TAKIDA V. THE STATE

• Pages: 270-273

270



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1969] N.S.C.C.

Appeal

allowed.

TAKIDA V. THE STATE



5

KAVUWA TAKIDA



APPELLANT

V



10

THE STATE



RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. SC 120/1968

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

COKER,



Ag.C.J.N.

LEWIS,



J.S.C.



15

FATAI-WILLIAMS, J.S.C.

4th July, 1969.

Criminal Law - Culpable homicide punishable with death - Question of provocation

and general fight not considered by Judge though arising out of evidence -



20

Duty of Judge to consider question arising out of evidence although not relied

upon by accused or his counsel - Penal Code S.221; 222(4).

ISSUES:

1.

Whether a Court has jurisdiction to speculate as to the possible defences open



25

to an accused on trial before it for homicide.

2.

Whether it is necessary for a court to consider every single issue that has been

raised during the proceedings.

FACTS:

The appellant was convicted in the High Court, Mubi, of culpable homicide



30

punishable with death under section 211 of the Penal Code. He was charged with

the killing of the deceased by stabbing him with a knife.

The evidence showed that there was a general fight in which the appellant joined

later and subsequently stabbed the deceased. There was some conflict of evi-

dence as to whether the appellant already had the knife with him before he joined



35

in the fighting or he went home, got himself armed with it and returned to use it on

the deceased.

The trial Judge did not attempt in his judgment to resolve this conflict although

the consequences in law according to his finding thereon were widely different.

The appellant h his defence stated that he was provoked into fighting by the



40

action of a party of men who had brutally attacked his brother. The trial Judge

refused to deal with the issue of provocation as such because the appellant did

not himself say in his statement to the police that he was provoked to act in the way

that he did.

On appeal before the Supreme Court it was submitted that the Judge was in



45

error of law because he failed to take into consideration circumstances which

clearly postulated the application of Section 222(4) of the Penal Code.

HELD:

1. No Court is bound to speculate on what possible defences can be open to a

person accused before it, but where in a trial for homicide, the evidence



50

suggests a line of defence, it is the duty of the Court to consider and deal with

that defence whether or not the accused or his counsel expressly raised that

defence by the .egal terminology ascribed to it by lawyers.