EKUMA & ANOR. V. C.O.P

• Pages: 230-233

230



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1963] N.S.C.C.

As regards provocation, the learned trial judge after expressing the opinion that

the sudden attack on the appellant in the circumstances described by him would,

without doubt, cause a reasonable person of the appellant's standing in life con-

siderable anger and cause him to strike the deceased once, went on to hold in ef-

fect that it did not excuse his continuing "to deal death blows on the deceased now



5

incapacitated for the second, third and fourth times in quick succession." This is

an implied finding that there was time for the appellant's passion to cool between

the infliction of the first injury on the deceased and the other injuries. We are un-

able to agree. All four blows were delivered within a matter of seconds of each

other and if the first blow was as the learned judge found, given in the heat of pas-



10

sion caused by sudden provocation we cannot see how the other blows can be

treated differently. We consider therefore that the learned trial judge ought to have

found provocation proved. We accordingly set aside the conviction for murder

and substitute a conviction for manslaughter contrary to section 317 C.C. and we

impose a sentence of eight years imprisonment with hard labour.



15

Appeal Allowed: Verdict of

manslaughter substituted.

20

EKUMA & ANOR. V. C.O.P

1.

OGUNTE EKUMA



APPELLANTS

2.

DOMINIC NWUKO

V

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE



RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. FSC 192/1963

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

ADEMOLA,



C.J.N.

TAYLOR,



J.S.C.

BAIRAMIAN



J.S.C.

11th October, 1963.

Legislation - Criminal Code, S. 385

Criminal Law - Charge of stealing - Person receiving money for specified purpose

and misappropriating it - Property correctly laid in giver.

ISSUE:

1. Whether a person who receives money for a specified purpose and

misapprop-iates it can be found guilty of stealing under s. 385 of the Criminal

Code.

FACTS:

Briefly, for present purposes, section 385 provides that where a person re-

ceives money with a direction to use it for a specified purpose, it remains the

property of the giver until the direction is complied with: (the proviso to the sec-

tion is not relevant in this case, which is reported on the wording of the charge

only).

A County Council gave money to the defendants as members of a School Com-

mittee to build a school with, and they misappropriated some of the money. They

were convicted of stealing money the property of the Council. On appeal their

counsel submitted that, as the money had been given to the School Committee,

30

35

40

45

50