Uche Nwodo V. The State (2018)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

AMINA ADAMU AUGIE, J.S.C.

The Appellant, an apprentice, and his Master, Emeka Mba, were arraigned before an Anambra State High Court and charged with murder of Emeka Nnadozie [deceased]. The Appellant allegedly hit the deceased on the head with a “cement baluster while the deceased was fighting with his Master over a debt of N4, 000.00.

After a trial in which the Prosecution called three Witnesses, and the Defendants testified in their own defence, the trial Court found the Appellant’s Master, who was first Defendant, not guilty and discharged and acquitted him. But the Appellant was found guilty as charged, and he was convicted and sentenced to death.

The Appellant’s Appeal to Court of Appeal was dismissed. He appealed to this Court with a Notice of Appeal that contains four Grounds of Appeal, and he has formulated two Issues for Determination in his Brief of Argument, which the Respondent adopted in its own Brief of Argument, and the said Issues are:

1. Whether the Prosecution had satisfactorily proved the ingredients of Murder as to make it safe for the Court to convict the Appellant as charged

1

Alternatively, whether from the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both Parties, the Appellant is not entitled to the defence of provocationAs the Parties rightly submitted, the Prosecution must prove the three elements of the offence beyond reasonable doubt, that is: that the deceased died; that the death of the deceased was caused by the Accused; and that the Accused intended to either kill or cause the deceased grievous bodily harm. See Adava V. State (2006) 9 NWLR (Pt. 984) 152, cited by the Appellant, and Omotayo V. State (2013) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1338) 235 and Tegwonor V. State (2008) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1069) 630, cited by the Respondent.

The said three elements of the offence must co-exist at the same time, if not, the Accused is entitled to be acquitted of the offence – see Asuquo V. State (2016) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1532) 309. In this case, that the deceased died is not in doubt; the hanging question is whether it was the Appellant that caused his death.The evidence adduced by the Prosecution through its PW1, Chukwudi Okonkwo, is that the Appellant’s Master was fighting with the deceased, when the

2

Appellant came into the compound, and picked up a stick/club, which he used to flog the deceased. When the first stick broke, the Appellant got another stick to use, and when that broke, the Appellant picked up a cement baluster and hit the deceased, and the deceased “slumped immediately”.

PW1 left to report the incident to their landlord, and when he got back with the landlord, they were told that the Defendants had taken the deceased to the first Hospital. They went there and were able to see the Doctor after the initial refusal. He then said:

When the Doctor came out, I introduced ourselves to him that I am the deceased’s friend while the other person is his landlord – Doctor- – allowed us in. We went in and saw the deceased lying on the bed. The Doctor asked us what happened to him, we narrated the incident to him. The Doctor told us that the people that brought him to the Hospital did not tell him the truth but instead they said he got drunk and fell inside the pit so they brought him out and brought him to the Hospital. The Doctor insisted that they must take him away because they did not tell the truth.

3

Under Cross-examination by Defence Counsel, PW1 explained –

The Deceased did not die on 9/10/08 [when the incident occurred] I was not present at the Hospital so I did not know the exact day he died. I am aware that he was taken to 3 Hospitals before his death.