News

“The Appellant’s Counsel, Mr. Okoro, seems, in his bloated ego that he possesses omniscience, to have a rude and unethical alibi for this novelty. In paragraph 4.08 of the Appellant’s Brief, Counsel contumaciously argued that the reasoning of the trial Court was ridiculously affirmed by the Court of Appeal. He further argued that the “the […]

“…There is a presumption that the decision of the trial Court on facts is right. That presumption must be displaced by the appellant seeking to upset the decision on facts. See WILLIAMS v. JOHNSON (1937) 2 WACA 253; Section 168(1) Evidence Act. Displacing this presumption of regularity is not by attacking and ridiculing the Judges […]

“…The law is settled that the apex Court, on concurrent findings of fact, will not lightly intervene and interfere or disturb such concurrent findings of fact: OMETA v. NUMA (1934) 11 NLR 18; SERBEH v. KARIKARI (1939) 5 WA34; CA ALLI v. ALHADI (1952) 13 WACA 320. It is only upon the appellant showing some […]

“Where a visual identification as here has not been destroyed by any credible evidence to the contrary, the Court will be entitled as here to accept and act on it. See Per Chukwuma- Eneh JSC, in Ilodigiwe v. State (2012) LPELR-9342 (SC).” Per ABBA-AJI, J.S.C. in ATTO MABA v. THE STATE (2020- LCER-39168-SC) at p. 37

“All the ingredients of the offence charged must be established or proved in order to obtain a conviction. Failure to prove any the ingredients of the offence charged, the accused is entitled to acquittal by the trial or appellate Court. In a charge of armed robbery, the prosecution is expected to prove beyond reasonable doubt, […]

“The counsel responsible for this appeal is hereby reminded of the combination of Rules 30 and 32 (2)(j) & (k) of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners, 2007 – the RPC frowns at this conduct. Rules 30 and 32 (2)(j) & (k) of the RPC are as follows- 30. A lawyer is an […]

“It is also well settled that in proving its case, the prosecution is not required to call a particular number of witnesses or a host of witnesses. All it needs to do is to call enough material witnesses to satisfy the burden of proof. Where the prosecution fails to call a particular witness and the […]

“Section 28 of the Evidence Act 2011, provides: “28. A confession is an admission made at any time by a person charged with a crime, stating or suggesting the inference that he committed that crime.” It is settled law that an accused person may be convicted solely on the basis of his confessional statement if […]

“While it is true that an identification parade is a very useful tool in ascertaining the true identity of anyone accused of committing a crime, it is not in every situation that an identification parade must be held. It depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. An identification parade is only necessary when […]

“The identification of the accused as a participant in the commission of the crime is a crucial factor in the successful prosecution of a case of armed robbery. Identification evidence is that which tends to show that the person charged is the same person seen at the locus criminis. See: Nwaturuocha v. The State (supra); […]

“The essential ingredients of the offence of armed robbery, which must be established beyond reasonable doubt are: 1. That there was a robbery or series of robberies; 2. That each robbery was an armed robbery; 3. That the accused was one of those who participated in the robbery or series of robberies. See: Bozin v. […]

“The burden placed on the prosecution in a criminal charge is a heavy one. It must establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. See Section 135 of the Evidence Act, 2011. It was held in Nwaturuocha v. State (2011) 6 NWLR (Pt.1242) 170 at 193 D-E, (2011) LPELR-SC 197/2010 that: “Proof beyond reasonable […]

“In the same vein, an appellate Court before which a new point is sought to be canvassed will refuse to grant leave to do so where the fresh point raised introduces a new line of defence completely different from the issues fought by the parties in the Court below. An appellant will also not be […]

“Besides, when the minors testified, the appellant being represented by counsel did not wail an objection before the trial Court that the procedure or the rights of the minors was breached. There is therefore acquiescence and waiver that cannot form an issue herein as same is belated and overtaken.” Per AJI, J.S.C.  in ISMAILA KIWO […]

“In the instant appeal, the evidence of rape of a girl under fourteen years of age is overwhelming against the appellant. The constituents of the offence as provided in Section 283 of the Penal Code are evident. More interestingly, the appellant was spontaneously identified as the culprit notwithstanding the powder he used to mask his […]

“… whether in view of the provision of Section 209(1) of the Evidence Act, the two lower Courts were right to have relied on the testimony of PW3 to convict him. The appellant has made heavy weather of the inappropriateness of the testimonies of PW3 and PW4 in the light of Section 209(1) of the […]

“Undoubtedly, this Court had reiterated in a plethora of authorities, that a Court of law is not obliged to restrict or confine itself only to authorities cited and relied upon by the parties. Indeed, the Court is cloaked with an unfettered discretionary power to enrich the quality of its decision, refer to and rely upon […]

“In the instant case, there is no doubt that the trial Court, nay any Court of law for that matter, is duly cloaked with the power to take judicial notice of all the laws, enactments, and any subsidiary legislations made there under in any part of Nigeria. See Section 122 of the Evidence Act 2011 […]

“In the locus classicus, COLE VS MATTINS (Supra), this Court echoed the guiding fundamental principle regarding raising issues or points suo motu by Courts: We have frequently stated in the past and we must reiterate again now, that it is most desirable that if a Court considers after hearing argument of counsel that a matter […]

“I think, it was in the notorious case of GARBA VS. UNIMAID, that this Court aptly reiterated the genesis of the fundamental doctrine of fair hearing: Even God gave Adam an oral hearing despite the evidence supplied by his nakedness before the case against his continued stay in the Garden of Eden was determined against […]