Oludayo Olowofoyeku V. The State (1984)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

BELLO, J.S.C. 

This is a case of premeditated murder. The appellant inflicted several cuts with a matchet on his wife and she died on the spot.

He committed this savage act because the wife had instituted divorce proceedings against him and had refused to refund N40 he had given to her for reconciliation.

The only point taken in the Court of Appeal was that the trial Judge did not pass the sentence of death in the terms of section 367(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Exercising its power under section 20(3) of the Court of Appeal Act, the Court of Appeal complied with the section and dismissed his appeal.

The only complaint to this Court was against the sentence also. But later learned counsel for the appellant filed a supplementary brief in which, having regard to the decision of this Court in Adetokunbo v. The State SC.34/1981, delivered on 16th February 1984 (unreported), he withdrew the objection.

It is apparent on the record that the trial court complied with the provisions of section 367(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The record shows “sentence of death is pronounced on the accused.” We held in Adetokunbo v. The State (Supra) that such pronouncement sufficiently shows that the provisions of the section were complied with by the trial court.

The appeal has no merits and it is dismissed. The conviction and sentence are affirmed.

OBASEKI, J.S.C.: Having studied the record of proceedings and the judgments of the Federal Court of Appeal and the High Court together with the briefs filed by the learned counsel to the parties, I agree with counsel that there is no merit whatsoever in this appeal. This was a cold-blooded and calculated murder of the deceased by her husband, the appellant, for failing to withdraw the divorce suit she instituted against him. The only issue taken at the Federal Court of Appeal was of the failure to record in the judgment the exact statutory words of the sentence of death pronounced by the learned trial judge in the record of his judgment.

There is however, evidence on the face of the record of the judgment that the sentence of death was pronounced on the accused. Counsel for the appellant has properly in his brief drawn our attention to our decision in Ayodele Adetokunbo v. The State SC.34/81 delivered on 16th February, 1984 where this court held that there is substantial compliance with section 367(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act where trial judge records that the sentence of death was pronounced on the accused and advised the necessity to record the statutory words. I have no reason to depart from that decision. It was therefore unnecessary for the Federal Court of Appeal to proceed to supply the statutory words pronounced.

The appeal is therefore dismissed and the conviction and sentence of death passed by the High Court and affirmed by the Federal Court of Appeal are hereby affirmed.

ESO, J.S.C.: The appellant was convicted of murder in the Ijero Ekiti High Court in Ondo State. The appellant never denied killing the deceased (his wife) in his statement to the police. He did it in a savage manner. In the Court, the appellant put up a defence of provocation which was well considered by the trial Judge, Ogundare J. as he then was. He was convicted and sentenced. The only issue before the Court of Appeal and this Court is whether proper sentence was passed on the appellant. The record has been found to show as follows –

“Court – Sentence of death is pronounced on the accused. He is reminded of his right of appeal………..”

In Ayodele Tokunbo v. The State SC.34/81 delivered on 16th February 1984 (unreported) this Court has held that such pronouncement is sufficient for compliance with s.367(2) of the Court Procedure Act. I hold that a proper sentence according to law was pronounced on the appellant by the trial court and I agree with both learned counsel for the appellant and the State respectively that there is no merit whatsoever in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Conviction and sentence of the High Court are hereby affirmed.