IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE GAMBIA HOLDEN AT BANJUL

More documents

Recommendations

Info

question that beg for an answer is whether there exist intention to cause death or do grievous harm or knowledge that death or grievous harm would result when the accuse struck the deceased with his bangled hand by the neck? My answer is in the negative, because in my view, the strike by the accused is intended to register a protest of comparing him with his rival. This explained why he left the deceased on the ground to sit at the palour. The follow-up question is when the accused returned from the parlour to wrap up the mouth and nose of the deceased, was that in furtherance of the earlier strike on the deceased! If it were, malice aforethought would have been established. The answer is in the negative as the covering of the mouth and nose is in the view of the accused to arrest the noise. It is a smack of naiveness by the accused without malice undertone. The Prosecution referred me to the case GARBA V THE STATE Supra and urged me to pressure in favour of the Prosecution. Am afraid I will not because of the factual difference. The murder weapon used in GARBA V THE STATE and the way and manner it was used coupled witt the age of the accused leaves the Court with no other presumption than he intended the natural cause of his act. Finally I hold that this issue is not established as I resolve it in favour of the accused. ISSUE 4
The statement of the Accused has been adjudged confessional and so admitted as Exhibit ‘Q’. In Court and on oath in one breath, the accused deny making Exhibit ‘Q’ and in another breath he made it under torture of various kinds. This was contested during trial – within trial and ruled in favour of the admissibility of the statement as confessional. The defence dissipated his energy by repeating the argument all over. It is trite law that mere repetition of an argument does not improve an earlier arid, weak, or completely unacceptable argument. See. I. F. Ogbuagu Jsc in OGBU V STATE 29 NSC QR 222 at 250. CALABA EAST CO-OPERATIVE THRIFT & CREDIT SOCIETY LTD VS ETIM E. IKOT (1999)12 SCNJ. 321 at 339 Per Achike JSC. At any rate, the fact that the accused retracted his confessional statement during his testimony in Court does not make it inadmissible or that the trial court should not act on it. See SHADE V STATE 22 NSCQR. 756 at 765 – 766 AMOSHIMA V STATE (2009) 4 NCC 280 at 344
Page 1 and 2: IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE GAMBIA HOL
Page 3 and 4: her when she called again in the ho
Page 5 and 6: Amie Bah by hitting her on the neck
Page 7 and 8: • Where there exists knowledge th
Page 9 and 10: S. 31(1) of the Evidence Act 1994 d
Page 11 and 12: In Exhibit ‘Q’ the accused said
Page 13 and 14: deceased with his wrist silver bang
Page 15: not true. I asked her about that an
Page 19 and 20: S.202 CC. “Any person who becomes
Page 21 and 22: Furthermore, it is contended on beh
Page 23: Sentence: Court:- 1 st Accused you

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE GAMBIA HOLDEN AT BANJUL

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?