PROCEDURAL STEPS ON ASSESSMENT AND VERIFICATION IN FILING COURT PROCESSES IN THE FCT
HIGH COURT OF THE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY, ABUJA. PROCEDURAL STEPS
FIND JUDGMENTS BY:
CASES/JUDGMENTS OF NIGERIAN COURTS ON EVIDENCE (2)
[This Index in full and Judgment(s)/listed and published here can be procured in electronic PDF copies for a fee in singles or compendium. Research support is also available. Email us through lawnigeria@gmail.com and info@lawnigeria.com or text 07067102097]
| TITLE | MAIN ISSUES |
| AKINKUNMI V. SADIQ | EVIDENCE:- Burden of proof – Burden of proof in civil cases – Evidential burden – When it may shift – When it Will not. EVIDENCE:- Burden of proof – Burden of proof in civil cases – On whom lies. EVIDENCE:- Estoppel – Estoppel by record – Types of. |
| AKINKUNMI AND OTHERS V. THE STATE | EVIDENCE:- Circumstantial EVIDENCE:- Nature of – Escaping from lawful arrest – Whether common purpose was murder or escaping from lawful arrest – Ingredients of common purpose under S.8 Criminal Code. |
| AKINOLA & ORS. V. OLUWO & ORS. | EVIDENCE:- Burden of Proof – Plaintiff’s Burden- When Plaintiff may rely on weakness of Defence. |
| AKINOLA OLATUNBOSUN V. THE STATE | EVIDENCE:- CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT:- Section 27(1) of the Evidence Act – Meaning of confession – Whether a confession becomes relevant when it establishes one or all the elements of the crime charged and identifies the Person who committed the offence |
| AKINTOLA AND ANOR. V. SOLANO | EVIDENCE:- Declaration of title to land – Where Plaintiff establishes by evidence facts which would justify the Court to grant his claim if the evidence are uncontradicted – Duty of the defendant to defeat the plaintiff’s claim by establishing on his part facts which are sufficient to discredit the plaintiff’s evidence – Where evidence adduced by the defendant is not strong enough to achieve that end – Whether the plaintiff is entitled to take benefits of weakness of defence’s case in strengthening his own |
| AKINTOLA V. LASUPO | EVIDENCE:- Onus of proving a better title to land – Where there is a claim and counter-claim – Whether court can put the onus of proving the separate claims on each of the parties asserting same – How treated |
| AKINTOLA V. ANYIAM | EVIDENCE: Section 148(d) of the Evidence Ordinance, Cap. 62 of the Laws of the Federation of Nigeria and Lagos, 1958 – Adverse presumption against a party raises a presumption adverse to the defendant’s omission to call the young man as a witness. |
| AKINWALE V. AMODU | EVIDENCE:- Fresh evidence on appeal – When appellate court will allow adduction of – Relevant considerations. |
| AKINWALE V. QUEEN | EVIDENCE:- Confession – Retracted confession – Conviction based on – Whether proper. EVIDENCE:- Corroboration – Confessional statement – When it will be sufficient to ground conviction. |
| AKINWE VICTOR ADESULE V. AKINFOLARIN MAYOWA S. & ORS | EVIDENCE- CROSS-EXAMINATION: The effect of failure to cross examine a witness on a particular matter |
| AKIO ABEY & ORS V. CHIEF ALHAJI IBRAHIM FUBARA ALEX & ORS | EVIDENCE:- BURDEN OF PROOF: On whom lies the burden of proof |
| AKOLU V QUEEN | EVIDENCE:- Burden of proof in criminal cases – Onus – On onus lies – How discharged. |
| AKPABIO V. THE STATE | EVIDENCE:- Admissibility – Wrongful rejection of admissible evidence by trial court – Effect on appeal – When fatal -When notfatal -Section 226 Evidence Act construed EVIDENCE:- Evaluation of evidence – Duty on trial court in respect thereof EVIDENCE:- Extra-judicial statement – Application for production of – Application to tender – Distinction between – Importance of the distinction |
| AKPAN V. STATE | EVIDENCE:- Contradiction in evidence-Discrepancy in evidence – Meanings and distinction between EVIDENCE:- Contradiction in evidence – Meaning of EVIDENCE:- Proof – Failure of prosecution to call vital witness – When to call vital witness – What defence must do. EVIDENCE:- Proof of crime – Witnesses named in proof of EVIDENCE:- Whether prosecution obliged to call all – Relevant consideration. |
