CASES/JUDGMENTS OF NIGERIAN COURTS ON EVIDENCE (10)
POLICY, PRACTICE & PUBLISHING LAW REPORTS, 3PLR
FIND JUDGMENTS BY:
CASES/JUDGMENTS OF NIGERIAN COURTS ON EVIDENCE (10)
[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 |
| OYALEKE V. ALAMU | EVIDENCE:- Proof of electoral offences – Standard of proof required – Section 138(1) Evidence Act. |
| OYEBANJI V. LAWANSON | EVIDENCE:– Standard of proof – Where contending parties claim to derive their title from a common source. |
| OYEDIRAN V. OYEWUNMI | EVIDENCE:– Section 135 of the Evidence Act 1990 – standard of proof in civil cases. EVIDENCE:– Oral evidence and documentary evidence – determination of truth thereof. EVIDENCE:– Unchallenged and uncontroverted evidence – position of law with regards to same. |
| OYEROGBA V. OLAOPA | EVIDENCE:- Estoppel – Estoppel by conduct- Meaning and nature of. EVIDENCE:- Estoppel – Issue estoppel -Application of- Conditions necessary for – Whether heading and description of actions paramount. EVIDENCE:- Estoppel – Meaning, nature and types of. |
| OYEYEMI V. COMMISSIONER FOR LOCAL GOVT. | EVIDENCE:- Estoppel – Estoppel by conduct – How inferred |
| OYINLOYE V. ESINKIN | EVIDENCE:- Balance of probabilities in a case – Determination of- Guide thereto. EVIDENCE:- Onus of proof – Onus of proof on plaintiff – How discharged. |
| OYOVBIARE V. OMAMURHOMU | EVIDENCE:- Burden of proof- Burden of proof in civil cases- On whom lies – How discharged. EVIDENCE:- Proof- Burden of proving that original owner of property has been divested of ownership – On whom rests. |
| OZOGULA II V. EKPENGA | EVIDENCE:- Native law and custom – Degree of proof. |
| P.W.RESOURCES LTD & ANOR V. JAMES KPORAH & ANOR | EVIDENCE:- AFFIDAVIT EVIDENCE:- competency of |
| PASTOR O. M. ASONYE V. THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF CHRIST APOSTOLIC CHURCH NIGERIA | EVIDENCE:- AFFIDAVIT EVIDENCE:- competency of |
| PASTOR SAMUEL KARIMU & ANOR. V. LAGOS STATE GOVERNMENT & ANOR. | EVIDENCE:- ADMISSION: Whether admission must relate to the life issues in the matter |
| PIUS NWEKE V. THE STATE | EVIDENCE:- Circumstantial Evidence: What circumstantial evidence conotes EVIDENCE:- Circumstantial Evidence: Conviction on circumstantial evidence |
| POPOOLA BAMGBEGBIN & ORS V. JIMOH ATANDA ORIARE & ORS. | EVIDENCE:- Issue estoppel: What amounts to same; when can be invoked |
| PRINCE BURUJI KASHAMU V. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA | EVIDENCE:- ADMISSIBILITY OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE: Whether a Newspaper report is admissible as evidence of the fact recorded in it |
| PRINCE NGENE V. CHIKE IGBO & ANOR | EVIDENCE – Claim for declaration of title to land – Onus of proof of title – Need for plaintiff to prove his case and not rely on the weakness of the defence – Principle in Kodilinye V. Mbanefo Odu (1935) WACA 336 applied. EVIDENCE:– Claim of a declaration of title to land – Where a plaintiff relies on derivative title – How the burden of proof is discharged thereof. |
| PRINCE YAYA ADIGUN & ORS V. THE GOVERNOR OF OSUN STATE & ORS | EVIDENCE:- ESTOPPEL: Whether a party estopped from relitigating a former suit where a judicial tribunal of competent jurisdiction has pronounced its decision. ESTOPPEL: The duty of trial court to examine the judgment relied upon When a plea of estoppel per rem judicatam is raised EVIDENCE:- ESTOPPEL: Conditions for the application of the doctrine of estoppel |
| PRINCESS BILEWU OYEWUNMI V. AMOS OWOADE OGUNESAN | EVIDENCE:- Proof of customary law and its applicability in any matter – Applicability of section 14 of the Evidence Act, Cap.62 Laws of the Federation 1958 or the similar provision in the Evidence Law of any State in the Federation of Nigeria – Burden of proving existence and applicability of that customary law – On whom lies EVIDENCE:- Proof of customary law and its applicability in any matter under section 14 of the Evidence Act, Cap.62 Laws of the Federation 1958 – When judicial notice of a custom is proper under section 14 of the Evidence Act, Cap.62 Laws of the Federation 1958 – When custom needs to be proved – Whether proof of a custom shall not render it enforceable as law if it is contrary to public policy and is not in accordance with natural justice equity and good conscience |
| PRINCEWILL EYO ASUQUO & ORS. V. MRS. GRACE GODFREY EYO & ANOR | EVIDENCE – ADMISSIBILITY:- whether a piece of evidence that is relevant is admissible in evidence irrespective of how it was obtained – How relevance is determined – Difference between admissibility of document and the weight to attach to the exhibit after it has been admitted – Legitimate use of the document admitted in evidence in Court – Conditions which qualify any document for tendering and admission as exhibit – Admissibility of unregistered registrable instrument |
