Authored By: Ogunji Sylvia
Babcock University
COURT: The Supreme Court of Nigeria
DATE: 2000
CITATION: (2000) 7 SC (pt. 1) 80
INTRODUCTION
Oforlete v. The State is a landmark case in Nigerian criminal system that provides a thorough interpretation of the principle of causation.1 Decided by a five-judge panel of the Supreme Court in 2000, the case underscores the burden that is placed on the prosecution to prove that the actions of the accused directly caused the death of the victim.
This ruling is especially significant in cases where a substantial amount of time has passed between the alleged act and the death, making it harder to establish a clear causal link. The case reinforces that without proof of causation, a murder conviction cannot stand.
The principle of causation is a concept that connects mens rea and actus reus in a way that but for its presence, no crime is committed. An accused with the necessary mens rea can only be liable if it can be shown that it was his conduct that caused the prohibited act, that is the actus reus. It is often the case especially in homicide cases that the injury inflicted by the accused on the deceased is aggravated by another cause that it becomes unreasonable to hold him responsible for the subsequent death of the victim. In this situation, the chain of causation is broken and any resultant death is attributed to a new cause.
BACKGROUND
The appellant, Patrick Oforlete, was charged with the offence of murder contrary to section 319(1) of the Criminal Code. At the trial, which commenced at the Orlu High Court, the appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge after it was read and explained to him. Thereafter both the prosecution and the defense called witnesses in support of their respective cases and later addressed the trial court before the case was adjourned for judgment. On the 29th of January, 1993, the learned trial Judge, Onunuju J. delivered his judgment in which he found the appellant not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter and sentenced him to a term of five years imprisonment.
The appellant, dissatisfied with the judgement appealed to the Court of Appeal against conviction and sentence. The Court of Appeal heard the appeal, dismissed it as being without merit and affirmed the decision of the trial court. The appellant, still not satisfied, appealed to the Supreme Court against conviction and sentence on four grounds and this was where a sound judgment was delivered.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The appellant got into a fight with his brother, the deceased, during which he hit a kitchen stool on the head of the deceased. No complication arose until three months later when the head of the deceased got swollen. He was rushed to the hospital where the doctor examined his head and found a blood clot on the head which was infected. He further carried out an x-ray of the skull but found no visible injury to the bone. The deceased left the hospital but was admitted five days later in a semi conscious state with serious blood infection from the head injury. There was improvement for 3 days but his condition got worst and he was then moved to a psychiatrist hospital where he died.
A different doctor who conducted the post mortem found a fresh looking swelling on the left side of parietal area of his skull and a spontaneously closed skull fracture. The doctor further opined that the deceased must have died as a result of traumatic head injury leading to infected scalp and that the head injury could have been acquired at any time when that part of the head came into contact with a hard object.
LEGAL ISSUES
The primary issue which the court was burdened with to answer was whether the appellant was rightly convicted and sentenced by the lower courts based on the medical evidences.
The secondary issues that were brought before the court includes:
- Whether trial of the appellant which led to his conviction and sentence was valid in law.
- Whether, the appellant’s defense was adequately considered.
ARGUMENTS
The petitioners argued that the two medical reports given by different doctors at different times showed significant discrepancies. The first doctor, who treated the deceased while he was still alive, found no skull fractures, only a blood clot. In contrast, the second doctor, who conducted the post-mortem, reported a fresh-looking swelling and a skull fracture. Based on this, the petitioners questioned whether the actions of the accused truly caused the death of the deceased or whether another intervening factor was responsible. They argued that, given the time lapse between the altercation and the medical examinations, it was unclear what exactly led to the death. Since the prosecution failed to provide clear and credible evidence directly linking the actions of the accused to the fatal outcome, they urged the court to resolve the doubt in favor of the accused and acquit him.
The respondents argued that the medical evidences of the two doctors confirmed the fact that the deceased’s death was caused by injury on the head inflicted by the accused. They stated that at the time the injury was inflicted the skull of the deceased was fractured though it was regarded not serious. The first doctor saw the swelling as well as the second doctor. Hence, it is non contradictory that the accused inflicted the injury which broke the skull of the deceased resulting in his death.
