n Compulaw - 1st Indigenous Digital Law Library
Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

Uwakweghinya V. State (2005) CLR 3(b) (SC)

Judgement delivered on March 11th 2005

Brief

  • Failure to provide interpreter
  • Defences not raised
  • Provocation
  • Self defence
  • Inference to be drawn from evidence led in criminal cases
  • Contradictions in statements made by accused person
  • Procedural irregularity

Facts

On the morning of the 04/06/1986, Gabriel Ejiofor as usual went to his farm. He did not return in the evening as he usually used to do. His son, his senior brother and other members of the community organised a search party for him but could not find him up to early hours of the following morning. They contacted neighbouring villages to form a posse to help them track down Gabriel Ejiofor. Gabriel Ejiofor's dead body was eventually discovered in a bush with several matchete cuts all over his body. The Appellant was the nephew of the deceased and it was common ground that the Appellant had a negative attitude towards members of their family including his uncle the deceased. It was also alleged that the body of the deceased was found in a farm land belonging to the Appellant and that the Appellant refused to take part in the search of his uncle when all neighbours and relations leant of his failure to return home from the farm. After due investigation by the police, the Appellant was arrested and made an alleged confessional statement to the police. In his evidence at the trial, the Appellant stated, that he inflicted matchete cuts on the deceased when the deceased attacked him and hit him with a stick. In his cautioned statement to the police aforesaid, the Appellant made statement to the same effect, i.e., that he feared that the deceased would kill him if he did not stop him by using his matchete on the deceased. He also claimed to have lost his self control when the deceased hit him. At the trial and as confirmed by the Court of Appeal, the defences of self-defence and alternatively provocation did not avail the Appellant, hence his conviction by the trial Court and affirmation of the conviction by the Court of Appeal.

Issues

  • 1
    Whether the Court of Appeal was right in affirming that the trial Court's...
  • Read More