| AKPAN V. UDO UTIN | EVIDENCE:- Estoppel-Estoppel per rem judicatam – “Parties” in relation thereto – Meaning Of EVIDENCE:- Evaluation of Evidence – Duty of trial court in respect thereof – Failure to assess or evaluate evidence on ground that it is weak – Effect. |
| AKPAN V. STATE | EVIDENCE:- Admissibility – Confessional statement – Denial or retraction of at trial by accused – Whether fact thereof renders it inadmissible – Relevant consideration. EVIDENCE:- Admissibility – Confessional statement – When and how challenged by accused person. EVIDENCE:- Confessional statement – When and how challenged by accused person – Whether admissibility thereof can be challenged on appeal. |
| AKPAN V. THE STATE | CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE: – EVIDENCE:- Statement admissible both as a dying declaration and as part of the res gestae – When given by a 12 year old – Whether requires corroboration – Whether evidence of dying declaration can be corroboration of the boy’s evidence – Effect |
| AKPASUBI V. UMWENI | EVIDENCE:- Evidence of a witness discredited and rejected by trial court – Where not challenged on appeal – Whether that is the end of that evidence for ever |
| AKPODIKE V. NWABUEZE | EVIDENCE:– Admitted fact – whether evidence should be led to establish same. EVIDENCE:– Traditional history – conflicting evidence of same – how resolved. |
| AKUMOJU V. AKANO MOSADOLORUN | EVIDENCE:- Proof – lpse dixit of counsel not borne out by the record of appeal – Effect. |
| AKUNYILI V. EJIDIKE | EVIDENCE:- Declaration of title to land – Evidence of acts of possession and ownership – Whether capable of granting claim for declaration of title – Relevant consideration. EVIDENCE:- Proof – Declaration of title to land- Onus of proof on plaintiff – How discharged – Relevant considerations. |
| ALABI V. STATE | EVIDENCE:- Identification Evidence – Identity of accused – Where case for prosecution substantially based on correct identification of accused – Accused alleging mistaken identity – Attitude of court thereto – Need for caution. EVIDENCE:- Identification Evidence – Identity of accused – Where in issue – How proved – Proper procedure for so doing EVIDENCE:- Identification parade – Meaning of. |
| ALADE V. ABORISHADE | EVIDENCE. – Evidence given in previous cases – Acceptability as evidence in later case – Use of in cross-examination as to credit – Application of Section 34(1), Evidence Ordinance EVIDENCE:- Plea of acquiescence – Onus on person asserting. EVIDENCE:- Previous judgment and the plea of res judicata. |
| ALADE V. AWO | EVIDENCE:- Traditional evidence no more than hearsay EVIDENCE:- Nature of evidence required to establish title to land. |
| ALADE V. PAYNE | EVIDENCE:- Evidence in previous case – Judge taking same into account – Whether proper. |
| ALADEGBEMI V. FASANMADE | EVIDENCE:- Admissibility – Certified true copy of judgments – Public documents – Oral evidence in proof of contents – Whether permissible admissions. |
| ALAHASSAN & ANOR V. MR. DARIUS DICKSON ISHAKU & ORS | EVIDENCE:- Admissibility – Certified true copy of judgments – Public documents – Oral evidence in proof of contents – Whether permissible admissions. |
| ALAKE V. STATE | EVIDENCE:- Circumstantial evidence in proof of crime – Requirement of to ground conviction. EVIDENCE:- Proof- Forgery of signature -Whether prosecution must call person whose signature is alleged to be forged as witness. EVIDENCE:- Proof – Inducing delivery of money – Need to establish act of misrepresentation. |
| ALAN FEMI LANA V. THE UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN | EVIDENCE:- Admissibility – Admitted inadmissible EVIDENCE:- Duty of court. |
