Godwin Okon Ita & Anor V. The State (2013)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

UZO I. NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Akwa Ibom State sitting in Ikono delivered on 20th October, 2010 in Suit No. HKN/12C/2009. The appellant was charged with one other on a one count charge of murder of one Felix Okon Ita on 21st August, 2008 contrary to Section 326 (1) of the Criminal Code. The prosecution stated that the Appellant and another on 21st August, 2008 in the company of six others still at large attacked the deceased first at Odoro Ikpe Junction and later at Ndot Ikpe where the deceased died from matchet cuts and wounds inflicted on him with rods and stones.

During the trial, the prosecution called 4 P.W.S and tendered 14 exhibits. The Appellants testified on their behalf and called just one witness, a medical practitioner and tendered 16 exhibits. The Appellant pleaded self-defence. At the end of the trial, the learned trial Judge found the 1st Appellant guilty of the offence of murder as charged and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to death.

Being dissatisfied, the 1st Appellant filed his notice and four grounds of appeal on 23rd November, 2010. The 1st Appellant also articulated three issues for determination in his Appellant’s Brief filed on 22nd March, 2012 but deemed properly filed and served on 6th December, 2012 as follows:

(1) Whether the plea of the defence of self defence availed the 1st Accused/Appellant (Ground 1).

(2) Whether the testimonies of PW2 and PW3 were hearsay evidence which is contrary to Section 77 Evidence Act (Now Section 37 Evidence Act) as such inadmissible (Ground 2).

“Whether the court can pick and choose which prosecution Witnesses to believe when none of the prosecution witnesses was branded a hostile witness and when the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were manifestly contradictory and inconsistent.

(Ground 4)

The Respondent filed his brief on 5th September, 2012 but deemed properly filed and served on 6th December, 2012. In it the Respondent articulated four issues. They are as follows:

(1) Whether the defence of self defence raised by the 1st appellant availed him.

(2) Whether the conviction of 1st Appellant was based on hearsay evidence.

(3) Whether the Learned Trial Judge erred in law when he believed the credible evidence of one witness against the incredible evidence of the other to arrive at his decision.

(4) Whether the learned trial Judge was right in resolving that what led to the cut left wrist of the 1st Appellant was within the knowledge of the 1st Appellant.

I have perused, the issues articulated by both parties and have decided to use those as articulated by the Appellant.