STEPHEN V. THE STATE

• Pages: 1416-1436

1416



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1986] 2 N.S.C.C.

STEPHEN V. THE STATE



5

ISAAC STEPHEN



APPELLANT

V

THE STATE



RESPONDENT



10

SUIT NO. SC 60/1986

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

ANIAGOLU,



J.S.C.

COKER,



J.S.C.

KARIBI-WHYTE,



J.S.C.



15

KAWU,



J.S.C.

OPUTA,



J.S.C.

12th December, 1986

Criminal Law and Procedure - Accident - Provocation - Self-evidence - All three



20

defences raised by accused in statement to police and oral testimony in court

- Question if basic elements of provocation as defined in s.318 of Criminal

Code satisfied - Story of accused different in material respects - Three defences

raised inconsistent and irreconciliable - Effect - Failure of trial judge to make

specific findings of fact on each defence in written judgment - Effect on



25

conviction - Duty of trial judge to ensure that judgments are properly written

- Format or guidelines for written judgment.

ISSUES:

1.

What are the basic elements of the defence of provocation as defined in S.318



30

of the Criminal Code?

2.

Whether a trial court may disregard the evidence of an accused person, if his

statement to the police and evidence on oath are inconsistent.

3.

Whether an accused person can successfully rely on the three defences of

provocation, accident and self-defence in a murder case.



35

4.

How should a trial judge write his judgment in a criminal case?

FACTS:

The accused killed the deceased because the deceased had called him a slave.

The trial court after considering the conflicting evidence of the accused and his

three defences of provocation, accident and self-defence, convicted and sen-



40

tenced him to death. The accused's appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed.

On further appeal to the Supreme Court, it was contended on his behalf that the

trial judge did not adequately consider the accused's defences of provocation,

self-defence and accident. It was also contended that the trial judge did not make

specific findings of facts or properly evaluate the evidence adduced before him.



45

HELD:

1. Before the defence of provocation can be accepted as satisfying the law under

Section 318 of the Criminal Code, the death must have been caused in the heat

of passion; caused by grave and sudden provocation; before there was time

for the accused's passion to cool. In the instant case, it was established by the



50

trial judge that calling a member of the accused's community a slave could only

constitute sufficient provocation to annoy, the remedy being a report to the

community to take appropriate action. It should not constitute anger of a degree

sufficient to induce a person to lose his self control and therefore kill. It was

STEPHEN V. THE STATE



1417

also found by the trial judge that the accused had sufficient time to cool down

as he had to run to his house to fetch his gun, that is, even if calling him a slave

did provoke him. Thus the defence of provocation did not avail the accused.

2. The story of the accused was different in material respects. He denied shooting

5



at the deceased in court, but admitted doing so in his statement to the police.

There are many authorities to the effect that when a witness is shown to have

made a statement inconsistent with his evidence during his trial, the court is

entitled to disregard not only the evidence at the trial, but the previous

inconsistent statement. This principle applies

mutandis mitandia

to the evidence

10



of a person charged with an offence.

3. The defences raised by the accused before the court were different, inconsistent

and irreconciliable. The trial judge was therefore entitled to disbelieve the

testimony of the accused and rely on the evidence of the prosecution.

4. Trial judges in writing their judgments should endeavour to specifically identify

15



the issues involved in the case, make specific findings of fact on each issue

before discussing the law, because without known facts (facts which are

common ground) or facts as found, it may be difficult to apply the law.

5. Despite the fact that the judgment of the trial court could have been better written,

the trial judge was right in his conclusion and the Appeal is therefore dismissed.

20

CASES REFERRED TO IN JUDGMENT:

1.

lbanga v State

(1983)

1

S.C. 88.

2.

R. v. Omokaro

(1941) 7 W.A.0 A. 146.

3.

R. v. Adekanbi.

(1944) 17 N.L.R. 99 at 101

25



4.

R. v. Afonja

15 W.A.C.A. 26 at 28.

5.

Kwaku Mensah v. R.

(1945) 11 W.A.C.A. 2 at 6.

6.

Iromantu v The Queen

(1964) 1 All N.L.R. 311.

7.

Obaji v The State

(1965) N.M.L.R. 417.

8.

R v. Onyeamaizu

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

30



9.

R. v Nwibo

(1950) 19 N.L.R. 9;;.

10.R

v Fadina

(1958) 3 F.S.C. 11, 12.

11.

Willie John & Edem Dan v The State

(1966) All N.L.R. 211, 212.

12.

Udofia v The State

(1984) 12 S.C. 139.

13.0jo

v

The State

(1972) 12. S.C. 147.

35



14.R

v Qkoro

(1942) 16 N.L.R. 63.

15.R v

!girl

(1943) 12 W.A.C.A. 377.

16.Rabiu Ruma v Daura N.A.

(1960) 5 F.S.0 93.

17.R

v Green

15

W.A.C.A. 73.

18.R

v Lesbini

(1923) 1 K.B.

40



19.Lee

Chu-Chueen v R.

(1963) A.C. 220.

20.R

v. Knock

(1877) 14 Cox C.C.1

21.R v.

Ukpong

(1961) All N.L.R. 25.

22.Regina v. Golder

(1960) 1 W.L.R. 1169 at 1172.

23.R v.

Akpakpan

(1956) 1 F.S.C. 1&2.

45



24.R v.

Edache

(1962) 1 All N.L.R. 22.

25.R v.

Lobel!

(1957) 1 All E.R. 734.

26. State v. John Umunu

(1968) N.M.L.R. 15 at 20.

27.Ogbonna Nwede v. The State

(1985) 12 S.C. 32 at 36.

28.R v.

Duffy

(1949) 1 All E.R. 932.

50

Mr. Sola Rhodes

(with him

Dokun Makinde

and

Miss. O.A. Martins)

for Appellant.

Mr. Ayodeji. J. Alufohia, Senior State Counsel, Bendel State

for Respondent.