| ALAO V. ISSA AKANO | EVIDENCE – DOCUMENT:- Draft White Paper of a State Government – recommendation letter of a Deputy Governor based on the draft white paper – whether inadmissible as evidence of the proof of the contents thereof even where there was no objection or even where the parties consent to its admission EVIDENCE:- DOCUMENT – Admissibility of documentary EVIDENCE:- Document declared inadmissible by law – Whether court can admit same by consent or without objection – Need for oral evidence to support documentary evidence. EVIDENCE:- Proof – Fact pleaded on which no evidence is led – How treated – Proof – Onus of proof in civil cases – Need to relate to issues raised in pleadings of parties- Standard of proof required – What determines. |
| ALAO V. AKANO | EVIDENCE:- Res Judicata – Plea of – Where cause of action had been subject of many suits in court – Parties same. |
| ALAWIYE V. OGUNSANYA | EVIDENCE – Burden of proving ingredients of defamation – on whom lies. |
| ALAYA V. AKINDURO | EVIDENCE:- Admissibility – Unregistered registrable instrument or document – Admissibility of – Use to which it can be put – Principles governing. |
| ALBERT AFEGBAI V. ATTORNEY-GENERAL EDO STATE | EVIDENCE:– Burden of proof – burden on party setting up false representation to prove same. |
| ALBERT IGBINE V. THE STATE | EVIDENCE:- Corroboration – Corroborative EVIDENCE:- What amounts to – Nature of – Whether can proceed from the defence. EVIDENCE:- Corroboration – Unsworn evidence of a child – Whether can corroborate Unsworn evidence of another child. |
| ALESE V. SAROMI | EVIDENCE:- Affidavit – Absence of counter-affidavit – Effect. |
| ALEWO ABOGEDO V. THE STATE | EVIDENCE:- Whether evidence of one witness is capable of grounding conviction |
| ALFA MURITALA AMOO V. WAHABI ADERIBIGBE | EVIDENCE:- Documentary EVIDENCE:- Title documents- Proof of due execution- Presumption raised- Application of Section 123, Evidence Act. |
| ALFOTRIN LIMITED V. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION | EVIDENCE:- Unchallenged EVIDENCE:- Treatment of. |
| ALFRED ELIJAH & ANOR V. THE STATE | EVIDENCE:- STARE DECISIS: Purport of the doctrine of stare decisis |
| ALFRED USIOBAIFO V. CHRISTOPHER USIOBAIFO | EVIDENCE – CONTRADICTIONS:- Contradictions in evidence of witnesses – Whether can only avail the opposite party where they are material, substantial and affect the live issues in the matter, to the extent that they affect the fortunes of the appeal in favour of the party raising the issue |
| ALH. BADAMASI KABIR & ANOR V. ACTION CONGRESS (AC) & ORS. | EVIDENCE:- BURDEN OF PROOF: On whom rests the burden of proof in a claim before the Court |
| ALH. WADA V. CHIEF ALKALI | EVIDENCE:- Burden of Proof. |
| ALHADJI A.W.ELIAS V. OLAYEMI DISU | EVIDENCE:- Burden of proof issue of consent Court unable to resolve conflict of evidence in terms of credibility of parties and witnesses onus of proving that they did not consent on the plaintiff’s – Does not shift to the defendants – Competence of Witnesses – Plaintiff in suit gives no evidence at trial called as witness for the defence – No objection No subpoena issue – Plaintiff, a competent witness for the defence. |
| ALHAJI ABDULKADIR DAN MAINAGGE V. ALHAJI ABDULKADIR SHAKU GWAMNA | EVIDENCE:- Evaluation of evidence by trial Court – When appellate court will interfere. EVIDENCE:- Uncontradicted EVIDENCE:- Treatment of. |
| ALHAJI ABDULLAHI ATANDA KOLAWOLE V. ALHAJI SALAMI ADISA OLORI | EVIDENCE:- BURDEN OF PROOF: On whom rests the burden of proof |
| ALHAJI ABDULLAHI BAIDO AND MADUNKA INTERNATIONAL LTD V. ALHAJI SIKIRU USMAN | EVIDENCE:– Admission – admission of appellant – Whether conclusive in the circumstances of this case. |
| ALHAJI ABUBAKAR MOHAMMED GWARZO V. ALHAJI AMEEN SULEIMAN MOHAMMED & ANOR | EVIDENCE:- Burden of Proof: On whom lies the burden of proof |
| ALHAJI ADO IBRAHIM & CO. LTD. & ANOR V. ELDESTEIN (NIG.) LIMITED | EVIDENCE:- Admissions – Types of – Formal and informal admissions – Effect and treatment of each. EVIDENCE:- Proof – Unchallenged and uncontradicted EVIDENCE:- How treated. |
