AJUNWA V. THE STATE

• Pages: 493-503

AJUNWA V. THE STATE



493

its own when it considered issues, such as the defendant's constitutional right to ap-

peal, in justifying the grant of stay of execution by the trial court.

It is for these and the reasons given by my learned brother Craig, J.S.C., with

which I agree, that I allowed this appeal on the 28th day of June, 1988, and set aside

5



the decisions of the High Court and Court of Appeal with N500.00 costs against the

respondent.

WALT, J.S.C.:

On 28th June, 1988 I allowed the appeal and reserved giving my

reasons for doing so to today. I now proceed to state them.

I have seen and read before now the Reasons for Judgment just delivered by my

0



learned brother, Craig, J.S.C. I agree with them and adopt same as mine.

Appeal allowed.

5



AJUNWA V. THE STATE

UKAOBASI AJUNWA

!O



V

THE STATE

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

OBASEKI,



Ag.C.J.N.

?5



NNAMANI,



J.S.C.

UWAIS,



J.S.C.

WALT,



J.S.C.

CRAIG,



J.S.C.

30



29th September, 1988

APPELLANT

RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. SC 183/1987

Criminal Law and Procedure - Murder - Defence of self-defence - Provocation -

Distinction between the two defences.

ISSUE:

35



1. What is the difference between the defence of self- defence and that of

provocation.

FACTS:

The appellant was charged on an information, for the offence of murder, in the

.0



lant's nephew had cause to pass in front of the appellants property, to the displea-

High Court of Imo State, holden at Umuahia. The deceased, who was the appel-

sure of the appellant who attacked him and tore his cloths, telling him not to pass

again. The deceased went home, changed, collected a matchet and attempted to

pass. He was again attacked by the appellant and his family and while the de-

ceased's brothers tried to break up the fight, the appellant ran in, got a shot gun,

5



and shot the deceased twice at close quarters, killing him. The appellant was con-

victed of murder, and sentenced to death,

He appealed to the Court of Appeal, contending

inter alia

that the learned trial

judge erred in law, when he held that the defences of self-defence and provocation

did not avail the appellant. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that

0



there was no merit whatsoever in the appeal.

The appellant, dissatisfied with the decision of the Appeal Court, appealed fur-

ther to the Supreme Court, contending that the defences of self-defence and provo-

cation were not sufficiently considered before they were rejected, and that the Court

of Appeal was wrong to have held that they had.