| PROF. FOLA LASISIS & ANOR V. MRS. ROSE NMA NWANNA | EVIDENCE:- BURDEN OF PROOF: Claim for title to land – Whether he who asserts has the burden of proof – Whether defendant has no responsibility establishing his title which is being challenged by the claimant – Where there is a counter-claim – Duty of each party to bear the burden of establishing their respective claim EVIDENCE:- BURDEN OF PROOF: Burden of proof – Whether static – sections 131 (1) and (2); 132; and 133 (1) (2) and (3) of the Evidence Act 2011- Section 136 (1) and 138, Evidence Act – Whether the burden of proof civil proceedings shifts successively, until all the issues in the pleadings have been dealt with – Three levels of the burden of proof – Legal burden, evidential burden and the pleadings burden – Section 133 (1) & (2) Evidence Act 2011 – Where a party calls evidence, which reasonably satisfies the court that the fact sought to be proved is established – Whether burden will shift on his adversary against who judgment would be given if no more evidence were adduced |
| PROFESSOR AYO OBEMBE V. DR. BISSALLAH EKELE | EVIDENCE – Admissibility of evidence – factors to be applied. |
| PURIFICATION TECHNIQUES (NIG.) LTD. V. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF LAGOS STATE | EVIDENCE:- what best evidence rule is |
| RABBO DAMINA V. THE STATE | EVIDENCE:- Evidence before the court – Duty on court to limit itself thereto – Where court deviates from – Effect on right to fair hearing. EVIDENCE- Proof of murder – Failure to identify deceased’s body on which postmortem performed – Effect on prosecution’s case – Whether fatal. |
| RABI ISMA’IL V. THE STATE | EVIDENCE – ADMISSIBILITY OF RETRACTED CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – TRIAL WITHIN A TRIAL: Extra-judicial statement – When maker of confessional statement claims in court that she did not make the statement and that she was tortured and forced to sign the statements – Whether same can be rightly admitted by the trial court for the court at the end of the trial, to determine if she made it and if it so holds, to assess the probative value of the evidence therein – When a trial court has a duty to hold a trial within a trial – Need for trial within trial to focus on the voluntariness of the statement and not the truthfulness of the contents therein – Whether it is only when an accused person admits making an extra-judicial statement but goes further to allege that he or she made the statement under duress or any form of inducement or promise – Duty of court to hold confessional statement as inadmissible in evidence after it is established to have been made under duress or any form of inducement or promise EVIDENCE:- DOCTRINE OF LAST SEEN: Meaning – As the rebuttable presumption that the person last seen with the deceased before his death was responsible for his death – Burden on accused person and how discharged |
| RABIATU ADEBAYO V. RASHEED SHOGO | EVIDENCE:- Evaluation of EVIDENCE:- Duty on trial court thereto – relevant guideline – when an appellate court will be justified to re-evaluate evidence EVIDENCE:- Proof of a case – Weight or substantiality of evidence – How determined |
| RAJCO INTERNATIONAL LIMITED V. LE CAVALIER MOTELS AND RESTAURANTS LIMITED & ORS | EVIDENCE:- BURDEN OF PROOF/ONUS OF PROOF: On whom lies the burden of proof in civil cases – Standard of proof – Where evidence of plaintiff is unchallenged and uncontroverted – Duty to meet minimum standard required to prove case EVIDENCE:- UNCHALLENGED/UNCONTROVERTED EVIDENCE: Rule that unchallenged evidence needs no further proof – Effect – Whether it is in every case where evidence is uncontradicted that judgment must be given to the plaintiff – Where unchallenged evidence called in support of a plaintiffs case is insufficient to sustain the plaintiffs claims – Duty of court thereto |
| RASHEED LASISI V. THE STATE | EVIDENCE:- Whether Courts can convict an accused person solely on his confessional statement – When confessional statement is admissible – Whether must be corroborated – Test to be adopted in determining whether the confessional statement is true – Purpose of a trial within trial- weight to be attached to confessional statements whether retracted or not |
| RESSEL L. Y. DAKOLO & ORS. V. GREGORY REWANE-DAKOLO & ORS. | EVIDENCE:- RES JUDICATA: Purpose – protection from repetitive and vexatious suits – Successful plea of res judicata – legal effects – Whether it ousts the jurisdiction of the court in the proceedings in which it is raised – Whether the decision operates as a bar to a subsequent litigation – Whether as evidence it is conclusive between the parties to it – What a party must establish in order to raise the plea of res judicata EVIDENCE:- ESTOPPEL PER REM JUDICATA: The fundamental effect of estoppel rem judicatam or estoppel by record – Where an issue of fact has been judicially determined in a final manner between the parties or their privies by a court or tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter and the same issue comes directly in question in subsequent proceedings between the parties or their privies – Effect of the principle of res judicata – Relevant considerations |
