IBOLUKWU & ORS. V. ONOHAFIIGHO

• Pages: 157-160

IBOLUKWU & ORS V. ONOHARIGHO



157

Thus a person is guilty of capital homicide if he does an act which kills with the

intention of killing, or if he knew or had reason to know that death would be the

probable consequence of his act. Consequently if two or more persons do acts

together which cause death with the intention of causing death, they are guilty of

5



capital homicide within paragraph (a); or if two or more persons in furtherance of

their common intention do acts which they knew or had reason to know would

cause death as the probable consequence of their acts, they would be guilty of

capital homicide within paragraph (h).

That seems to be the reasoning followed by the learned trial Judge, who was

10



of the view that section 79 applied to the present case. We agree with his reason-

ing and his view, and need say no more.

The appeal of Tambari Maijamaa from the conviction and sentence passed in

the High Court of the Northern Region on the 12th December, 1963 in Charge No.

JD/91C/1963 is dismissed.

15



Appeal dismissed.

IBOLUKWU & ORS V. ONOHARIGHO

20

AGOLO IBOLUKWU & OTHERS

V

25 JAMES ONOHARIGHO

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

BRETT,



J.S.C.

TAYLOR,



J.S.C.

30



BAIRAMIAN,



J.S.C.

17th June, 1964

APPELLANTS

RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. FSC 113/1963

Legislation - Western Nigeria - Torts Law (1959 Laws cap.122), Part II on fatal

accidents - fatal accidents - Damages - Assessment of lump sum - allocation

35



to husband and children of deceased wife - care of infants' shares.

ISSUE:

1. What principles should a court apply in assessing and awarding damages in

actions brought under the Fatal Accidents Act

40 FACTS:

The plaintiff sued for himself Lnd five children, for damages in respect of the

death of his wife, aged 35. The children were aged 20, 17, 10, 5 and 3. The father

paid for the eldest two at school, the mother, also a trader, spent for the mainten-

ance of the household which Inc uded two strangers. The trial Judge estimated

45



that she spent £446 per annum, which he considered meant an income of £600;

this he multiplied by 12 and awarded £7,200 as damages - which he divided

amongst the husband and children. On appeal, the defendants objected to the

award on the ground that it was .axcessive, but gave no reason for saying so.

HELD:

50



1. The factor of twelve would not be changed but the product would be reduced

because a lump sum would be awarded and that would carry interest.

The Supreme Court decided on £2,500. Counsel for the plaintiff suggested

giving the husband £250, the eldest two children £.300 each, the third child

£400, the fourth £600 and the fifth £650.