The appellant and the deceased are brothers of the same father but of different mothers. Their father had died and they and other brothers and sisters as well as the deceased’s mother were living in their father’s house. The appellant is the eldest of his father’s children. There was some disagreement between the appellant and the deceased. The cause of this is not quite clear from the evidence. In two of the statements she made to the police, the deceased’s mother said the appellant did not want his father’s children by other women to continue to live in that house. However, this line of evidence did not form part of her testimony on oath. The appellant in his statement to the police (Exhibit F) said that a year previously he asked the deceased not to use the electric light in the house because he refused to pay his own part of the bill.

On 8 April, 1989, it appears the disagreement came to a head. The cause of this is also not quite clear. The appellant said the deceased behaved in a rowdy or violent manner by breaking the parlour door because he had disconnected the electric light in the house.

There appeared to be a scuffle between the appellant and the deceased in which the deceased sustained some injuries and subsequently died.

The trial court however convicted the appellant as charged and sentenced him to death. The court however discharged and acquitted the two other accused persons.