| RICHARD IGAGO V. THE STATE | EVIDENCE:- VOLUNTARY STATEMENT: Whether the court must satisfy itself that a statement was made voluntarily before relying on it EVIDENCE:- CONFESSION: When is a voluntary statement by an accused said to be relevant or admissible |
| RIGHT CHOICE ELECTRONICS LTD. V. KELVIN FESTUS INTL. LTD | EVIDENCE:- presumption of regularity of judicial or official acts |
| ROBERT ENAJITE UGHUTEVBE V. DR. OWODIRAN SHONOWO | EVIDENCE:- Estoppel – Plea of estoppel – Underlying basis of – How it operates. |
| S. U. OJEMEN & ORS V. HIS HIGHNESS WILLIAM O. MOMODU & ORS | EVIDENCE:- Res Judicata: The purport of the doctrine of res judicata. |
| SABALEMOTU AYINKE V. MUNIRU LAWAL AND OTHERS | EVIDENCE:- Proof- Mesne profits- Onus of establishing entitlement thereto -On whom lies – How discharged. EVIDENCE:- Unchallenged and uncontradicted EVIDENCE:- How treated. |
| SA’IDU ABDULLAHI RINI & ANOR V. BELLO MOH’D MATAWALEN MARADUN & ORS | EVIDENCE:- BURDEN OF PROOF IN AN ELECTION PETITION: Who has the burden to prove through credible evidence in an election petition? |
| SAIDU H. AHMED & ORS V. CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA | EVIDENCE:- AFFIDAVIT EVIDENCE:- Supporting affidavit of appellant – Where not countered by the respondent’s counter-affidavit – How treated – Whether court is still duty bound to evaluate the contents of the only deposition available as to ascertain the veracity or authenticity of the facts alleged therein and to ascertain whether the depositions are in compliance with Sections 115(1) – (3) of the Evidence Act 2011 – Where the depositions do not meet with the conditions stipulated in Section 115 of the Evidence Act – Whether the paragraphs containing those offending averments go to no issue since they would be incurably defective and unusable |
| SALZGITTER STAHL GMBH V. TUNJI DOSUMU INDUSTRIES LTD | DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE:- whether can be evaluated by an appellate court |
| SAMSON OWIE V. SOLOMON E. IGHIWI | EVIDENCE:- DOCUMENT-Documentary evidence – Admissibility of- Document made by a party interested in anticipation of suit – Whether admissible – Section 91(3), Evidence Act. |
| SAPARA V. SAPARA | EVIDENCE:- Witnesses — Demeanour-Judge of first instance in best position to decide on parties’ demeanour-Demeanour of witnesses to be tested by the document and probabilities in the case. |
| SATURDAY NDIKE V. THE STATE | EVIDENCE:- Proof of crime -Contradictions in prosecution’s case-When they will entitle accused to an acquittal – When they will not EVIDENCE:- Proof of murder – Time of death – Whether material – What prosecution entitled to show. |
| SEGUN AKINLOLU V. THE STATE | EVIDENCE:- Standard of proof in criminal cases – How trial court decides whether the prosecution has discharged the burden as required by the law – Effect of failure to prove any of the essential elements of the offence charged beyond reasonable doubt by the evidence of the prosecution- when a statement or document becomes evidence EVIDENCE:- Statement containing a confession which in some parts exculpates the accused person – Whether confessional statement can ground conviction |
| SEMIU AFOLABI V. THE STATE | EVIDENCE:- Confessions – Section 27(1) of the Evidence Act -Nature of – Admissibility – Conditions to be satisfied before a confessional statement may be admitted by a trial Court – Whether a conviction can be secured based on the confession of accused person to the commission of an offence – When an identification parade needs to be conducted -Duty of court when accused’s identification is in contention |
| SEN. JULIUS ALIUCHA & ANOR V. CHIEF M. N. ELECHI & ORS | EVIDENCE:- Standard of proof where the petition is brought on grounds of a criminal nature – Standard of proof required when a petitioner brings a petition on the ground that there was non-compliance with provisions of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) – Whether a brilliant address is a substitute for evidence-duty of party who decides to rely on documents to prove his case |
| SHELL PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT COMPANY NIGERIA LIMITED V. CHIEF TIGBARA EDAMKUE & ORS | EVIDENCE:- ESTOPPEL/WAIVER: When a counsel or party, treats a document, or procedure or matter, as admissible, or regular etc – Whether he cannot be heard or be at liberty, to object or complain later or before an Appellate Court – Whether such acquiescence amounts to an undertaking that they had permanently, waived their right, if any, to object or complain EVIDENCE:- STANDARD OF PROOF: Civil cases – Need to prove same by preponderance or weight of evidence |
