Onoro Moses Vs The Queen (1961) LLJR-SC

Onoro Moses Vs The Queen (1961)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

BAIRAMIAN, F.J 

The appellant was convicted in the High Court at Ibadan, on the 15th December, 1959, on a count which states that he “With intent unlawfully to kill Edefiagbor Onoro, did an act, to wit, grievous harm to the said Edefiagbor Onoro,such act being of such a nature as to be likely to endanger human life” – a wording taken from section 320 (2) of the Criminal Code – Which is the second instance of an attempt to murder.

What he did was to strike a blow with a matchet which cut through the left shoulder down to the root of the neck and split the bone round by the spinal cord, having cut through the muscles and the nerves. Had it caught the complainant’s body an inch upwards, it would have severed the head from the body. Having regard to the nature of the wound, the learned Chief Justice was of opinion that it afforded the inference that the Intention was to kill the complainant.

At the hearing of the appeal, it was argued that the trial Judge overlooked an important fact, namely that the complainant admitted in cross examination that-

When the defendant knocked off the cutlass from my hand I did hold the defendant’s penis with the result that the trial Judge erred in not holding that the appellant acted in self- defence and under acute provocation and was justified in striking the blow he struck with the matchet.

It is true that the typescript gave the answer as above; but when defending Counsel addressed the trial Court, he referred to the evidence of the defendant that the complainant held his penis: he did not say that the complainant had admitted it in his evidence; and in his judgment the trial Judge pointed out that the defendant had not said anything about it in his statement to the Police. It occurred to us that the typescript must have been wrong and that the answer should have read “I did not hold the defendant’s penis”. We have caused an inquiry to be made, and learnt that the word “not” was omitted from the typescript in error. Thus the whole argument for the appellant was based on a mistake in the typescript.

It was a sad case of two brothers falling out after a quarrel between their wives. The appellant went to his brother’s house in any angry mood, and in the course of what ensued picked up a matchet and gave his brother the savage blow described above. Fortunately his brother’s life was saved. The appellant was rightly convicted on the counts laid, and his appeal is dismissed. The sentence was as lenient as it could have been.


Other Citation: (1961) LCN/0941(SC)

Published by

LawGlobal Hub

LawGlobal Hub is your innovative global resource of law and more. Among other things, we ensure easy accessibility to the laws of countries around the world.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *