The appellant was tried, convicted and sentenced for the offence of murder. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, he appealed to this court.
Only one ground of appeal was filed on his behalf; it was that the trial judge did not adequately consider the case of the appellant.
In arguing that ground, counsel for the appellant contended that the judge failed to direct the jury adequately on the issue of self-defence and provocation.
The facts which gave rise to the charge were as follows: The deceased was the nephew of the appellant. Some time in or around December in 1985, he went to a drinking bar. Appellant bought some pito for himself. While drinking, his girlfriend approached him. He bought her too some of the pito. At the end of the drinking session, he took the girl to the house of the deceased where he decided to spend the night with her. Apparently the drink he had got the better of him and he over-slept, leaving the girl lying by his side. When he woke up he could no…