| ALHAJI AHMADU KUBAU V. MALLAM SHEHU RILWANU | EVIDENCE – DOCUMENTS:- Admissibility of documentary EVIDENCE:- Whether certified copies of public documents are the only admissible form of secondary EVIDENCE:- Distinction between documents which are admissible under certain circumstances and documents which are in any case not admissible EVIDENCE:- SECONDARY EVIDENCE OF PUBLIC DOCUMENT:- Whether the only type of secondary evidence permissible is a certified true copy of the document and none other |
| ALHAJI AMINU JUBRILLAH ABDULLAHI & ORS V. MRS. CHRISTIANA IYABO ADETUTU | EVIDENCE:- VISIT TO A LOCUS IN QUO: – Purpose – When properly resorted to – where the inspection of a property which cannot be moved into court, either because it is land or property attached thereto, or because of the peculiar nature thereof is of material significance to the determination of the case before it – Need for the court to follow the procedures laid down in section 77 of the Evidence Act, which are substantially similar to sections 207 and 243 of the Criminal Procedure Act and the Criminal Procedure Code, respectively – Whether the purpose of a visit to the locus in quo is to clear doubts which might have arisen as a result of the conflicting evidence of both sides as to the existence or non existence of a state of facts relating to a physical object, and such a conflict can be resolved by visualizing the object, the res, the material thing, the scene of the incident of the property in issue – Whether where there exists conflicting evidence, it is permissible for the Learned Trial Judge to apply the courts’ visual senses in aid of its sense of hearing by visiting the locus in quo to resolve the conflict |
| ALHAJI ASIFAT AKANBI V. GBEMISOYE OYEWALE & ANOR | EVIDENCE – EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE: Function of a trial Judge in the evaluation and ascription of evidence |
| ALHAJI BANMIDELE LAWAL AND UNION BANK OF NIGERIA | EVIDENCE:- waiver or estoppel – when it operates. EVIDENCE:- Proof of averments in pleadings – How done – Whether a party must testify or call witnesses in order to discharge his duty in relation thereto |
| ALHAJI BUBA USMAN V. MOHAMMED TAMINU GARKE | EVIDENCE:- Evaluation of EVIDENCE:- Duty on trial court with respect thereto – Need to consider case of both parties before reaching its decision – Whether same rule extends to appellate court – Rule in Mogaji V. Odofin (1978) 3 SC91-Application of |
| ALHAJI CHIEF PA. SULE JUBRIL & ORS V. AG OF EDO STATE | EVIDENCE:- RE EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE:- Whether appellate court can properly embark upon the re-evaluation of the evidence adduced before the lower court |
| ALHAJI ETIKO V. M. AROYEWUN (Deceased) | EVIDENCE:- Sections 90(1) and 129, Evidence Ordinance – Distinction between. EVIDENCE:- Statement in a document twenty years old – Presumption of truth – Section 129, Evidence Ordinance. EVIDENCE:- Statement made by a person in a document – Admissibility of Section 90(1), Evidence Ordinance. |
| ALHAJI GANIYU OLAYIWOLA FAGBOHUN & ANOR V. MOMODU SABA IGANNA & ORS | EVIDENCE:- Estoppel – Where an issue has been decided by a court – Whether Estoppel prevents the court from entertaining the same cause of action between the same parties or their privies previously determined by a court of competent jurisdiction – “Nemo debet bis vexani procadem causa” – Whether it would amount to a grave error and procedural mistake for the learned trial Judge to re-open an issue already decided by a court of competent jurisdiction EVIDENCE:- Estoppel – Estoppel Per Rem Judicata – Ingredients and conditions for a successful plea – Distinction between Estoppel Res Judicata (based on cause of action) and Issue estoppel – Classification of estoppel under estoppel by judgment – Purpose – Operation of ‘Estoppel Res Judicata’ in preventing another suit founded on the same cause of action as the original suit – Operation of ‘Issue Estoppel’ in subsequent proceedings relating to different cause of action with – Whether only operates to prevent certain issues which were decided in the original action from arising for further consideration by the court |