| SHEMAR NIG. LTD V. MOKT INDUSTRIES LTD. | EVIDENCE:- AFFIDAVIT OF A DEFENDANT: Burden placed on the defendant via his affidavit filed in court |
| SHONA-JASON NIGERIA LIMITED V. OMEGA AIR LIMITED | EVIDENCE:- ESTOPPEL: The effect of estoppel |
| SIR EMEKA OFFOR V. LEADERS & COMPANY LIMITED & ANOR. | EVIDENCE:- ESTOPPEL PER REM JUDICATAM: Purport of the doctrine of estoppel ‘per rem judicatam |
| SOLOMON OJO OLUWOLE V. MODUPE MARGARET | EVIDENCE:- ESTOPPEL PER REM JUDICATAM: Meaning – Whether when a plea of estoppel per rem judicatam is pleaded, it has the effect of ousting the jurisdiction of the Court – Whether the plea entails that the matter had been litigated upon and finally determined as between the parties or their privies by a court of competent jurisdiction – Whether its successful plea means that the jurisdiction of the Court is effectively ousted from re-litigating the matter |
| STEPHEN EMOGA vs.THE STATE | EVIDENCE: Onus of proof: Ingredients of |
| STEPHEN JOHN & ANOR. V. THE STATE | EVIDENCE:- RETRACTION OF A VOLUNTARY STATEMENT OF A SUSPECT: Where there is evidence of the administration of words of caution on a suspect in the language he understands, and he voluntarily makes his statement which is so recorded, and he signed the statement – Whether a trial judge is at liberty to act on it, and predicate a conviction on it, even if the statement has been retracted EVIDENCE:- INCONSISTENCY OR CONTRADICTION IN EVIDENCE: Inconsistency or contradiction in evidence – When it can negatively affect veracity of the evidence – Need for such inconsistency and contradiction to be materially significant to the extent that it impacts negatively to the overall case of the prosecutio |
| SUNDAY MODUPE V. THE STATE | EVIDENCE:- Uncontradicted EVIDENCE:- belief or disbelief is immaterial when there is only one version of evidence relating to a material fact. |
| SUNDAY NWANKWO AGU V. NICON INSURANCE PLC | EVIDENCE:– Affidavit evidence – unchallenged by counter – Affidavit or ground of law – |
| SUNDAY OGUNSINA V. SUNMONU MATANMI | EVIDENCE:– Admissibility of evidence – inadmissible document wrongly admitted – Power of appellate court to expunge same. |
| SUNDAY UKWU EZE V. GILBERT ATASIE | EVIDENCE:– Evidence at variance with issues for determination – consequence thereof. EVIDENCE:– Reliance on traditional history in proof of title to land – how established. |
| SYLVESTER IFEANYI IBEKENDU V. SYLVESTER IKE | EVIDENCE:- Proof-Main and alternative claims in pleading – Where main claim fails -Whether or not plaintiff can rely on alternative claim – Court’s duty to consider the alternative claim . EVIDENCE:- Proof – “res ipsa loquitor” and particulars of negligence in motor accident pleaded – Onus of proving negligence on plaintiff – When onus shifts to defendant. |
| TAIYE OSHOBOJA V. ALHAJI SURAKATU AMIDA & ORS | EVIDENCE – RES JUDICATA:- Conditions necessary to ground a defence of res judicata |
| TAJUDEEN AMUSAN & ORS V. ALHAJI SADIKU SHOLATE OREBAJO & ORS | EVIENCE:- whether relevant evidence not cross-examined upon or unshaken under cross-examination should be accorded some weight |
| TAOFEEK ADELEKE V. THE STATE | EVIDENCE:- Standard of proof in criminal prosecutions – Circumstantial evidence – how regarded by court in criminal proceedings – Discharging the burden of proof in criminal cases – Duty of prosecution thereto – Implication for the constitution presumption of innocence – When is prosecution is deemed to have rendered the presumption on the part of the accused useless |
| TECNO MECHANICAL (NIGERIA) LIMITED V. ADISA OGUNBAYO | EVIDENCE:- PRESUMPTION: What the Court may presume EVIDENCE:- STANDARD OF PROOF: Whether civil cases are decided on balance of probabilities |
| TELEGLOBE AMERICA, INC. V. 21ST CENTURY TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED | EVIDENCE:- ESTOPPEL: Whether the issue of relitigation falls within the ambit of estoppel and the purport of estoppel thereof |
| THE HON. JUSTICE E. O. ARAKA V. THE HON. JUSTICE DON EGBUE | EVIDENCE:- PUBLIC DOCUMENT: What is the objective behind section 97(2)(c) of the Evidence Act |
| THE LAW DEBENTURE TRUST CORPORATION LIMITED V. LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY AND OTHERS | EVIDENCE:- Complex multi-party action – Application for disclosure of documentary EVIDENCE:- Jurisdictional foundation for an order for access to skeleton arguments – Whether the inherent jurisdiction of the court EVIDENCE:- Allegation of fraud in civil proceedings – How proved |
