Lord Samuel Akhidime V. The State (1984)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

IRIKEFE, J.S.C. (Presiding): The appellant in this case was charged with the murder of his own brother, by inflicting matchet cuts on him. The evidence shows that the offence was committed in the morning hours.

The learned Judge who tried the case (Amissah J.) went carefully through the defences raised by the appellant, both real and imaginary, and arrived at the conclusion that the charge as laid had been proved. The appellant sought to disown responsibility for the offence by alleging that he had acted while he was either dreaming or in a state of unconsciousness and that in consequence thereof, he had no control over what had occurred.

As against the above, the learned Judge took cognisance of the distance between the abode of the appellant and the scene of the attack, coupled with the time of the day when the attack took place and decided, rightly in my view, that the appellant was merely trying to deceive the court. Learned counsel appearing before 35 us stated that they had nothing to urge in favour of this appellant. This view, having regard to the state of the record, is well founded.

Accordingly, this appeal fails and it is hereby dismissed. The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court which were affirmed by the Court of Appeal are hereby re-affirmed.

OBASEKI, J.S.C.: I have gone through the record of proceedings and judgments of both the High Court and the Court of Appeal and I agree with both counsel appearing in this matter that there is nothing that can usefully be urged in favour of the appellant. The act of inflicting matchet wound on the deceased which ultimately resulted in the death of the deceased was admitted. But the appellant in his statement to the police stated that he did it in reaction to the dream he had while sleeping at 9.00 a.m., of people beating him all around and asking him to leave the house. Incidentally, the deceased was his brother who had a claim to the house as well the house being a family house. The question that arose for consideration was whether the appellant acted while under insane delusion or under a dream state.

Amissah, J. after considering the issue of insanity, provocation and delusion, held

‘I am satisfied that he deliberately cut the deceased’s neck with a cutlass for the reasons best known to him (accused) and that his defence before me is a tissue of lies and a cover up. I find as a fact that the accused was sane at the time he cut the deceased’s neck. ‘

At the Court of Appeal, Ikwechegh, J.CA (in his judgment with which Eboh and Ete JJ.CA concurred, while considering this issue of insane delusion,) said:

“Suppose the appellant was beaten with fists and blows by the deceased who was saying ‘leave my house; leave my house’ Now would a reasonable reaction by a reasonable man be to grab a cutlass and cut the other person down

For my part, I would say no.”

The criminal liability of a person acting under delusion is the same as if the scene was real and I agree with the Court of Appeal that it is not a reasonable reaction for a brother to kill his brother who asked him to leave his house.

See Ngene Arum v. The State (1979) 11 S.C.91; See Udofia v. The State (1981) 11-12 S.C.49.

I would therefore dismiss the appeal and affirm the conviction and sentence. I hereby dismiss the appeal and affirm the conviction and sentence.

KARIBI-WHYTE, J.S.C.: Appellant was on the 31st January, 1984, convicted on appeal to the Court of Appeal for murder. Appellant was on the 4th day of May, 1982 convicted of the offence by the Auchi High Court. The defence of appellant in the High Court was that he committed the offence when he was in a dream state. In his evidence in court at the trial, he stated how certain persons were attacking him in his dream with iron rods, etc., and he used his matchet which was by his bedside to defend himself.