ANALYSIS OF THE COURT
Kalgo, J.S.C, who delivered the lead judgment, noted the inconsistency between the medical reports. The first doctor, who examined the deceased while alive, found no visible skull injury, only a blood clot. However, the second doctor, during the post-mortem, observed a fresh swelling and a skull fracture. Justice Kalgo emphasized that these two findings were in clear conflict and should not have been accepted by the trial court or affirmed by the Court of Appeal. This discrepancy raised serious doubt about whether the injury inflicted by the appellant striking the deceased with a kitchen stool actually caused the death, or whether it was the result of the later-identified fresh swelling. The court resolved this doubt in favor of the appellant and overturned the conviction.
In support of this position, the court cited R v. Oledima, where the accused administered an injection that may have caused the deceased’s death. However, since the prosecution failed to establish a direct causal link between the injection and the death, the accused was acquitted.2 Similarly, in Giremabe v. Bornu,3the court reached the same conclusion due to lack of causal evidence.
The court also found that the prosecution failed to prove that the appellant’s act accelerated the deceased’s death. In contrast, the court referred to Effanga v. The State, where the accused was held liable because the injury he inflicted on the deceased led directly to septicemia and death.4
Ayoola, J.S.C, in his concurring opinion, stressed that in homicide cases, the cause of death must be clearly established and proven beyond reasonable doubt. If the cause is uncertain, the inquiry should not proceed. Once established, it must then be linked to the act of the accused or omission through evidence.
From the above, it is clear that proving the cause of death is fundamental before attributing liability. In the present case, the act alleged to have caused the death was a head injury from a hard object. However, conflicting medical evidence left the actual cause of death uncertain. The contradictions, coupled with the significant time lapse between the injury and the first treatment, weakened the causal link between the act of the appellant and the death of the deceased. The uncertainty created reasonable doubt, making it unsafe to convict.
To contrast, the case of R v. Malcherek was cited. In that case, the accused stabbed his wife, who was placed on life support after her heart stopped. When doctors later confirmed brain death and turned off the ventilator, the accused argued that the action of the doctor and not his caused the death. The court rejected this defense, holding that the original stab wound remained the operative cause of death.5 Unlike in this present case, there was no intervening cause that created reasonable doubt.
DECISION OF THE COURT
Kalgo J.S.C who delivered the leading judgment stated that to sustain a conviction for the offence of manslaughter, which the accused was convicted for in the lower courts, it must be established beyond reasonable doubt, that it was the act of the accused that directly caused the death of the deceased and since the prosecution could not prove that beyond reasonable, the conviction of manslaughter was set aside by the judge.
Considering the act of the appellant, the judge held that the act of hitting a hard object on the head of another is an unlawful act constituting an offence under section 355 of the Criminal Code.6 Hence, the appellant was convicted of the offence of assault occasioning bodily harm contrary to the provisions of section 355 of the Criminal Code and sentenced to 1 year imprisonment with hard labour.7
SIGNIFICANCE
This case is particularly significant because it underscores the level of diligence required by the prosecution to secure a conviction in a murder charge. It lays a solid foundation for the principle of causation in Nigerian criminal system, reinforcing that the onus is always on the prosecution to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, a direct causal link between the act of the accused and the death of the deceased.
Given that murder is a capital offence, punishable by death, the law sets a high evidentiary threshold. As illustrated in Mbang v. The State,8the burden of proof must be met strictly and convincingly. This case reinforces that principle and sets a precedent for future prosecutions.
CONCLUSION
This case focuses on the principle of causation and its critical role in criminal prosecutions. In this instance, the prosecution failed to establish a clear, credible link between the act of the accused and the death of the deceased. The contradictory medical evidence and the time lapse between the incident and treatment left the cause of death uncertain, relying instead on assumptions.
The court emphasized that judgments cannot be based on speculation, but must be founded on clear, consistent, and credible evidence. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction for manslaughter. However, since it was clearly established that the accused struck the deceased with a kitchen stool, the court found him guilty of assault occasioning bodily harm, contrary to section 355 of the Criminal Code.9
This case is of great importance to legal practitioners, especially prosecutors, as it highlights the rigorous standards of proof required in homicide cases. I agree with the court’s judgment, as it was rightly based on a thorough analysis of the evidence and adherence to legal principles, particularly the doctrine of causation.
Reference(S):
1(2000) 7 SC (pt. 1) 80
2(1960) 6 WACA 2020
3(1961) 1 ALL N.L.R 469
4(1970) 1 ALL N.L.R 68
5[1981] 2 ALL E.R 422, [1981] Crim. L.R. 401
6Criminal Code Act, Cap. C.38, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2010, Section 355
7Ibid
8(2009) JELR 55852 (SC)
9Criminal Code Act, Cap. C.38, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2010, Section 355