| THE LIQUIDATOR OF EFUFU C.F. M.S. LTD (J.F.OGUNKOYA) V. EMMANUEL ADEYEFA | EVIDENCE:- Judge striking out applicant’s motion before completion of evidence in Chief – Propriety of |
| THE SHELL PETROLEUM DEV. CO. OF NIG. LTD V. CHIEF MARK EJEBU & ANOR | EVIDENCE – ESTOPPEL: – Whether a party is estopped by his failure to appeal against an adverse finding of fact – Effect of sections 150 and 151 of the Evidence Act thereto |
| THE SHELL PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT COMPANY OF NIGERIA LIMITED V. SIBEATE KANGI & ORS. | EVIDENCE:- BURDEN OF PROOF: – The burden of proof in a civil case is not static: it shifts from the plaintiff to the defendant, and vice versa, from time to time as the case progresses – Whether in effect the burden of proof, also called onus probandi rests on the party who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side – How determined – Bounden duty of trial court to resolve an issue against a party in a suit who fails or refuses to adduce evidence in proof of any of the issues raised in the pleadings filed in a suit unless there are some legal reasons dictating to the contrary |
| TIJANI IKOTUN V. OBA SAMSON OYEKANMI & ANOR | EVIDENCE:- Estoppel: Issue of Estoppel EVIDENCE:- Estoppel: Estoppel by Judgment |
| TONY ANOZIA V. MRS PATRICIA OKWUNWA NNANI & ANOR | EVIDENCE:- Proof of paternity – Standard for minor and adult: The procedure for determining paternity in judicial proceedings – At whose instance a suit for determination of paternity of a child may be brought – Presumptions as to paternity of a child born during the pendency of a marriage – Whether an adult can be compelled to undergo a DNA test to prove the claim of a third party EVIDENCE:– Onus on a Claimant to prove case – Implications of the adversarial system – Interlocutory application for DNA Test – Whether a court can issue an interlocutory injunction which effect is to supply evidence in support of the case of the claimant or any party to the proceedings |
| TORTI V. UKPABI | EVIDENCE – Admissibility of evidence in an election petition – whether proper custody is irrelevant in respect of same. EVIDENCE – Admissibility of evidence in an election petition – whether based on relevance and not proper custody thereof. EVIDENCE – Certificate of return in an election – whether constitute copies and not original – provision of section 70(b) of the Electoral Act 1982 considered. |
| TRADE BANK PLC V. KHALED BARAKAT CHAMI | EVIDENCE:- CIVIL PROCEDURE:– Civil matters – Burden of proof – Whether based on preponderance of evidence or balance of probabilities. EVIDENCE:– Admissibility – wrongful admission or rejection of evidence – whether appellate court is entitled to reverse same. EVIDENCE:– Counsel’s address on unpleaded facts – whether permissible in law – attitude of court thereto. EVIDENCE:– Entries in books of accounts – whether relevant under section 38 of Evidence Act. |
| TUKUR V. GOVERNMENT OF GONGOLA | EVIDENCE:- Presumption of regularity – Section 149, Evidence Act. |
| U.B.N. PLC V. SCPOK (NIG.) LTD. | EVIDENCE:- Judicial Notice Statutes sections 73 and 74(1) Evidence Act. |
| U. M. NEZAN V. BENUE PRINTING & PUBLISHING | EVIDENCE:– Judicial Notice – Government Press going out of existence – Whether can be judicially noticed. |
| U.T.C NIG. PLC. V. MAOBISON INTERLINK AND ASSOCIATE LTD. | EVIDENCE:– Allegation of fraud – standard of proof required to establish same under section 138 of Evidence Act – Whether allegation of fraud by the respondent met this standard. |
| UAC OF NIGERIA PLC. V. MADAM IKOLE IROLE | EVIDENCE:- Doctrine of res ipsa Loquitor – how applied. EVIDENCE:- findings of fact – credibility of witnesses and evaluation of evidence – distinction thereof. |
| UBUDU V. BULAMA ABDUL-RAZAK | EVIDENCE:- Admissions – Admitted fact – How treated |
| UCHE V. EKE | EVIDENCE:- Proof – Declaration of title to land – Pam, seeking – Onus on hint to establish his claim. |
| UCHENDU V. OGBOM | EVIDENCE:- Findings of fact – Improper for court to decide a material issue before considering evidence of all parties relating to it |
| UDE V. OJECHENH | EVIDENCE:– Proof – Estoppel per rem judicatam – Nature of – How proved. |
| UDO V. EKO | EVIDENCE:- Admissions in document- Presumption of EVIDENCE:- Evidence in previous suit- Limitation as to use by the Court in later suit. |
| UDO V. THE STATE | EVIDENCE:- Unsworn evidence of a child – Corroboration. |
| UDOEBRE V. THE STATE | EVIDENCE:- Legal consequence of failure to tender extra-judicial statement in evidence – Whether Court can choose which part of a witness’ evidence to believe |
| UGBO V. ABURIME | EVIDENCE:- Proof-Allegation of crime in civil cases – Standard of proof required – How discharged. EVIDENCE:- Proof- Declaration of title and injunction – Onus on plaintiff to prove area claimed – How discharged. EVIDENCE:- Proof – Onus of proof in civil cases – Nature of -Whether constant. |
