GANO V. THE STATE

• Pages: 285-288

GANO V. THE STATE



285

GANO V. THE STATE

5

MALLAM GANO

V

10 THE STATE

APPELLANT

RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. SC 18

2

/

1

969

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERVA

ADEMOLA,



C.J.N.

COKER,



J.S.C.

15



LEWIS,



J.S.C.

29th November, 1968.

Criminal Law - Culpable Homicide punishable with death - Conviction and

sentence - Failure of judge in his judgment to incorporate direction under

20



S.273 of the Criminal Procedure Code - Effect - Clerical error - Whether

trial judge has inherent power to put it right.

ISSUES:

1.

What is the effect of a trial judge's failure to pronounce the manner in which a

25



death sentence is to be carried out as is required of him under S.273 of the

Criminal Procedure Code.

2.

Whether a trial judge has the inherent power to rectify his omission to pronounce

the manner in which a death sentence is to be carried out.

FACTS:

30



The appellant was convicted of culpable homicide punishable with death con-

trary to S.221 of the Penal Code and was sentenced to death. The trial Judge in

passing the death sentence on the appellant omitted to pronounce the manner in

which the sentence was to be carried out. The appellant appealed to the Supreme

Court against his conviction and sentence. Learned counsel for the appellant

35



referred the Supreme Court to S.27:3 of the Criminal Procedure Code which reads:

"When a person is sentenced to death, the sentence shall direct that he be hanged

by the neck till he is dead,"; and he urged the court to hold that as the judge gave

no direction as to the manner the sentence of death was to be carried out, as he

was obliged by the law to do, the sentence could not be carried out and the trial

40



judge was

functus officio.

HELD:

1.

Where a judge passes the sentence of death, it is his duty, under the law, to

pronounce the manner in which the sentence is to be carried out, and failure

to do so might raise an apprehension that the execution could be carried out

45



by any other means; but as it is clear that the only mode of execution known to

our law is by hanging by the neck till the convict is dead, it was impossible to

accept that any other mode of execution was contemplated by the judge.

2.

The Supreme Court was not unmindful of the fact that after passing sentence

of death on a convict, the judge after the sentence passed by him has been

50



confirmed, issues a warrant in the prescribed form and the Superintendent of

Prisons who has had no advantage of reading the judgment has no choice but

to excute the sentence in the manner laid down in the form, namely, hang the

convict by the neck till he is dead, and there could be no objection taken by

the Superintendent that the warrant was not consistent with the judgment. Thus