.
hbriefs heading animation Search for cases summary on Hbriefs like hbriefs on facebook follow hbriefs on twitter

BOOK: First 2-Years as a Law Student: Experiences and Lessons - visit website

JUMP TO CONTENT

Mbang Efoli Mbang V. The State (2009) - SC


place advert here


icon CASE SUMMARY OF:

Mbang Efoli Mbang v. The State (2009) - SC

by PaulPipar
icon THEME(S)

Confessional statement;
Murder;
Cannibalism;
Intention;
icon PARTIES

APPELLANT
Mbang Efoli Mbang

v.

RESPONDENTS
The State
icon CITATION

(2009) LPELR-SC.97/2008;
(2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1172) 140;
icon COURT

Supreme Court
icon LEAD JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY:

G. A. OGUNTADE, J.S.C.
icon LAWYERS WHO ADVOCATED

* FOR THE APPELLANT
- Nnamonso Ekanem Esq;

* FOR THE RESPONDENT
- Mrs Sylvia Shinaba;
The member(s) and administrator(s) of HCB put in energy in order to provide the cases summary they do on this online platform. We desist from charging you a fee, and we have decided to keep this online platform free and accessible for as long as we deem fit. However, in order to keep alive the impetus that makes us provide these free services, kindly make a donation, if you can.
Bank: Zenith Bank.
Name: Branham Paul Chima.
Account No.: 2178756839.


icon FACT

The appellant and three others were arraigned before the High Court of Cross-River State sitting at Ugep for the offence of murder contrary to section 319 (1) of the criminal code. The appellant was the 2nd accused.
It was alleged that the accused persons on 7/10/89 murdered one Baba Okoi at Nko Village of Cross River State. Each of the accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charge.
At the conclusion of hearing, the trial Judge Obasse J. in his judgment found each of the four accused guilty of the offence and accordingly sentenced each to death.
The appellant (who was the 2nd accused before the trial Court) was dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial court. He filed an appeal against the judgment before the Court of Appeal at Calabar (hereinafter referred to as the court below).
On 25/4/06, the Court below in its judgment affirmed the judgment of the trial court.
The appellant has come on a final appeal before this court.
icon ISSUE(S)

Whether the Court of Appeal was right in holding that there was common intention between the appellant and other convicts to kill the deceased person in the light of the confessional statement of the 1st accused (co-convict) that he killed the deceased person without implicating the appellant however?
icon HOLDING & RATIO DECIDENDI

[APPEAL: ALLOWED]

ISSUE 1: The Appellant's appeal was allowed and so he was acquitted.

RATIO:
i. In this appeal, there was no evidence that the four appellants were engaged in a common purpose when the 1st accused killed the deceased Baba Okoi. Even if all of the accused relished the taste of human flesh there was no evidence that they had delegated the 1st accused to kill the deceased so that they could afterwards eat his flesh. There was evidence that the appellant and the other accused persons ate human flesh but it was not made clear whose flesh they ate. In the confessional statement of the 1st accused, he stated that he dumped the body of Baba Okoi in a river. This statement was never shown to be false. It seems to me that the prosecution could not eat its cake and still keep. Since the prosecution could not establish how Baba Okoi died by any other way other than the confessional statement of the 1st accused, its cases stood to succeed or fail only upon the said confessional statement. The 1st accused confessed that he alone killed the deceased. This statement true or false was never challenged. The appellant did not confess that he joined in the killing of the deceased. An accused making a confessional statement as to his participation in a crime is not confessing for his accomplices. A man's confession is only evidence against him and not against his accomplices and it is a misdirection which may lead to the quashing of the conviction to omit to warn a jury or assessor of this fact.
icon REFERENCED

Section 8 of the Criminal Code;
icon SOME PROVISIONS


icon RELEVANT CASES

In the cases of Nwaeze v. The State (1996) 2 SCNJ page 42 it was held inter alia: "where accused person is the person with whom the deceased was last with or seen with alive the implication of or necessary inference to be drawn from the fact is that the accused murdered the deceased".
Get that your business, idea, or work available to the public. HCB gets sufficient amount of visits daily. Utilise this golden opportunity to make your product(s) available to the public domain by advertising on this website. If you are interested in advertising on this platform, click "place my advert".

place my advert

place advert here
Go to Crowdfire


icon NOTABLE DICTA

* PROCEDURAL

* SUBSTANTIVE

Where there is undisputed evidence as to how the deceased met his death, the necessity to draw any inference that it was the person last seen with him alive who killed him would be irrelevant and unnecessary. - OGUNTADE, J.S.C. MBANG v. STATE (2009)

I may point out straightaway that to render two or more persons liable for murder by virtue of the provisions of the section (section 8 of the Criminal Code), there must be evidence of the three elements that constitute the offence under the section. Firstly, there must be evidence showing that the accused persons had formed a common intention to prosecute an unlawful purpose together; secondly, that in furtherance of the execution of the unlawful purpose a person was killed in circumstances amounting to murder; and thirdly that the death of that person was a probable consequence of the prosecution of the unlawful purpose. - OGUNTADE, J.S.C. MBANG v. STATE (2009)

An accused making a confessional statement as to his participation in a crime is not confessing for his accomplices. A man's confession is only evidence against him and not against his accomplices and it is a misdirection which may lead to the quashing of the conviction to omit to warn a jury or assessor of this fact. - OGUNTADE, J.S.C. MBANG v. STATE (2009)

The revelation made before the trial Court during the hearing is unnerving. The accused persons, all from Cross River State of Nigeria as at 1989 were freely eating human flesh as snacks. Cannibalism in Nigeria in 1989, this was a strange occurrence. It is directed that the proceedings and judgment in this cases be sent to the Attorney-General of the Federation and Cross Rivers State to enable them take necessary steps to stop the continuation of this barbaric practice. - OGUNTADE, J.S.C. MBANG v. STATE (2009)


The end of this brief.


If this brief was aidful to you, LIKE Hbriefs on Facebook and FOLLOW Hbriefs on Twitter to get frequent Legal updates from Hbriefs.
kind_emoji


place advert here




USE THE SEARCH BOX BELOW
If the search box is not available below, it is due to network issues; in that case, reload page or check back again.
The search feature works perfect! Although the search feature might not capture very recent uploaded cases; If you did not get a particular case, we recommend entering the Case Summary categories and use your browser search/find feature, or use the request feature below.


JUMP TO TOP


REQUEST A CASE SUMMARY





ABOUT



TERMS AND CONDITONS



ADVERTISE ON HBRIEFS



FOUNDER




Humongouz Empire
© 2018 - 2021

website developed by hzztudio