| UGOCHUKWU V. COOPERATIVE AND COMMERCE BANK (NIGERIA) LIMITED | EVIDENCE:- Proof – Evidence led before the court – Duty on court to limit itself thereto. |
| UGOH V. B.S.L.G.S | – Documentary Evidence: |
| UGOJI V. ONUKOGU | EVIDENCE:- Proof – Declaration of title – Party seeking declaration of title – Duty thereon to rely on strength of own case and not on weakness of defendant’s case – Exception thereto. EVIDENCE:- Proof – Declaration of title – Plaintiff claiming – Duty on to prove his root of title. EVIDENCE:- Trespass to land – Claim therein – Basis of – Onus on plaintiff – How discharged. |
| UGORJI OBI & ORS V. DANIEL MBIONWU & ORS | EVIDENCE:- LOCUS IN QUO: Purpose of an inspection of a locus in quo |
| UGURU V. THE STATE | EVIDENCE – Sections 198 and 209 of the Evidence Act – purport of |
| UGWU V. QUEEN | EVIDENCE:- Corroboration – Subsequent events used as – Propriety of |
| UHUNMWANGHO V. OKOJIE | EVIDENCE:- Civil proceedings – Allegation of fraud – Need for same to be specifically pleaded and proved – Standard of proof |
| UKATA V. THE QUEEN | EVIDENCE:- Of accomplice – Requirement of corroboration of. |
| UKATTA V. NDINAEZE | EVIDENCE:- Presumptions – Judgment of trial court – Presumption of validity of on appeal. EVIDENCE:- Proof – Credibility – Evidence of traditional rulers and old men in land cases – Weight attachable thereto. |
| UKAUMUNNA OTUONYE V. FRIDAY UGWUZOR | EVIDENCE:– Pleadings – facts not pleaded – whether of any relevance to admissibility. |
| UKEJE V. MRS LOIS CHITURU UKEJE | EVIDENCE:- EXPERT OPINION:- Photographic evidence – Evidence of an expert as to its genuineness – When deemed speculative, hypothetical, or discredited – Duty of court thereto – Whether the court is not bound to accept the opinion of an expert – Whether court can abandon its responsibility thereby leaving the fortunes of a case to an expert |
| UKPE IBODO & ORS. V. IGUASI ENAROFIA & ORS. | EVIDENCE:- Land law proceedings based on proof of title to land – Where predecessor-in-title admits defect in title – Effect on entire proceedings |
| UKPONG V. COMMISSIONER FOR FINANCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT | EVIDENCE-Affidavit- Contents of |
| UKU V. OKUMAGBA | EVIDENCE – Conflicting affidavits – how resolved. |
| UMARU V. -MUTALLABI | EVIDENCE:- Proof of a fact – Sharia law – Rules governing thereunder. |
| UMENWA V. UMENWA | EVIDENCE Judicial Notice – Officers of Court and Legal Practitioners – Sections 73(1)(j) and 73(2) Evidence Act. |
| UMOREN V. QUEEN | CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – Evidence relied on wrongly admitted – Other available evidence sustaining conviction – Effect. CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – Evidence wrongly admitted at trial -Remaining evidence leaving no doubt – Effect |
| UMORU V. ZIBIRI | EVIDENCE:- Onus of Proof – On whom it rests in a civil proceeding. |
| UNDERWATER ENG. CO. LTD. V. DUBEFON | EVIDENCE:- Admission – Fact admitted – Whether require proof. |
| UNIBIZ NIGERIA LIMITED V. COMMERCIAL BANK (CREDIT LYONNAIS (NIG.) LIMITED) | EVIDENCE-Affidavit evidence-Fact deposed in affidavit-Where not contradicted – How treated. EVIDENCE:- Proof – Undenied assertion – How treated. |
| UNION BANK OF NIGERIA PLC V. ISHOLA | EVIDENCE – Burden of proof – on whom lies. EVIDENCE – Burden of proof – two distinct meanings attributed to same. EVIDENCE – Burden of proof of counter-claim – on whom lies. EVIDENCE – Hearsay evidence – whether admissible. |
| UNION BANK OF (NIG) PLC V. JASE MOTORS (NIG) LTD AND ANOTHER | EVIDENCE:- Admissibility – Extracts from bankers’ books – Conditions for admissibility of – Section 97(2)(e) Evidence Act – Scope of. EVIDENCE:- Proof – Acts of company – Who can tesfify therefor on behalf of company – Whether necessarily officer involved in such act – Relevant considerations. |
| UNION BANK OF NIGERIA LTD. V. IFEATU AUGUSTINE NWOYE | EVIDENCE:- Proof- Banking custom – Onus of proof of-On Whom lies – Failure to prove – Effect. |
| UNION BANK OF NIGERIA LIMITED V. NWAOKOLO | EVIDENCE:- Documents – Construction of – Exclusion of extrinsic evidence therefor – Rationale. EVIDENCE:- Documents – Construction of – Where plain and unambiguous – Whether reference can be made to previous negotiations or condition of parties. |
| UNION BANK OF NIGERIA LTD V. SAX (NIG.) LTD. | EVIDENCE:- DOCUMENTS – Interpretation of documents – Guiding principles EVIDENCE:- Admissibility – Admissibility of inadmissible evidence – Duty on appellant on appeal – Duty on appellate court. EVIDENCE:- Admissibility – Oral evidence – Whether admissible to alter or contradict terms of written agreement or deed. |
