Adamu Sheidu Vs The State (2014)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

JOHN INYANG OKORO, J.S.C.

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal Abuja Division, delivered on 20th, October, 2010, which dismissed the appellant’s appeal against his conviction by the Abejukolo High Court of Kogi State wherein he was found guilty of culpable homicide not punishable with death under Section 224 of the penal code and sentenced to ten years imprisonment. A synopsis of the facts giving birth to this appeal will suffice.

As can be gleaned from the record of appeal, particularly the evidence of the witnesses who testified at the trial, on Sunday the 15th day of July, 2007, a lingering land boundary dispute between the mother of the appellant and mother of the deceased re-occurred. The village/ward head of the area called the “Gago” was invited by the appellant’s mother to come and once more demarcate the correct boundary between the two family/neighbours. In the process of the demarcation, altercations erupted between members of the two disputing parties present at the time which resulted into a fight in the course of which the appellant stabbed the deceased on the chest. He died at the scene, apparently from the injury.

The appellant was later arrested by the police and after investigation, he was arraigned before the High Court on the following one count charge:

“That you, Adamu Sheidu on or about the 15th day of August, 2007 at Abejukolo in Omala Local Government Area of Kogi State within the Kogi Judicial Division did commit culpable homicide punishable with death in that you caused the death of Abdul Angulu by doing an act of stabbing him with a knife in the chest with the knowledge that his death would be the probable consequence of your act thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 221 of the Penal Code.”

The learned trial judge who heard evidence, considered it and came to the conclusion that the defence of provocation availed the appellant. He then reduced the offence from culpable homicide punishable with death under Section 221, of the penal code to that not punishable with death under Section 224 of the same code. He then proceeded and sentenced the appellant to ten (10) years imprisonment.

Dissatisfied with the stance of the learned trial judge, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal. The lower court meticulously considered the issues submitted before it and at the end, found no merit in the appeal and consequently dismissed it.

Again, the appellant is not satisfied with the decision of the Court of Appeal and has further appealed to this court. On 24th November, 2010, the appellant filed notice of appeal containing five grounds of appeal. From the said five grounds the appellant has formulated three issues for the determination of this appeal. The three issues are as follows:-

“1. Whether the learned justices of the Court of Appeal did not err in law when they dismissed the appellant’s appeal on the ground that the plea of the defence of self-defence was first raised and introduced by the appellant during his oral testimony at trial which thus was clearly insipid, impotent, wobbly, hypothetical, afterthought not available to the appellant as the prosecution who has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt cannot controvert the plea of the defence of self-defence at that stage

2. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal did not err in law when they held that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt all the ingredients of the offence with which the appellant was charged in spite of the failure and refusal to consider the plea of the defence of self-defence properly and/or at all, thus Appellant was not heard at all and/or properly on his plea of self-defence.
3. Whether the entire decision of the Justices of the Court of Appeal is not unreasonable, unwarranted and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence before the panel of the honourable learned justices”

The learned counsel for the respondent is of the opinion that two issues can effectively determine this appeal. He has thus distilled two issues as follows:-

“1. Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong in agreeing with the trial court that the defence of self-defence did not avail the appellant.

2. Whether the decision of the Court of Appeal can be supported having regard to the evidence before the court.”

Before I take a further step in this appeal, let me pause to consider the preliminary objection to the hearing of this appeal which the attention of this court was drawn to at the hearing of this appeal on 27th March, 2014. On page 3, paragraph 3.00 of the respondent’s brief, the learned counsel for the respondent, Adewale Adesokan, Esq., gave notice of preliminary objection to the hearing of this appeal. It states:

“The prosecution shall at the hearing of this appeal, raise the following preliminary objections, namely:-

i. The appeal is incompetent in that the leave of court was not obtained before the same was brought.