invited the police. They came. They forced the door open.

It was discovered in the room that the appellant’s wife was lying dead in her pool of blood. Their baby was also covered with the blood. The appellant was nowhere to be seen. It was learnt upon enquiry that the appellant had escaped to his brother’s abode at No. 18 Johnson Street Onireke Cement bus-stop Agege. And it was there that the appellant’s brother handed him over to the police.

The appellant’s version was that he was treating typhoid fever for a couple of days and in that fateful night he suddenly woke up from sleep with violence and was poised to leave the room. His wife held him not to leave. He struggled with her. In the course of the struggle he stabbed her with a spoon. She then let go of him. According to the appellant he wandered toward Ifo. A friend found him naked. The friend took him to his brother’s house at No. 18 Johnson Street, Onireke, cement Bus-stop Agege where the police arrested him.

It was part of the appellant’s case through the DW2 that he was seen by the DW2 at Ifo wandering about like a lunatic. The appellant also stated that his brother and uncle were once mad.

The court below accepted the respondent’s case and rejected the appellant’s version and found the appellant guilty of the murder of his wife on account of which it convicted and sentenced the appellant to death.

Not satisfied with the judgment of the court below the appellant filed a notice of appeal with eleven (11) grounds of appeal. In a brief of argument filed on 15.12.10, the appellant raised four issues for determination as follows-

“1. Whether the delivery of the judgment by the trial court outside the statutory 90 days and after losing memory and grip of the evidence, as well as the demeanour of the witnesses who testified before the court did not occasion a miscarriage of justice against the Appellant?

2. Whether the defence of insanity and or insane delusion does not avail the Appellant in the instant appeal?
3. Whether the improper evaluation of evidence adduced before the learned trial judge, the consequential erroneous/perverse findings, conviction and sentence of death imposed on the Appellant based on the said improperly evaluated evidence did not occasion a miscarriage of justice against the Appellant?
4. Whether the prosecution discharged the burden of proving its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant as required by law?”

After referring to page 131 of the record of appeal (the record) to establish that final addresses were adopted by the respondent and the appellant on 14.5.2009, and judgment was delivered by the court below on 10.9.2009, the appellant argued that by not delivering the judgment within 90 days after the adoption of final addresses by the parties the court below infringed section 294 (1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, as altered, (1999 Constitution) read with the cases of Odi v. Osafile (1985) 1 NWLR (pt.1) 17 at 29, Ifezue v. Mbadugha (1984) 1 S.C.N.L.R. 427, F.C.A.A. v. Nwanna (1998) 4 NWLR (pt. 544) 73 at 88, which rendered the judgment a nullity on account of the fact that the lapse of time of over two years between the taking of evidence and judgment as computed by the appellant made the learned trial Judge in the court below to lose memory of the demeanour of the witnesses as well as the trend of evidence which adversely affected his proper evaluation of the evidence and occasioned, a miscarriage of justice to the appellant vide the cases of Lawal v. Quadri (2004) 6 NWLR (pt. 858) 1, Anyaoke v. Adi (1985) 1 NWLR (pt.25) 342, Owoyemi v. Adekoya (2003) 18 NWLR (pt. 852) 307 at 338-339, Omoregbe v. Edo (1971) 1 All NLR 282, Fashanu v. Adekoya (1974) 6 SC 77, Ivienagbor v. Bazauye (1999) 9 NWLR (pt. 620) 552.

Reference was made to the evidence of the PW5, the investigation police officer (I.P.O), in page 97 of the record to the effect that the appellant admitted committing the offence without, also, taking into account the defence of insanity raised by the appellant in pages 95-96 of the record to the effect that he was suffering from typhoid fever and that on the fateful night he woke up with force and grabbed the deceased who had a good relationship with him and in the course of the struggle between them he stabbed her with a spoon with no intention of killing her; that his senior brother, one Mr. Monday Okon, and his uncle, one Ukwak, had mental problem before.

Reference was further made by the appellant to the evidence of the DW2 in confirmation of the mental problem the senior brother of the appellant and his uncle had in the past and the strange behaviour of the appellant soon after he killed his wife as observed by the DW2 to contend that the defence of insanity under section 28 of the Criminal Code availed the appellant. The cases of Loke v. State (1935) 1 NWLR (pt. 1) page 1, Madjemu v. State (2001) 9 NWLR (pt. 718) 349, Walton v. R. (1978) 66 C.A.R. 25, Guobadia v. State (2004) 6 NWLR (pt.869) 360, Udofia v. State (1091) 11-12 SC 49 at 60-61, William Echem v. Queen (1952) XI W.A.C.A. 158, Dillon v. Queen (1939) 27 Cr. A.R. 152, Arum v. State (1979) 11 SC 91 were cited by the appellant in support of the submission (supra).

Submitting on the third issue the appellant referred to Exhibits A, B-B1; the defence of insanity raised by the appellant in his evidence and the evidence of the PW2, as well as the evidence of the PW5 to contend that the findings made by the court below on the said pieces of evidence were patently perverse, in that the voluntariness of the confessional statement was challenged by the appellant in page 80 of the record but the court below admitted it in evidence without conducting a trial-within-trial and relied on it to convict the appellant for the murder of his wife contrary to sections 27 and 28 of the Evidence Act, 2011 (on voluntariness of confessional statement) read with the cases of Akinmoju v. State (2006) 6 NWLR (pt. 662) 609 at 617, Nsofor v. State (2004) 18 NWLR (pt. 905) 292; that there was material contradiction between the evidence of the PW1 and the PW2 on whether it was the PW1 or the pw3, (the I.P.O.), that forced open the door to the appellant’s room that led to the discovery of the death of the deceased which materially affected the identity of the person that killed the deceased, therefore the failure of the court below to resolve the doubt in favour of the appellant occasioned a miscarriage of justice to the appellant vide the cases of Muka v. State (1976) 9-10 SC 305, Arehia v. State (1982) 4 SC 78, Queen v. Joshua (1964) 1 All NLR 1, Izurumba (?) v. State (1976) 3 SC 89, Karibo v. Grend (1992) 3 NWLR (pt. 230) 426 at 643, Ogoala v. State (1991) 2 NWLR (pt. 175) 509 at 526, Kalu v. State (1988) 4 NWLR (pt. 90) 503;

Consequently, it was urged that the improper evaluation of evidence by the court below deprived the appellant of the defence of insanity which was based on the uncontroverted evidence of history of insanity in the appellant’s family upon which the court below was bound to return verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity in favour of the appellant vide Loke v. State (supra), Echem v. Queen (supra), Dillon v. Queen (supra), Arum v. State (supra) as well as the cases of Karibo v. Grend (supra), Morenikeji v. Adegbosin (2003) 8 NWLR (pt. 832) (Pagination not supplied), Kalio v. Woluchem (1985) 1 NWLR (pt. 4) 610 at 622, Onuoha v. State (1995) 3 NWLR (pt. 385) 591 at 500, Jolayemi v. Alaoye (2004) 12 NWLR (pt. 887) 322, Fashanu v. Adekoya (1974) 6 SC 83, Oladele v. Aribi (1998) 9 NWLR (pt. 567) 559, Adeboye v. Ighodalo (1996) 5 NWLR (pt. 450) 507 on the effect of improper evaluation of evidence by a trial court in a criminal trial.