| UNITED WORLD LTD. INC. V. M.T.S. LTD. | EVIDENCE:- ” Without prejudice ” communication – When admissible in evidence – When not admissible – Principles governing. |
| UNITED BANK FOR AFRICA PLC V. JARGABA | EVIDENCE – DOCUMENT:- Documentary evidence – How considered when oral evidence is also available – When documentary evidence will be used to evaluate oral evidence EVIDENCE:- Proof – Onus of proof in court cases – On whom lies – How discharged – Fact admitted – Whether requires further proof. |
| UNITED BANK FOR AFRICA PLC. V. BTL INDUSTRIES LTD. | EVIDENCE:- Evaluation of EVIDENCE:- When appellate court can embark on. EVIDENCE:- Proof – Burden of proof in civil cases – On whom lies – Whether static. |
| UNITED BANK FOR AFRICA LIMITED V. TAAN | EVIDENCE:-Affidavit evidence -Conflict therein -When oral evidence unnecessary to resolve EVIDENCE:- Presumptions – Judgment of court – Presumption of correctness raised thereby. |
| UNITED BANK FOR AFRICA PLC V. BTL INDUSTRIES LIMITED | EVIDENCE:- Evaluation of evidence of witnesses – Respective positions of appellate and trial court in respect of. EVIDENCE:- Fresh evidence on appeal – Application therefor – Principles governing grant of – Relevant considerations. EVIDENCE:- Fresh evidence on appeal – Discretion of appellate court to allow – When exercisable – How exercised. |
| UNITED BANK FOR AFRICA PLC V. COMRADE CYCLE LTD & ANOR | EVIDENCE:- ESTOPPEL:- Meaning and nature of – Implication for a party from providing anything that contradicts his previous acts or declarations to the prejudice of a party who, relying upon them, has altered his position EVIDENCE – ESTOPPEL:- Distinction from a rule of evidence and a cause of action – Variants – Estoppel by representation also known as estoppel by conduct and as estoppel in pais – Meaning – When arises – When deemed to constitute fraud |
| UNITED BANK FOR AFRICA PLC. V. BTL INDUSTRIES LTD. | EVIDENCE:- BURDEN OF PROOF: Whether or not the plaintiff has the burden of proving every fact |
| UNITY BANK PLC V. DENCLAG LIMITED & ANOR | EVIDENCE:- Responsibility of court where pleadings do not raise serious triable issue – Duty of Defendant where plaintiff’s statement of claim does not disclose a cause of action – What Plaintiff should do if the Statement of Defence does not answer deny, or not admit the essential facts on which the plaintiffs case rests |
| UNITY LIFE & FIRE INSURANCE CO. LTD. V. I.B.W.A. LTD | EVIDENCE:- DOCUMENT -Admissibility – Documentary evidence – Wrongful admission of – Effect |
| UNIVERSITY OF ILORIN V. OYALANA | EVIDENCE:– Affidavit evidence – Effect when not challenged |
| UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA TEACHING HOSPITAL MANAGEMENT BOARD V. NNOLI | EVIDENCE:- Proof- Burden of proof – Party alleging or asserting fact – Burden of proof thereon. |
| UNION BANK OF NIGERIA PLC. V. OZIGI | EVIDENCE:- CIVIL PROCEDURE:- Burden of proof – On whom lies – Whether not static – How treated |
| URIEL EZEJI V. H.C. IKE | EVIDENCE: Proof: Unchallenged evidence |
| USMAN V. KAREEM | EVIDENCE:- Admissibility-Documentary evidence – Document affecting interest in hand – Conditions for admissibility of EVIDENCE:- Proof in civil cases – Evidence of blood relation – How treated under Islamic law. EVIDENCE:- Proof in civil cases – On whom onus lies – How, discharged under Islamic law. |
| USMAN DAN FODIO UNIVERSITY V. KRAUS THOMPSON ORGANISATIONS LTD | EVIDENCE:- Admission in pleading – whether judgment based thereon can be faulted |
| USMAN MAIGARI V. THE STATE | EVIDENCE:- Standard of proof in criminal cases- Whether proof beyond reasonable doubt is synonymous with proof beyond the shadow of doubt EVIDENCE:- CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE: Meaning – where the possibility of proving a criminal matter charged by the direct and positive testimony of eye witnesses or by conclusive documents is absent but there exist evidence of surrounding circumstances which by undesigned co-incidence is capable of proving a proposition with the accuracy of mathematics – whether it is a derogation of the evidence when it is said to be circumstantial and whether it is nonetheless sufficient as proof of the offence charged |
| USMAN V. KUSFA | EVIDENCE:- Proof – Burden and standard of proof in civil cases – Procedure under Islamic (Sharia) law. EVIDENCE:- Res judicata – Doctrine of – Meaning and implication of – How applied. |
| USO V. OKOTIE-EBOH | EVIDENCE:- Evidence Act S. 137(l) – Whether applicable where crime is not directly in issue |
| UTTEH V. STATE | EVIDENCE:- Admission -Admission by conduct – Inference of – When it will be raised. EVIDENCE:- Common law rule of evidence – Applicability to Nigeria – Hear-say evidence – Meaning of |
| UWA PRINTERS (NIG.) LIMITED V. INVESTMENT TRUST COMPANY LTD | EVIDENCE:- Expert opinion – Report of facts – Admissibility. |
