WURNO V. UNITED AFRICAN COMPANY

• Pages: 31-33

WURNO V. UNITED AFRICAN COMPANY

31

In short, the mode of resentment must bear a reasonable relationship to the pro-

vocation if the offence is to be reduced to manslaughter.

In delivering the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal in

Holmes v The Di-

rector of Public Prosecutions, Wroitesley, J., (3),

accurately stated the Law when,

5

inter alia,

he said: "On the other hand, the law has always recognised that provo-

cation may induce a person to resentment and may thus negative the intention

which is necessary ingredient in the crime of murder, reducing the unlawful killing

to killing without intention or malice and so to manslaughter. Thus, if a man be

provoked by violence, such as a blow, and retaliate forthwith and death result from

10

that retaliation, he will be guilty of inanslaughter and not of murder, provided the

retaliation be that which may be expected of an ordinary, reasonable man so pro-

voked and in this connection the instrument used must be taken into account.

A blow with the fist is a thing which may readily be expected in circumstances,

but a blow with an axe or a hammer is another matter".

15

When these principles are applied to the facts disclosed by the evidence of the

first confession, it cannot but be held that there was no sufficient provocation to

justify the use of an axe.

Even if the facts disclosed by the third confession had been true, yet it would

have been held that the force used by the appellant was out of proportion to the

20

provocation offered, and that the use of such a lethal weapon as an axe on the

head of the deceased was by itself sufficient of an intention to kill or cause grie-

vous harm. He cannot therefore be heard to say that he did not intend to cause

death or grievous harm. In the circumstances, even under the English law, the

provocation alleged would not have justified the use of the axe so as to reduce the

25

offence committed to manslaughter.

The appeal therefore fails and is accordingly dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

30

WURNO V. UNITED AFRICAN COMPANY

35

MALLAM IDI WURNO

V

UNITED AFRICAN COMPANY

FEDERAL SUPREME COURT

40

FOSTER SUTTON, F.C.J

JIBOWU,

F.J.

ABBOTT,

Ag, F.J.

27th April, 1956.

APPELLANT

RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. WACA 274/1954

45

Costs- discretion of Trial Judge - when altered on appeal.

ISSUE:

1. When can

costs

be altered on

appeal.

FACTS:

50

This was a trial in which

two actions were consolidated. There was also a

counter claim in the first action. The

respondent succeeded on

all three claims

and was awarded separate costs

on each.

The only point here was whether the Trial Judge in awarding the costs in the

2nd action had

exercised a proper Judicial discretion.