The appellant and the deceased were related by blood and lived in the same compound in their village, Afaha Ikot village. Their relationship could not be described as friendly. The deceased was a senior relation and more prosper¬ous. The appellant coveted his crops, sweet yams (potatoes) and yams and harvested them. The matter was reported to the police. He was arrested, pros¬ecuted and convicted for stealing. After serving his sentence, he returned home with a grudge. He became obsessed with the feeling of oppression by the de¬ceased. He accused the deceased of not procuring treatment for him to cure him of hernia. He accused the deceased of tormenting him with witchcraft and of preventing people from buying his mats when he took them to the market for sale. According to the appellant, it was on his return from the market that following a little altercation, he took his machet, followed deceased to his wife's kitchen and macheted him in his backyard.

P.W.1, Elizabeth Wilson, widow of the deceased who passed bath water for the deceased and saw deceased enter into the bathroom was subsequently attracted by the sound of a heavy machet cut. She ran to the bathroom, saw appellant emerge with blood-stained 'knife' and found her husband's head almost cut off through the neck

P.W."2, Nwa Iwok Uko, a cousin of the appellant and a half brother of the deceased also heard the sound of cutting the called it cutting sound) coming from the direction of the deceased's house. As he heard it a second time, he called the attention "of P.W.1. Not long after, P.W.1 raised alarm that her husband had been killed. P.W.2 ran to the deceased's house and saw appellant first holding a blood-stained machet. When he asked him what he slaughtered, appellant did not reply.

The appellant's version which explains the cause of his action reads:

"On 25/6/74 I took some mats I had made to the market. Wilson followed after the on his bicycle on which he tied a machet. At the market, he went round tell¬ing people not to buy my mats. He told me that that was the harm he had sworn to do me. I sat in the market for a long lime but nobody bought any mat from me, so I carried them home. As I rode home, he too rode home taking another route. He placed his bicycle in our father's house and then he removed the machet he had tied to his bicycle from its sheath. He had decided on a date that he would kill me. When he removed the machet he came towards me brandishing it in my face. I had nothing in my hand. Then he went and kept the machet somewhere and then went to his wife's kitchen. I followed after him and asked him why he persecuted me so. Then he asked me again who it was I was able to kill. He said a lot more things. I was annoyed and he was annoyed. I ran to my own house and brought my own machet as he had decided to kill me that day. I met him at the backyard and I asked him again what I had done to war¬rant his persecution of me and to torment me by witchcraft, it was then that I macheted him and then went away. People who were around then went away.

After a detailed review of the evidence adduced in the case, the learned trial Judge considered whether there was sufficient evidence of provocation and he held that the complaints were no evidence of provoca¬tion and convicted him of murder.