–
RUFUS MABOGUNJE AND OTHERS
V.
INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE
THE WEST AFRICAN COURT OF APPEAL, HOLDEN AT LAGOS, NIGERIA
30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1953
APPEAL NO. 184/1953
2PLR/1953/84 (WACA)
OTHER CITATION(S)
2PLR/1953/84 (WACA)
(1953) XIV WACA PP. 350 – 351
LEX (1953) – XIV WACA 350 – 351
–
BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS:
VERITY, C.J., NIGERIA
COUSSEY, J.A.
DE COMARMOND, S.P.J., NIGERIA
–
BETWEEN:
RUFUS MABOGUNJE AND OTHERS – Appellants
AND
INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE – Respondent
–
ORIGINATING COURT(S)
Appeal by convicted persons from decision of Supreme Court confirming Magistrate’s decision
–
REPRESENTATION
J. E. C. David, with J. I. C. Taylor — for Appellants
C. A. Burton — for Respondent
–
ISSUE(S) FROM THE CAUSE(S) OF ACTION
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE:- Criminal Code, section 207 – Ordeal likely to result in bodily injury – What constitutes – Nature of evidence considered sufficient
–
CASE SUMMARY
In this case the relevant words in section 207, which defines an unlawful ordeal, were “any ordeal which is likely to result in … bodily injury to any party to the proceeding “.
Some substance unknown was applied to the eyes of the victim of the ordeal which made his eyes water and caused him great pain and temporary blindness for fifteen minutes. The trial Magistrate held this to be bodily injury and inferred from that fact that the substance which caused it was likely to cause such injury. On appeal the Judge accepted that view; he also held that “bodily injury” meant some “discernible” injury and that an injury causing watering, pain and blindness must have been discernible, apparently in the sense of being visible to others. The Judge upheld the conviction and the defendants appealed further, arguing that it must be shown first, that the nature of the trial is such as to be likely in itself to result in bodily injury and, secondly, that such injury is some “discernible” bodily injury.
–
DECISION(S) OF THE WEST AFRICAN COURT OF APPEAL
Held (dismissing the Appeals):
(1) It was reasonable to infer from the fact that the victim’s eyes watered and ached and could not see for a while that the substance was such as was likely to cause bodily injury.
(2) The bodily injury suffered need not be such as is visible to others.
–
–
MAIN JUDGMENT
The following Judgment was delivered:
VERITY, C.J., NIGERIA.
In this case the appellants were convicted of being present at or taking part in an unlawful trial’ contrary to section 209 of the Criminal Code. They appealed to the Supreme Court and from the decision of that Court dismissing their appeals they have now appealed to this Court.
The grounds of appeal argued relate to the interpretation of certain words in section 207 in which an unlawful ordeal is-defined. The relevant words are “any ordeal which is likely to result in … bodily injury to any party to the proceeding”,
It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that it must be shown firstly that the nature of the trial is such as to be likely in itself to result in bodily injury and, secondly, that such injury is, in the words of the learned Judge in the Appeal Court, some “discernible bodily injury “.
In the present case the learned trial Magistrate found as a fact that some substance unknown was applied to the eyes of the victim of the ordeal which caused his eyes to water, great pain and temporary blindness lasting fifteen minutes. The person who applied the substance declared that it was no more than water but this the learned Magistrate disbelieved. The victim did not know what it was. The learned Magistrate drew the inference from the fact that the substance actually caused what he held to be bodily injury that it was likely to cause such injury. The learned Judge accepted the view and so do we. We do not think that it is necessary to prove the nature of the substance if it may reasonably be inferred from the evidence that it was such that its application is likely to cause bodily injury. In the present case we think that inference might reasonably be drawn from the facts.
As to the second submission the learned Judge held that by “bodily injury” is meant some discernible injury, by which we understand him to mean some visible injury, for he refers to the eyes becoming blood-shot or swollen. He upheld the conviction on the ground that if the substance applied caused watering, pain and blindness it was an inescapable inference that the injury causing these effects must have been discernible in some such manner.
We think that in this the learned Judge erred for we are not of the opinion that this inference is Inescapable. It may be a possible inference hut on the other hand it is equally possible that there might in such circumstances be no reddening or swelling of the eye or any part thereof even though there was watering, pain and temporary blindness. We consider, however, that it is not only unnecessary to add the word “discernible” in order to arrive at the meaning of the words “bodily injury” but that even if the use of that word is helpful in determining that meaning it need not be limited to that which can be discerned by the sense of vision. Pain is not a bodily injury. It is the means whereby the existence of that injury is discerned by the sufferer. A normal eye, if it be uninjured, does not give pain, nor water, nor lose the sense of sight even temporarily. If an eye otherwise normal upon the application of some substance develops these abnormal symptoms it is clear to us that it has been injured and that the person has suffered bodily injury. As we have already held that the application of such a substance as a means of ordeal was likely to result in such bodily injury it is clear that the ordeal in this case was an unlawful ordeal and that the appellants were rightly convicted.
The appeals are therefore dismissed.
Appeals dismissed.
–