The appellant had cause to suspect that his wife has been having affairs with other men. At the time, the wife was living with her mother. On this fateful day, 1/3/82, the appellant met the deceased outside in company of a man he had seen with her in her mother's room previously. She had a bowl of fufu on her head, which she was going to sell and apart from the chat that was going on between the man and her, there was nothing that can possibly arouse the suspicion of a husband with a loving mind towards his wife. He did not take kindly to the company of the man and queried his wife. His anger was not vented on the man but on the wife and according to him, his wife stabbed him on the belly and gave him injury from which his intestines came out hanging. This was not believed by the trial Judge. He then took the knife from her and literally butchered her to death.

The learned trial judge justifiably held that if the appellant had been given the stab wound he alleged was given him, he would not have had the strength and energy to inflict the butcherous injuries he inflicted on the deceased. The appellant did not deny inflicting the injuries on the deceased. In addition to killing the deceased, he also killed the mother of the deceased and after that attempted to kill himself.

According to his statement. Exhibit A1, it was he who stabbed himself in the stomach.

The learned trial judge reviewed the evidence before him and apart from the hypothetical and academic exercise he carried out on the non-accepted basis that the deceased first stabbed the appellant, he arrived at the conclusion that the defence of provocation does not avail the appellant. He also considered the defence of self-defence and discounted it on the basis of the evidence before him.

Upon appeal to the Court of Appeal the issue of whether the accused's confessional statement could be believed in part and disbelieved in part was raised and the Court of Appeal held that it could. They dismissed the appeal.