| ALHAJI I.A ONIBUDO & ORS V. ALHAJI A.W AKIBU & ORS | EVIDENCE:- Judicial notice – Islamic Law – Whether the High Court of Lagos State is permitted to take judicial notice of the tenets of Islamic Law – Requirement for same to be pleaded and expert advice adduced in support |
| ALHAJI IBRAHIM SHEKA V. ALHAJI UMARU BASHARI | EVIDENCE:- BURDEN OF PROOF:- Civil proceedings – Burden of proof – On whom rests – Whether defendant has any burden where he makes no counter claim |
| ALHAJI ISAH T. SOKWO V. JOSEPH DAKU KPONGBO & ORS | EVIDENCE:- BURDEN OF PROOF: how a plaintiff who asserts is expected to proof his case and when it will shift |
| ALHAJI LAWAL DARMA V. ALHAJI MAIWADA BATAGARAWA | EVIDENCE – ADMISSION: The effect where issue is not joined with respect to an allegation of fact in pleadings |
| ALHAJI LAWANI ATOYEBI & ANOR V. THE GOVERNOR OF OYO STATE & ORS | EVIDENCE:- Evaluation of evidence: What constitutes evaluation of evidence |
| ALHAJI MODU KIDAGUMA V. MALLAM GANA ABOJA | EVIDENCE:- BURDEN OF PROOF: On whom lies the burden of proving identity to land |
| ALHAJI MOHAMMED MMAMMAN V. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA | EVIDENCE – CONFESSION – What is – When a confession is relevant and admissible – Whether court can convict on voluntary confession of an accused person |
| ALHAJI OTARU AND SONS LIMITED V. AUDU IDRIS AND OTHERS | EVIDENCE:- Proof – Burden of proof in civil cases- On whom lies – Failure to discharge – Effect. EVIDENCE:- Proof- Evidence led on fact not pleaded – How treated- Where acted upon by trial court – Duty on appellate court. |
| ALHAJI RABIU NUNKU V. JOHN AYA & ANOR | PLEADINGS AND EVIDENCE:- Binding nature of pleadings – Whether trial court can reject any evidence which is contrary to parties’ pleadings – forms of evaluation of evidence |
| ALHAJI RAZAK ADENIYI AYILARA V. FEDERAL MINISTRY OF WORKS | EVIDENCE:- BURDEN OF PROOF: Whether the burden of proof placed on person asserting an allegation does not shift until he has proved his assertion |
| ALHAJI SAIBU YEKINI OTUN V. SINDIKU ASHIMI OTUN | |
| ALHAJI SANNI SHAIBU V. J.O. BAKARE | EVIDENCE:- BURDEN OF PROOF: Where issue is joined on pleadings, on whom does the burden lies? |
| ALHAJI SARATU ADELEKE V. SANUSI IYANDA | EVIDENCE – Proof – nature of required in civil matters – when a case will be decided on minimum of proof. EVIDENCE – Uncontradicted – How treated. |
| ALHAJI SURAKATU I. AMIDA & ORS. V. TAIYE OSHOBOJA | EVIDENCE:- ESTOPPEL PER REM JUDICATAM: The basis of estoppel per rem judicatam EVIDENCE:- ESTOPPEL PER REM JUDICATAM: Whether the fact that a plaintiff lost his claim for title to land in dispute will help the plaintiff in a subsequent suit |
| ALHAJI T. A. OGBORIEFON V. ISMAILA O. OGBORIEFON & ANOR. | EVIDENCE:- ADMISSIBILITY OF DOCUMENTS: Condition precedent for the admissibility of any book or manuscript recognized by natives as legal authority |
| ALHAJI YAKEEN OWONIKOKO & ORS V. ALHAJI ALIMI AROWOSAIYE | EVIDENCE:- ESTOPPEL: Whether any party who relies on the defence of estoppel in the High Court must specifically plead it EVIDENCE:- ESTOPPEL PER REM JUDICATAM: Whether a judgment of court of competent jurisdiction can be relied upon in a subsequent litigation as estoppel per rem judicatam |
| ALI AND ANOTHER V. THE STATE | EVIDENCE:- Evidence of witnesses – Duty of trial court – Evaluation by appellate Court – Concurrent findings. |
| ALIBE V. YARO | EVIDENCE:- Evaluation of evidence -Duty of trial court in respect thereof. EVIDENCE:- Proof – Proceedings and judgments of court – How proved -Sections 96, 97 and 132(1) of Evidence Act. EVIDENCE:- Proof of case – Duty on plaintiff to succeed on strength of own case and not on weakness of defendant’s case. |
