LAOYE V. THE STATE

• Pages: 1251-1275

LAOYE V. THE STATE



1251

LAOYE V. THE STATE

5

ADEYINKA ALBERT LAOYE

V

10 THE STATE

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

ESO,



J.S.0

NNAMANI,



J.S.C.

15



COKER,



J.S.C.

KARIBI-WHYTE,



J.S.0

KAWU,



J.S.C.

25th October, 1985

APPELLANT

RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. SC 200/1984

20



Criminal Law and Procedure - Murder - Self defence - Availability as defence

- Uncontradicted testimony by accused that deceased, angered by his continents

about deceased's girlfriend - Lunging at him with a knife 3 times during

ensuing fight before eventually drawing out his own knife and inflicting 5

wounds resulting in death - Majority judgment of Court of Appeal upholding

25



conviction for manslaughter set aside - Substituted verdict - Guilty of murder

from guilty of manslaughter. Trial Judge failing to adequately consider defence

of self-defence and wrongly finding provocation proved - Self-defence established

on accused's uncontradicted evidence - Conviction of manslaughter set aside

and accused discharged and acquitted. Sections 223 and 224 of the Criminal

30



Code of Western Nigeria.

ISSUES:

1.

Whether it is proper for a court to ignore the uncontradicted evidence of an

accused, and come to a decision of guilt where the prosecution evidence is

35



unclear.

2.

Whether a defence of self-defence to a charge of murder can be rejected on

grounds of excessive use of force in putting up such a defence.

3.

What is the effect of a failure by the trial court to consider the defence of an

accused.

40



4. Whether the failure of an accused person to retreat from an assault destroys a

plea of self-defence.

FACTS:

The appellant/accused was charged with the murder of a fellow student of the

University by the trial court He pleaded provocation and self-defence. The

45



defence of self-defence was not considered. The evidence showed that the de-

ceased had received five serious stab wound while the accused was only slightly

injured, and he was convicted of manslaughter. The Court of Appeal upheld the

conviction. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court contending that his

defence of self-defence was not considered. There had been no other evidence

50



to contradict the appellant's evidence.

1252



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1985] 2 N.S.C.C.

HELD:

1.

There was no other possible defence arising from the testimony of the appellant,

which was the only evidence accepted by the trial court, than that of self defence.

There was clearly on the evidence before the court a possible defence of self

defence.



5

2.

The degree of force used (in considering a defence of self defence) is only

relevant while one is considering the circumstances of the encounter so as to

determine whether there were reasonable grounds for the prisoners belief that

his life was in danger once it is agreed that there were such grounds (as in this

case) the amount of force used by the prisoner to preserve his own life becames



10

immateral. In a fight to the death, it is only to be expected that once the prisoner

believes on reasonable grounds that his life is in danger he would go all out to

preserve his life, and that may entail making sure that the deceased is dead

beyond any question. The appellant was within the scope of such reasonable

belief.



15

3.

If the story of the appellant stands uncontradicted then it is to the facts as put

forward by him that the learned trial judge had to relate the applicable law.

Regretably neither he nor the learned Justice of the Court of Appeal did this. It

is trite law that is in the duty of the court to consider all possible defences open

to an accused person on the evidence before the court or error from his



20

statement to the police notwithstanding that such defences were not specifically

raised by the accused person or his counsel; such possible defences ought to

be fully consiaered no matter how stupid they may seem. Nothing in the

judgment of the trial judge indicates that he considered the defence of self

defence.



25

4.

"It is not as we understand it the law that a person threatened must take to his

heels and run in the dramatic way suggested by counsel for the appellant but

what is necessary is that he should demonstrate by his action that he does not

want to fight. He must demonstrate that he is prepared to temporise and

disengage and perhaps to make some physical withdrawal" - The court here



30

quoting the dictum from

R. v. McInnes

(1971) 3 All E.R. 295 with approval.

CASES REFERRED TO IN JUDGMENT:

1.

State v. Oka

(1975) 9-11 S.C. 17.

2.

R. v. lgwe

(1938) 4 W.A.C.A. 118.



35

3.

Bridges v. North London Railway

Co. (1874) L.R. 7 H.L. 233.

4.

R. v. Knock (1877) 14 Cox C.C. 1.

5.

R. v. McInnes

(1971) 1 All E.R. 295 C.A.

6.

Karuwa Takicia v. The State

(1969) 2 All N.L.R. 270.

7.

R. v. Snow

1 Leach's Crown Cases 151.



40

8.

Lee Chan Chen v. The Queen

(1962) 3 W.L.R. 146.

9.

R. v. Nwanjoku

(1937) 3 W.A.C.A. 208.

10.R. v.

Afonja (1

955) 15 W.A.C.A. 26.

11.R. v.

Duffy

(1949) 1 All E.R. 932n.

12.R.

v. Josiah Onyeamaizu

(1958) N.R.N.L.R. 93.



45

13.Palmer v. Reginam

(1971) 1 All E.R. 1077 P.C.

14.

Chan Kau Alias Chan Kai v. The Queen

(1955) 1 A.C. 206.

15.R. v.

Lobel)

(1957) 1 Q.B. 547.

16.Nwafor Okegbu v. The State

(1979) 11 S.C. 1 at 68.

17.R. v.

Nwibo

(1950) 19 N.L.R. 124.



50

18.Odu v. The

State

(1965) 1 N.M.L.R. 131.

19.Usman Yangiya v. Katsina N.A.

(1959) N.N.L.R. 117.

20.R.

v. Jinobu

(1961) All N.L.R. (Part 4) 627.

21.0kon

Bassey v. The Queen

(1963) 1 All N.L.R. 280.