YUSUFU V. THE STATE

• Pages: 290-305

290



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1988] 2 N.S.C.C.

YUSUFU V. THE STATE



5

LATIFU YUSUFU



APPELLANT

V

THE STATE



RESPONDENT



10

SUIT NO. SC 9/1987

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

OBASEKI,



J.S.C.

N NAMAN I ,



J.S.C.

KAWU,



J.S.C.

OPUTA,



J.S.C.

WALT,



J.S.C.

8th July, 1988

Criminal Law and Procedure - Murder - Contrary to Section 319 of the Criminal Code -

Section 28 of the Criminal Code - Distinction between 1st and 2nd limbs - Distinction

between Insanity and Insane Delusion - Concurrent findings of fact of two courts -

Attitude of Supreme Court.

Evidence - Ipse Dalt - Admissibility - Weight to be attached.

Words and Phrases - 'delusion' - Meaning of.

ISSUES:

1.

What is delusion?

2.

What is the distinction between insanity and insane delusion?

3.

Whether a mere

'ipse

dixit'

is admissible evidence.

FACTS:

The Accused/Appellant was charged with the murder of one Muinatu Latifu, his



35

wife, at the Lagos High Court, Ikeja. His defence was that of delusion under section

28 of the Criminal Code. The learned trial judge, after evaluating the evidence be-

fore him, convicted the accused and sentenced him to death. The accused appealed

to the Court of Appeal which dismissed the appeal. He further appealed to the Su-

preme Court, where it was contended on his behalf that the learned trial judge and



40

the Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law by not clearly drawing a distinction

between the first limb and the second limb of Section 28 of the Criminal Code and

that the Court of Appeal gravely misdirected itself on the length and extent of delu-

sive beliefs, giving the impression that it must have been prolonged or persistent for

a considerable time before it can avail one under section 28 (second limb) of the

Criminal Code.

HELD:

1. Delusion may be defined as the belief of things as realities which exist only in

the imagination of the patient. Thus, mere eccentricity is not enough to

constitute mental unsoundness. There must be an aberration of reason. In the



5

case of

Arum v. The State

(1979) N.S.C.C. 190, the Supreme Court defined

delusion as "a falsely held belief inaccessible to reason and which represents a

departure from previously held patterns of belief and .... which exists out of

15

20

25

30

YUSUFU V. THE STATE



291

context with the patterns of belief held by the culture from which the subject

devises."

It is, as defined by counsel for the appellant - 'a firm and unreasonable belief

which is not based on reality and which cannot be removed by any

5



demonstration of it's inaccuracy.

2.

While insanity encompasses delusion, delusion does not encompass insanity.

Where a defence of insanity exists a defence of delusion cannot arise for

consideration. It is subsumed. According to section 28 of the Criminal Code, a

defence of delusion arises only where a defence of insanity is not available to

10



the accused. There is no doubt that the basic cause of insanity and delusion is

a disease of the mind and hence the two defences have been properly treated

and dealt with in the same section, but the degree of illness of the mind in insanity

is infinitely more severe than the degree of illness in delusion. The loss of

capacity in insanity need not attend the state of delusion. But for the distinction

15



made by Section 28 of the Criminal Code in the classification of the criminal

liability attaching to the respective victims of insanity and delusion, detection of

any difference in real life is difficult to make. The only real distinction lies while

trying to establish a defence. For insanity, all that has to be established is

contained in the first limb of section 28. In the second limb, which explains what

20



must be proved to establish insane delusion, the defence consists just of

assuming that the subject of the delusional belief is true and judging the criminal

liability against this i.e. whether the act, assuming that the delusional belief is

true, is one that is punishable or not. One cannot treat the two defences together

or interchangeably since the elements necessary to establish either defence are

25



different.

3.

A party's testimony is admissible evidence and depending on what weight it

carries, may just be all that is needed to sustain that party's case. As was held

in

Ahmed Debs v. Cheico Limited

[198612 N.S.C.C. 837, ''A party's

`ipse dixit'

30



could be cross examined like any other evidence. It could be impeached with

another evidence. It could be admitted. It could be left just uncontradicted. It

is for the court in evaluating the evidence to take every circumstance into

consideration.



"There can be no question that a mere"

"ipse dixit"

is

admissible evidence but it is evidence resting on the assertion of one who made

35



it; where there is need for further proof, a mere

'ipse dixit'

may not be enough."

[As to

defence of insanity or insane delusion

see 11 HALSBURY'S LAWS 4th

Edition 621 Para 1125]

40



Editorial Note:

There is a presumption in law, that every man is sane and accountable for his actions.

This presumption however, is rebuttable. In order to establish the defence of insanity

and rebut the presumption of sanity, it is necessary to prove that at the relevant time,

the accused was suffering from mental disease or natural mental infirmity, that is, a

45



defect of reason from the disease of the mind, or a defect in mental power, neither

produced by his own fault, nor the result of a disease of the mind.

In the leading case of

R.

v. Omoni

(1949) 12 W.A.C.A. 511, the court held that our

code differs from the law of England, by the introduction of the element of "natural

mental infirmity" and allowing "incapacity to control his actions" to relieve a person

50



from criminal responsibility.

See further

Willie v. The State

[1968] N.S.C.C. 109

Aiworo v. The State

[1987] II

N.S.C.C. 710