THE QUEEN V. JINOBU

• Pages: 280-282

280



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1961] N.S.C.C.

lateness of the application made to the trial Judge for adjournment was due to any

mistake or justified reason.

There was no substance in this ground of appeal, or in the second ground,

which stands or fa'Is by the first ground. The third ground which deals with the

facts of the case, is also without substance as there was abundant evidence, in the



5

evidence of the 2nd and 3rd prosecution witnesses, who saw the appellant strik-

ing the deceased on the head with the barrel of his gun, and of the 4th prosecu-

tion witness who saw the appellant running away pursued by the 3rd prosecution

witness, to justify the conviction.

We therefore dismissed the appeal for the above reasons.



10

Appeal dismissed.

THE

QUEEN V. JINOBU.



15

THE QUEEN

V

REUBEN ENYI JINOBU

RESPONDENT

APPELLANT

SUIT NO. FSC 359/1961

20

25

FEDERAL SUPREME COURT.

DE LESTANG,



C.J. LAGOS

BRETT,



F.J.

TAYLOR,



F.J.

30th October, 1961.

Criminal Law - Murder - Self defence - Provocation - Reduction to Manslaughter.

Criminal Code, Cap 42, Sections 286, 283, 318.



30

ISSUES:

1.

Whether, to establish a defence of self defence, the evidence must show that

the Appellant believed on reasonable grounds that he could not otherwise

prevent himself from death or grievous bodily harm, than by using such force



35

as he did.

2.

Whether the court can lay down a rule of law that an assault of a particular

nature will invariably constitute sufficient provocation to reduce an unlawful and

intentional killing from murder to manslaughter.

3.

Whether the relationship of the parties, and the motive of the Appellant should



40

be considered in a defence of provocation.

FACTS:

The Appellant was charged with the murder of his fourteen year old wife. He

was sentenced to death.

In his defence fle appellant gave evidence to the effect that an argument arose



45

between him and the deceased late at night in the course of which the deceased

caught hold of his private parts, causing him intense pain. She did this apparent-

ly to prevent the appellant from having sexual intercourse with her. The Appellant

said he picked'up what he thought was a stick from under the bed and had struck

her two blows before he realised that it was nor a stick but a matchet. He raised



50

an alarm and ran away. The deceased died of the wounds. The trial judge found

that the Appellant knew that what he used on the deceased was a matchet and that

he had an actual intent at the time to kill her.