| UYOT V. ANIEMS | EVIDENCE:- Res judicata – When an existing judgment pertaining to a piece of disputed land may operate as res judicata over a subsequent one |
| VISA YUSUFU .V THE STATE | EVIDENCE:- Primary evidence:- Burden of producing on whom – Effect of failure EVIDENCE:- Secondary evidence – Burden of producing the original copy of a secondary evidence – On whom rests – How determined – Effect of failure thereto |
| VORGHO V. THE STATE | EVIDENCE:- Dying declaration – Admissible as to cause and circumstance of declarant’s death but not as to suggestion he made for motive of killer – Scope of s.33 (a) – Evidence Act – Words spoken contemporaneously admissible as res gestae. |
| VULCAN GASES LTD. V. G.F. IND. A.G. | EVIDENCE:- Proof – Burden of proof of an assertion – On whom lies |
| WAHABI ALAO LAWAL V. THE STATE | EVIDENCE:- Evidence of bad character of accused – Admissibility of – Principles applicable. |
| WAUCHOPE V. MORDECAI | EVIDENCE:- Burden of proof in Civil action – Conviction as evidence – Negligence – When onus for burden of proof would shift to defendant – Burden on defendant to prove he had not been negligent – Civil Evidence Act 1968, s 11(2). |
| WEST AFRICAN EXAMINATION COUNCIL V. MURITALA OYEWUSI OBISESAN | EVIDENCE:- Affidavit evidence – Deposition in affidavit – Where unchallenged – Effect. |
| WEST CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD. V. SANTOS M. BATALHA | EVIDENCE:- Evidence led in respect of unpleaded facts – Treatment of. |
| WILLIAMS V. FCDA | EVIDENCE:- Whether the judgement of the trial court is support by evidence. |
| WILLIAMS V. STATE | EVIDENCE:- Evaluation of EVIDENCE:- Duty on trial court. EVIDENCE-Presumption of innocence in criminal trial -Whether accused need prove his innocence. EVIDENCE:- Proof – Identification parade – Purpose of – When unnecessary to conduct |
| WIMPEY (NIGERIA) LIMITED V. BALOGUN | EVIDENCE:- Affidavit of Service ‑ Failure to state name of person served ‑ Effect thereof |
| WING COMMANDER T.L.A. SHEKETE V. THE NIGERIAN AIR FORCE | EVIDENCE:– Proof of the offence of engaging in private business contrary to provisions of the Armed Forces Decree, 1993 – Whether can be discharged by mere proof of signing of Forms C02 and C06 of Companies and Allied Matters Act, 1990. |
| WINTLE V. NYE | |
| WOGHIREN V. QUEEN | EVIDENCE:- Circumstantial EVIDENCE:- Applicable test |
| WOLUCHEM AND OTHERS V. GUDI AND OTHERS | EVIDENCE:- Declaration of title to land – Burden of proof and onus on plaintiff to succeed on strength of his case – Duty of court to consider the evidence of both the plaintiff and the defendant and ascribe relative weight to each of them on an imaginary scale – Whether precludes consideration of defence which helps to support the case of the plaintiff EVIDENCE:- Cross-Examination – Evidence adduced therefrom – Where if accepted could decide the issue between the parties – Need to first amend pleadings if reliance is to placed on it |
| WOLUCHEM V. WOKOMA | EVIDENCE:- Trial by means of affidavits and counter affidavits No trial agreement between parties. |
| XTOUDOS SERVICES NIGERIA LIMITED V. TAISEI (W.A.) LIMITED | EVIDENCE:- Proof – Special damages – How to plead and prove – Duty on party claiming. |
| YAKUBU IBRAHIM V. THE STATE | EVIDENCE – Proof, onus of proof, where inference drawn to sustai of an offence – quality required of such inference. |
| YAKUBU V. CHIEF OF NAVAL STAFF | EVIDENCE – Proof – Proof of guilt of accused person – Duty on prosecution to establish same beyond reasonable doubt. EVIDENCE:– Proof of record of appeal – whether any other evidence can be Admitted apart from original document and certified true copy of same. |
| YINUSA DAODU V. NIGERIAN NATIONAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION AND OTHERS | EVIDENCE:- Burden of proof in civil cases EVIDENCE:- Public nuisance – Proof of |
| YUSUF V. UNION RANK OF NIGERIA LTD. | EVIDENCE:- Fresh evidence -Whether permissible on appeal. |
| YUSUF V. OYETUNDE | EVIDENCE:- Admission -fact admitted – whether need be proved – – Section 75, Evidence Act considered EVIDENCE:- Burden of proof – on whom lies – Section 139, Evidence Act considered |
| ZACCHEUS FALEYE & ORS. V. ALHAJI LASISI OTAPO & ORS | EVIDENCE – ORAL EVIDENCE: Effect of oral evidence of a defendant in declaration of title to land EVIDENCE – DOCTRINE OF ISSUE ESTOPPEL: Whether styling of parties in actions will prevent a court from examining the proceedings in issue. |
| ZAEED A. AJAYI & ORS. V. ATTORNEY GENERAL, OGUN STATE & ORS | EVIDENCE – BURDEN OF PROOF:- Whether he who asserts must prove |
| ZARIA V. SMALL | EVIDENCE:- Claim of debt – Plaintiffs recollection hazy – Evidence not conclusive – Only to extent that can be substantiated by available evidence. |
JUDGMENTS BY AREAS OF PRACTICE
JUDGMENTS BY PRACTICE/PROCEDURE ISSUES