| ALIYU V. SODIPO | EVIDENCE:- Admissibility- Admissibility of survey plan tendered – What governs. EVIDENCE:- Admissibility – Registrable instrument – Defective plan attached thereto – Whether instrument ipso facto inadmissible |
| ALL PROGRESSIVES CONGRESS V. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY & ORS | EVIDENCE:- ISSUE ESTOPPEL: matters which will found an issue estoppel may be of law, fact, or mixed law and fact – limits of the doctrine – Effect thereof EVIDENCE:- STANDARD OF PROOF IN AN ELECTION PETITION: Where crime is alleged – Standard of proof – onus of proof EVIDENCE:- PROOF OF FORGERY OF DOCUMENT: Need to produce two documents where forgery is alleged |
| ALLI V. IKUSEBIALA | EVIDENCE:- Admissibility – Oral evidence of terms of written contract – Conveyance by family head executed in his own name and describing him as vendor, as seised in fee simple and as conveying as beneficial owner – Parties in fact contracting for sale of family land by family head – Oral evidence of family ownership and of vendors real contracting capacity rightly admitted |
| ALLIED BANK OF (NIG) LTD V. AKUBUEZE(CA) | EVIDENCE:- Admissibility – Documentary EVIDENCE:- Admissibility in EVIDENCE:- Whether document needs to be pleaded. EVIDENCE:- Document – Where signed by a party – Bindingness of contents thereof on party who signed. EVIDENCE:- Documentary EVIDENCE:- Admissibility of – Guides thereto. |
| AMADASUN V. COP | EVIDENCE:- Inadmissible evidence – How determined – No case submission – Where such a submission is upheld – Whether it is appropriate to give reasons for it, if only to enable the prosecution to consider exercising any right of appeal it may have – where submission is rejected – whether preferable that no reasons should be given |
| AMADI V. THOMAS APLIN | EVIDENCE:- Documents – Interpretation of |
| AMADI V. NWOSU | EVIDENCE – CROSS-EXAMINATION:- Where a party or his witness testify on a material fact and the other party fail to cross-examine thereto – Effect of – Whether the other party may be treated as not disputing the facts EVIDENCE:- Cross-examination – Purposes of – Evidence led on a matter now pleaded – Treatment Of |
| AMADI V. ORISAKWE AND ORS. | EVIDENCE:- Execution of document – Issue relating thereto – Where maker denies signature – Duty to allege fraud in pleading and tender of evidence of genuine signature for comparison – How resolved. EVIDENCE:- Proof of Civil matters – Standard of proof |
| AMAKO V. STATE | EVIDENCE:- Presumptions – Presumption of sanity – Accused alleging that he is insane – Onus on him. |
| AMALA V. STATE | EVIDENCE:- Admissibility of Extra judicial statement of accused person – When admissible against him – Circumstantial evidence – Applicable principles EVIDENCE:- Contradictions – Contradiction in evidence of witness – How treated – Whether trial court can rationalise to arrive at preconceived conclusion. EVIDENCE:- Presumptions – Presumption of validity of judicial or official act – Section 150(1), Evidence Act – Effect |
| AMASA V. KOSOSI | EVIDENCE:- Evaluation of evidence – Duty of trial Judge – Mogaji V. Odofin (1978) 4 SC. p.91 at 935 applied and followed. |
| AMASA V. BIG TOM | EVIDENCE:- What is the effect of evidence led on matters not pleaded? |
| AMEH RICHARD V. THE STATE | EVIDENCE:- standard of proof in criminal cases – Who has the burden of proof – Whether the burden ever shifts |
| AMEH V. THE STATE | EVIDENCE:- Onus of proof in criminal cases – Proof beyond reasonable doubt. |
| AMOBI V. AMOBI AND ORS | EVIDENCE:- Admissibility -Nature of document that may be produced by witness and tendered without his being sworn. EVIDENCE:- Documentary EVIDENCE:- Minutes of family meeting recorded by witness – Whether witness can merely tender without being sworn – Section 91(1) of the Evidence Act. EVIDENCE:- Witness – Examination of witness – Whether party calling witness can cross-examine him |
| AMOO AND OTHERS V. THE QUEEN | EVIDENCE:- Reading Portion of deposition to refresh witness’ memory – Section 215(1) Evidence Ordinance-Application of |
| AMOS O. ARO V. SALAMI FABOLUDE | EVIDENCE:- Estoppel: Distinction between “issue estoppel”, “cause of action estoppel”, “fact estoppel” |
| AMU V. OHENREN | EVIDENCE:- Res judicata – Proceedings relied on by party of quasi-criminal nature – Whether can sustain plea of res judicata. |
| AMUSA ADESINA V. BURAIMOH AFOLABI | EVIDENCE:– Visit to locus in quo – adoption of a wrong procedure by a trial court in conducting visit – whether will necessarily lead to a successful appeal against trial court’s judgment – relevant considerations. |
| AMUSA V. STATE | EVIDENCE -Proof- Calling of witnesses by prosecution – Whether prosecution has a duty to call all witnesses. EVIDENCE:- Calling witnesses – Vital witness – Duty of Prosecution. |
| AMUSA V. THE STATE – CA | EVIDENCE – Judicial notice – legislations in respect of Federal highways – whether can be judicially noticed – sections 73 AND 74 (1) (a) (b) of the Evidence Act, 1990 considered. EVIDENCE – “Proof beyond reasonable doubt” as used in section 138 (1) of Evidence Act – meaning of. EVIDENCE – Inconsistent statements – where statements of a witness given before the trial and at the trial are inconsistent – how treated. |
| AMUSA V. THE STATE (2) | EVIDENCE:- Circumstantial evidence – Whether may ground conviction where it is unequivocal, positive and point irresistibly to the guilt of the accused – Where direct evidence is not available – Nature of circumstantial evidence which is admissible to prove the charge against an accused person EVIDENCE:– “Proof beyond reasonable doubt” – Section 138 (1) of Evidence Act – Meaning of and implication |
| ANABARONYE V. NWAKAIHE | EVIDENCE:- Proof of title – Traditional history – How proved. EVIDENCE:- Proof of title -Traditional evidence -Whether can ground grant of declaration of title to land. |
| ANAEZE V. ANYASO | EVIDENCE:- Admissibility – Document signed by illiterate -Condition precedent to admissibility of. EVIDENCE:- Documentary evidence :- Document creating legal right between illiterate person and third party – Document not complying with Illiterates Protection Law – When evidence may be led on incidents surrounding preparation and signing of. EVIDENCE:- Evaluation of evidence – Failure of trial court to properly evaluate evidence- Course open to appellate court. |
| ANANABA OHUKA AND ORS V. THE STATE | EVIDENCE:- Admissibility- Evidence of co-accused – Extra-judicial statement of co-accused – Whether evidence against other accused persons – Evidence of accomplice – When Court need to warn self EVIDENCE:- Sufficiency of evidence – Mere opportunity to commit a crime – Witnesses – Contradictory evidence of witnesses – whether safe to rely on – Standard of proof – Proof beyond reasonable doubt – Mere suspicion – Whether proof beyond reasonable doubt. |
| ANATOGU V. IWEKA II | EVIDENCE -Admissibility – Fresh EVIDENCE:- Reception of in an action for review of judgment on ground of discovery of fresh evidence – Conditions precedent thereto – Duty on parry seeking review to fulfil – Failure so to do – Effect. EVIDENCE:- Documentary evidence – Public document- Public document stating fact in issue or relevant fact – Relevance of – Section 39 Evidence Act. |
| ANGLO CANADIAN CO LTD V. ALOKOLARO AND CO | EVIDENCE:- Ownership of Vehicle – Appearance of defendant’s firm’s name on it – if evidence of firm’s ownership. |
| ANI V. QUEEN | EVIDENCE:- Admissibility – Evidence of spouse of accused person – When admissible – Conditions precedent – S.160 of the Evidence Act |
| ANIFOWOSHE V. SIYANBOLA | EVIDENCE:- Uncontroverted evidence of witness – Effect. |
| ANIMASHAUN V. UNIVERSITY COLLEGE HOSPITAL | EVIDENCE:- Proof – Onus of proof in civil cases – On whom lies – Failure to discharge – Effect EVIDENCE:- Interpretation of documents – Effect of averment in pleadings |
| ANOZIE V. ALUKA | EVIDENCE:- Burden of proof in civil cases – burden on person who asserts to prove his case – standard of proof required in civil cases. |
| ANYABUNSI V. UGWUNZE | EVIDENCE:- Admissibility – Unregistered registrable instrument – When admissible – Relevant considerations. EVIDENCE:- Admission – Admission by a party’s kith and kin an ownership of family land – Effect on claim for title thereto – Section 20(1) Evidence Act. EVIDENCE:– Arbitration – Submission to arbitration – Effect of – Whether capable of grounding plea of estoppel. |
| ANYAEBOSI V. R. T. BRISCOE (NIGERIA) LTD. | EVIDENCE:- Admission of documents rendered absolutely inadmissible by statute – Rejection on appeal – Entries in book of account alone not sufficient to charge a person with liability – S.90(3) Evidence Act, meaning of person interested.” |
| ANYAELE CHUKWUEKE & ANOR. V. OKORIE OKORONKWO & ORS | EVIDENCE – BURDEN OF PROOF: Duty on Plaintiff in establishing his claim to succeed on the strength of his own case |
| ANYAH V. AFRICAN NEWSPAPERS OF NIGERIA LTD. | EVIDENCE:- Burden of proof in civil cases – On whom lies EVIDENCE:- Onus of proof – Libel cases -Defence of justification raised – Whether defendant must first prove EVIDENCE:- Standard of proof – Allegation of crime in civil cases – Standard of proof required therefor. |
| ANYANWU V. QUEEN | EVIDENCE:- Bad character of accused – When evidence allowed to be given thereof – Principles applicable. EVIDENCE:- Evidence Act, 5.159 d(iii) – Whether accused person called as a witness can be cross-examined as to his bad character as of right. |
| ANYANWU V. THE STATE | EVIDENCE:- Civil Cases and Pleadings – Burden of Proof – Whether the legal burden is fixed by the pleadings and is settled as a matter of law, and remains unchanged throughout the trial exactly where the pleadings place it – Whether the ultimate burden of establishing a case is as disclosed in the pleadings – Whether the burden is on the person who would fail, if upon the pleadings filed, no evidence is led thereon on either side – Whether the general burden of proof is upon the party, whether plaintiff or defendant who asserts the affirmative of the issue EVIDENCE:- Calling of evidence – Section 149(d) of the Evidence Act – Presumption – Whether operates against a party to the proceeding who withholds evidence on an issue – Whether focuses not on the failure to call a particular piece of evidence on the issue but the failure to call evidence on that issue – Where a party has called evidence on an issue – Whether failure to call a particular piece of evidence will not raise the presumption where the party has called other evidence – Need for trial court to be satisfied that the evidence exists and that it could be produced by the application of due human diligence and knowledge, that it was not produced in Court and that it was withheld by the party who could have produced it – When presumption would not arise |
| ANYAWU V. MBARA | EVIDENCE:- Wrongful exclusion of evidence from judgment – Effect of – Visit to locus in quo – When or when not undertaken in a title to land case -At whose instance undertaken – Presumption under S.45 of the Evidence Act. |
| APOSTLE PETER EKWEOZOR & ORS V. THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF SAVIOURS APOSTOLIC CHURCH OF NIGERIA | EVIDENCE:- Where a witness gives contradictory evidence on the same issue- Whether the court is not in a position to choose one and reject the order – Duty of court -Whether to reject the two pieces of evidence and regard such a witness as not capable of being believed EVIDENCE:- Section 167 [d] of the Evidence Act, 2011 – Evidence which could be and is not produced – Presumption that it would if produced be unfavourable to the person who withholds it – Effect of |
JUDGMENTS BY AREAS OF PRACTICE
JUDGMENTS BY PRACTICE/PROCEDURE ISSUES
HIGH COURT OF THE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY, ABUJA. PROCEDURAL STEPS
FIND LAW FIRMS BY CATEGORIES By Areas of Practice By
FIND LAW FIRMS BY CATEGORIES By Areas of Practice By