Lawrence Oguno & Anor V. The State (2006)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

UZO NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A.

The 1st Appellant was charged with the offence of Culpable Homicide punishable with death contrary to Section 221 of the Penal Code Law Cap 89, Laws of Northern Nigeria 1963 as applicable to Plateau State of Nigeria for stabbing his father Chief Patrick Oguno, to death on 31st August, 1998.

The 2nd Appellant was charged with the offence of abetting the offence of Culpable Homicide punishable with death.

At the trial the prosecution called 5 Prosecution Witnesses and tendered 5 Exhibits. The Defendants/Appellants testified for themselves as DW1 and DW2 and called no other witness nor tendered any exhibit.

At the end of the trial the trial Judge delivered a well considered judgment and convicted the two Appellants as charged and sentenced them to death by hanging.

Being dissatisfied with the judgment, they both filed their separate notice and grounds of appeal.

In a nutshell, the 1st Appellant Lawrence Oguno and 2nd Appellant Joel Oguno are blood brothers. Both brothers are children of Chief Patrick Oguno, the deceased and Veronica Oguno their mother. It was alleged that on 31st August, 1998, a complaint was lodged by Mrs. Veronica Oguno and 2nd Appellant Joel Oguno to the Police that their father Chief Patrick Oguno was missing. They were advised to report the next day. Later in the evening, Adaobi Oguno daughter of the deceased discovered the body of their father under the stairs. A further complaint was lodged at the Police station. This time the 2nd Appellant was arrested. The 1st Appellant was also arrested the next day when he came back from Rikkos having visited his friend Uche. The Appellants were detained and later charged to Court and convicted of the offences charged.

The Appellants brief was settled by Dr. S.S. Ameh SAN. In his brief, the learned SAN formulated 4 issues for determination on behalf of the 1st Appellant.

(1) Whether the learned trial Judge was right in law in relying on Exhibits 3 and 4 wholly in convicting the 1st Appellant when the purported confessions were not voluntary? (Ground 3).

(2) Whether the learned trial Judge was right in law when she held that the defence of alibi does not avail the 1st Appellant just because she alleged that the defence was not raised at the earliest opportunity? (ground 2).

(3) Whether the failure of the learned trial Judge to consider the defence of self defence available to the 1st Appellant did not vitiate the judgment? (Ground 4).

(4) Whether the judgment is not against the evidence? (Ground 1).

On behalf of the 2nd Appellant learned SAN articulated 3 issues for determination viz:

(1) Whether the learned trial Judge was right in Law in relying on Exhibits 1 and 2 wholly in convicting the 2nd Appellant when the purported confessions were not voluntary? (Ground 2).