Bayo Adelumola V. The State (1988)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

A. OPUTA, J.S.C.

The Appellant Bayo Adelumola was arraigned before Okuribido, J. of the Lagos State High Court, on the 17th November 1983, on a charge of murder. The facts of the case lie within a comparatively short compass and are not very much in dispute.

The prosecution’s case was that on the 10th July 1982 at about 1.30 p.m. at No. 10 Alayaki Court, Lagos, the Appellant had a row with one Ganiyu over a 10k coin. The row developed into a fight. During this fight one Wusamotu Alade called as P.W.3 entered the house. She saw the Appellant and Ganiyu fighting. She also saw Iyabo, the sister of Ganiyu, now deceased, holding an empty bottle.

The P.W.3 pulled Iyabo aside and removed the empty bottle from her. P.W.3 also separated the Appellant and Ganiyu. One Adamo Sule called as P.W.2 helped to separate the Appellant and Ganiyu. P.W.2 then took Ganiyu outside the house but still within the compound. Later on, the P.W.2 heard the shout of fire! fire! and ran back into the house.

There she saw fire and smoke surging out from the room of Asiawu Memudu called as P.W.1. She (P.W.2) then saw that the fire had engulfed Iyabo Olowa, and Taju the son of Memudu (P.W.1). They were both ablaze. What was it that set the deceased on fire Memudu P.W.1 saw the Appellant carrying a burning stove and chasing Iyabo Olowa into her room.

The Appellant then threw the burning stove at Iyabo who caught fire. The fire from the burning stove burnt the right foot of P.W.1 up to her ankle and seriously burnt P.W.1’s child Taju from head to foot. Monsurat another daughter of P.W.1 was burnt around the mouth. Iyabo and Taju whose burns were serious were taken to the General Hospital while Monsurat was treated in a private hospital. The following day, the 11th July 1982, Iyabo Olowa died in the General Hospital.

It was Latifu Olowa P.W.4 and father of the deceased who reported the incident to the Police. He also identified the corpse of Iyabo Olowa, deceased, to Ehidda Ranghen Koley called as P.W.7 – the Pathologist who performed the post mortem examination. The Pathologist “saw fourth degree burn on the external part of the body” of Iyabo Olowa, the deceased. He (7th P. W.) certified the cause of death to be shock due to burning.

The Appellant gave sworn evidence in his own defence. He called no further witnesses. He admitted the main outline of the prosecution’s case. He admitted that there was on that fatal day a row followed by a fight between Ganiyu, the brother of the deceased and himself. This row was sparked off by his discovery of “a dirty 10 kobo on the ground” which Iyabo the deceased claimed belonged to her brother. He (Appellant) then handed over the 10 kobo piece to Iyabo. This notwithstanding Ganiyu called him a thief. Then the quarrel started. This led to the fight. The Appellant conceded that “myself and Ganiyu were then separated” and “Iyabo was then taken outside the compound”.

The only difference between the prosecution’s case and the defence appears to be what happened next. I will therefore reproduce the ipsissima verba of the Appellant. “Iyabo later came back into the compound, carried a stove infront of her room and was about to throw the stove on me. I pushed her back. She slipped and fell into Ashiawu’s room. The stove exploded. It was not a burning stove. As the stove exploded I saw fire burning. I got water and poured it on the fire and others came and helped to put the fire out.”

The above is the gist of the Appellant’s defence.

Thus from the evidence led on both sides, only one issue of fact emerged for the consideration of the trial judge:-

Did the Appellant throw a burning slave at Iyabo who then caught fire and later died of shock due to burning as the prosecution contends

OR

Was it Iyabo who tried to throw the stove at the Appellant, who, in self-defence, pushed her back, causing her to slip and fall into Ashiawu’s room where the stove exploded To resolve the above solitary issue, the trial Court was bound to believe one side and disbelieve the other. Both sides could not have been speaking the truth on this contentious issue. How then did the trial Court deal with this issue of fact based on the credibility of the witnesses who testified At pp.381 39 of the record, the learned trial judge observed and found: