CASES/JUDGMENTS OF NIGERIAN COURTS ON EVIDENCE (3)
POLICY, PRACTICE & PUBLISHING LAW REPORTS, 3PLR
FIND JUDGMENTS BY:
CASES/JUDGMENTS OF NIGERIAN COURTS ON EVIDENCE (3)
[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 |
| APUGO V. STATE | EVIDENCE:- Proof of – Crime – Standard required therefor. EVIDENCE:- Proof of crime – Manslaughter – Onus of proof of – On whom lies. EVIDENCE:- Proof of crime – Murder – Ingredients of – Onus of proof on prosecution. |
| ARAB TRANSPORT LTD. V. SAMOUA | EVIDENCE:- Documentary EVIDENCE:- Tendering irrelevant pages of document – Propriety of. |
| ARA-NDE V. QUEEN | EVIDENCE:- Criminal trial – Deposition by dispensary attendant – How treated. |
| ARCHIBONG V. ITA | EVIDENCE:- Burden of proof – Which of contending parties must prove identity of land in dispute. EVIDENCE:- Burden of proof in land dispute- Applicable principles. EVIDENCE:- Identity of land in dispute – How proved. |
| ARE V. IPAYE (CA) | EVIDENCE:- Proof – Onus on party claiming title. EVIDENCE:- Section 90(3) of the Evidence Act – Scope. |
| AREBAMEN V. THE STATE | EVIDENCE:- Sworn evidence of a child – Res Gestae. |
| AREHIA V. THE STATE | EVIDENCE – INCONSISTENCIES:- Where there are inconsistencies in prosecution witness’ statement with regard to earlier statement – Whether failure of prosecution to treat witness as hostile witness is fatal – Effect – Duty of Court thereto – Whether Court can re-examine witness or disregard testimony as unreliable |
| AREMU V. THE STATE | EVIDENCE – BURDEN OF PROOF:- Dispute as to title to land – Whether the burden is on the plaintiff who pleads title to prove that title – Where identity of land is disputed – Duty of claimant – Nature of evidence required to discharge burden – Test for the establishment of the identity of land EVIDENCE – CONTRADICTION:- Evidence of witnesses of a party – When inconsistent or contradictory – Whether a court of law cannot pick and choose one aspect of evidence and throw away the other – Implication |
| ARICHE V. STATE | EVIDENCE:- Circumstantial EVIDENCE:- Murder – Absence of corpse of deceased – Nature of circumstantial evidence sufficient to ground conviction |
| ARIKU AND ANOTHER V. AJIWOGBO | EVIDENCE:- Evidence absent Witness-Trial de novo on Appeal to High Court-Evidence of |
| ARJAY LIMITED V. AIRLINE MANAGEMENT SUPPORT | EVIDENCE:– Parole evidence rule contained in section 132 of the Evidence Act – exceptions thereto – Averment in paragraph 4(L) of the respondent’s affidavit – Whether raises the facts necessary to sustain the exception contained in section 132 (b) of the Evidence Act. EVIDENCE – Conflict in affidavits – Court of Appeal holding that there was a conflict in the averments made by both parties when the conflict existed only in the affidavit of the respondent – Propriety of – Attitude of court to such conflict. |
| ARMEL’S TRANSPORT LTD V. MARTINS | EVIDENCE:- Witnesses—Credibility-Trial judge not making any findings as to which witnesses he believed—Court of Appeal reluctant to put itself in place of trial court in regard to evidence adduced. |
| AROJOJOYE V. WATA TIMBER CO. LTD. | EVIDENCE:- Admission of inadmissible evidence by trial Judge – Judge is sitting without a jury – Duty of appellate court. EVIDENCE:- Plaintiff tendering document without calling the maker – Effect under S.90 of the Evidence Act. |
| AROMIRE V. AWOYEMI | EVIDENCE:- Standard of proof – Onus of proof – On who ties. |
| AROMOLARAN V. OLADELE(CA1) | EVIDENCE:- Admissions – Admitted fact – How treated. EVIDENCE:- Admissions – Oral admission – When valid. EVIDENCE:- Evaluation of evidence – Duty on trial court |
| ARTRA INDUSTRIES NIGERIA LIMITED V. THE NIGERIAN BANK FOR COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY | EVIDENCE -Admissibility –Statement made by party against interest in civil cases – Admissibility of against the party. EVIDENCE:- Proof – Breach of contract – Damages for loss of profit – Oil what claim therefor based – Projection in a feasibility report without more – Weight attachable thereto. EVIDENCE:- Proof – Unchallenged evidence:- Treatment of – General guiding principle – When court will not act on same. |
| ASAKITIKPI V. STATE | EVIDENCE:- Identification evidence – Identity of accused -. Evidence of – Poor quality of – Whether in all cases justifies acquittal of accused. EVIDENCE:- Proof of crime – Extra judicial statements of witnesses – Procedure for discrediting– Section 208, Evidence Act, 1958. |
| ASANYA V. STATE | EVIDENCE:- Evidence of accused person – Whether an accused person who decides to give evidence is a witness in respect of his defence to the charge – Legal implications – Combined effect of sections 154 and 159 of the Evidence Act shows that an accused person is a competent witness even though not compellable – Effect |
| ASERE V. ASERE | EVIDENCE – DUTY OF COURT:- Deficiency, error, defect, omission or discrepancy in an affidavit or as between the oral testimony and the documentary evidence tendered by or against any witness at the trial or if there is an apparent conflict in the evidence of a witness – Whether it is the duty of the witness himself to proffer any explanation he may have or adduce such evidence as may assist the Court to resolve the conflict – Whether it is not the duty of a trial court all on its own to start looking for explanation not brought out by evidence adduced in court or to find excuses and answer for unresolved conflict in evidence of a witness |
| ASHIBUOGWU V. A-G. BENDEL STATE AND ANOTHER | EVIDENCE:- Statements made in course of negotiation – Section 150 Evidence Act considered. |
| ASIMIYU ALARAPE V. THE STATE | EVIDENCE:– Confessional Statement – statements which could not be taken as confessional in nature. |
| ATANO AND ANOTHER V. A-G. (BENDEL) | EVIDENCE:- Circumstantial EVIDENCE:- Sufficiency of – Conviction based on. |
| ATANZE V. ATTAH | EVIDENCE:- When parties to a suit have joined issues, parties must lead evidence in support of their respective averments – What is admitted need not to be proved. Admissions by a party against his interest are admissible and needs no further proof. |
| ATAYI FARMS LTD V. NIGERIA AGRICULTURAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD & ANOR | EVIDENCE – AFFIDAVIT: The admissibility of evidence by affidavit |
| ATOLAGBE V. SHORUN | EVIDENCE:- Admissibility – Survey plan – Requirement under Survey Act for countersignature by Surveyor General – Uncountersigned copy produced in place of unavailable counter-signed original – copy wrongly admitted – Whether error material. |
| ATTAH IDIH V. BEN UTENO | EVIDENCE:- DEPOSITIONS IN AN AFFIDAVIT: Whether or not where depositions in an affidavit are sufficiently challenged by a counter affidavit there is need for oral evidence |
| ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF ADAMAWA STATE AND ORS. V. ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION AND ORS. | EVIDENCE:- Affidavit evidence – Conflict in affidavit evidence – How resolved – When calling oral evidence may not be required – how treated EVIDENCE:- Affidavit evidence – Where averments therein contravene provisions of Evidence Act – Legal effect – Whether invalidate entire action – How treated |
| ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF PLATEAU STATE V. ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NASARAWA STATE | EVIDENCE:- Affidavit evidence:- Unchallenged deposition in affidavit- How treated. EVIDENCE:- Proof- Contents of a judgment of court – How proved. |
| ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION V. ATIKU ABUBAKAR | EVIDENCE:- Evaluation of evidence:- When appellate court can evaluate evidence. EVIDENCE:- Expert evidence – “Opinion” in relation thereto – Meaning of EVIDENCE:- Expert opinion – Person not called to testify as expert witness at trial – Written opinion thereof –Whether can be relied on by court. EVIDENCE:- Expert opinion – When necessary – When not. |
| ATTORNEY-GENERAL, BAYELSA STATE V. ATTORNEY-GENERAL, RIVERS STATE | EVIDENCE:- Proof – Burden of proof on plaintiff in civil case – How discharged – Failure to discharge – Effect. |
| ATUNRASE V. PHILLIPS | EVIDENCE:- Proof of title – Proof of possession of documents of tide – Where documents could not be produced in evidence – Whether secondary evidence thereof admissible. EVIDENCE:- Section 130 of the Evidence Act – Application of – Relevant consideration. |
| AUGUSTA CHIME V. MOSES CHIME | EVIDENCE:– Evidence of a witness taken on commission – Whether admissible. |
| AUGUSTINE NDULUE V. NWANKWO IBEZIM & ANOR | EVIDENCE – ESTOPPEL: Doctrine of standing by and the rule of estoppel – Where a person was content to stand by and see his battle fought by someone else in the same interest instead of applying to be joined as a defendant in the case – Whether he is bound by the result in that case and estopped from reopening the issues determined therein – Exception |
| AUGUSTINE OBINECHE & ORS V. HUMPHREY AKUSOBI & ORS | EVIDENCE:- Rule as to estoppel by conduct – Whether conclusive Native Court judgment may operate as estoppel per rem judicatam or issue estoppel – Effects of facts not pleaded – Doctrine of standing by on inconclusive evidence of tradition -whether court can act on unchallenged or uncontroverted evidence before it |
| AUTA V. THE STATE | EVIDENCE:- Wrongful admission of confessional statement – Evidential value – No common intention between accused and father to commit offence – No medical evidence as to cause of death – Objects supposedly causing death not tendered in evidence – Difference between S.79 and S.80 of the Penal Code – Jurisdiction. |
| AVINASH CHANDER MALHOTRA V. BANK OF SINGAPORE LIMITED (FORMERLY ING ASIA PRIVATE BANK LIMITED) | EVIDENCE:– Effect of making averments without proof |
| AWAWA V. THE QUEEN | EVIDENCE:- Accomplices EVIDENCE:- Belief in – Effect. EVIDENCE:- Witnesses – Accomplice evidence – Need for corroboration. |
| AWOJUGBAGBE LIGHT INDUSTRIES LTD. V. .P.N. CHINUKWE AND ANOR | EVIDENCE:- Principles governing estopel in pais EVIDENCE:- Presumptions that a document bearing a particular date was executed on that date |
| AWOLO V. OKWUDI | EVIDENCE:- Presumption of ownership in favour of person in possession – Sec 145 Evidence Ordinance – Application of |
| AWONUGA V. THE QUEEN | EVIDENCE:- Evidence of an accomplice -Absence of corroboration – Effect |
| AWOYALE V. JOSHUA O. OGUNBIYI (2) | EVIDENCE:- Burden of proof – Declaration of title to land – Duty of the trial court to consider the totality of evidence adduced by the parties before giving its decision. |
| AWOYEGBE AND ANOTHER V. OGBEIDE | EVIDENCE:- Visit to locus in quo – Evidential value of personal observations of judge – Use of same in judgment – Effect – Judicial notice of incidents of Bini customary land owning – Section 73(1) Evidence Act, Cap. 62. |
| AYANRU V. MANDILAS LIMITED | EVIDENCE:- Sections 99 and 107 of the Evidence Act, construction of |
| AYANWALE AND OTHERS V. ATANDA AND ANOTHER | EVIDENCE:- Evidence of previous proceedings – Admissibility in subsequent suit – Witnesses – Credibility of – Effect of inconsistency. |
| AYENI V. OLUKOLU | EVIDENCE:- Proof – Power of Attorney – Failure to tender or adduce evidence of its existence – Effect of. |
| AYINDE V. SALAWU | EVIDENCE:- Counter affidavit sworn to in the course of proceedings – Whether admissible as truth of the facts stated therein – Evidence given in a previous case – Whether acceptable as evidence in subsequent case – Evidence Act, Section 34(1) considered |
| AYOADE A. ADEWUYI AND ORS. V. ANDREW AJUKO ODUKWE | EVIDENCE:– Evaluation of evidence – whether appellate court can re-evaluate the evidence at trial. EVIDENCE:– Standard of proof in civil cases – factors to consider. |
| AYOKE V. BELLO | EVIDENCE:- Rule that trial judge is duty bound to consider every piece of evidence placed before it by weighing it against the background of the case before ascribing probative value to it – Where court ignores evidence by neither accepting nor rejecting it – Duty of appellate court thereto EVIDENCE:- Rule that pleadings are no evidence and that a defendant is duty bound to call evidence to support their averments – Effect of failure to do so – whether deemed to be abandonement of defence |
| AYUA V. ADASU | EVIDENCE:- Ascription of probative value to EVIDENCE:- Duty on trial court ‑Attitude of appellate court thereto. EVIDENCE:- Election petition ‑ Allegation of crime therein ‑ Standard of proof required. EVIDENCE:- Proof ‑ Election malpractice ‑ Onus of proof ‑ On whom lies ‑ Standard required. |
| AYYE V. YAR’ADUWA | EVIDENCE:- Estoppel per rem judicatam-Meaning of – Conditions for application of same. EVIDENCE:- Estoppel per rem judicatam – Rationale for the doctrine. |
| AZU V. THE STATE | EVIDENCE:- Expert EVIDENCE:- How treated. EVIDENCE:- Expert EVIDENCE:- Person called as an expert witness -What to show to admit him as such. EVIDENCE:- Medical EVIDENCE:- Probative value attached thereto – Whether necessary in all homicide cases. |
| AZUOGALONUA V. OBIOZO | EVIDENCE: Presumptions – Omnia praesumuntur rite esse acta – Jurisdiction of inferior Courts – Applicability thereto. EVIDENCE: Res judicata – Need to lead evidence of record of inferior Court |
| AZUOKWU V. NWOKANMA | EVIDENCE:- Affidavit evidence – Where in conflict – How resolved. EVIDENCE:- Visit to locus in quo – Proper procedure therefor in land disputes |
| B.E.O. OGIALE AND OTHERS V. SHELL PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT COMPANY NIGERIA LIMITED | EVIDENCE: Expert evidence |
| B.P. (WEST AFRICA) LIMITED V. ALLEN | EVIDENCE:- Contract to build a house and contract to assign – Whether a land instrument – Admissibility of |
| BABA V. BABA | EVIDENCE:- Admission – Effect of under Sharia Law. |
| BABALOLA V. THE STATE | EVIDENCE:- Deposition – Trial judge relying on evidence of witness – No evidence that accused had kept witness out of the way -Whether proper for judge to admit deposition under s. 34(1) of the Evidence Law. |
| BABAOYE V. ADEBONA | EVIDENCE:- Admissibility – Document requiring registration not registered – Effect thereon – Section 15 Land Registration Ordinance Cap. 108 Laws of the Federation. |
| BABATOLA V. ALADEJANA | EVIDENCE:- Admissibility – Plan, map or diagram – Conditions for admissibility of – Need to be made by a qualified surveyor Section 3 of the Survey Law of Ondo State, 1978 considered. EVIDENCE:- Documentary evidence – Document tendered and rejected – Document tendered and admitted as Exhibit – How respectively marked EVIDENCE:- Documentary evidence – Document tendered and rejected – Whether can be re-tendered and admitted as Exhibit – How treated. |
| BABATUNDE ADENUGA V. J. K. ODUMERU(2) | EVIDENCE:- Affidavit EVIDENCE:- Affidavit in support of application for interlocutory injunction – What it must disclose. EVIDENCE:- Interlocutory injunction – Affidavit in support of application thereof-What it must disclose. |
| BABILLA V. QUEEN | EVIDENCE:- Of accomplice – Misdirection of jury/Warning by Judge – Conviction on the basis of the testimony of an accomplice – Nature of caution to be applied- Evidence Act Sec. 177(1) |
| BACEHM (IBAFON CHEMICALS) LIMITED V. VISA INVESTMENT & SECURITIES LTD ANOR | EVIDENCE:- ADMISSIBILITY OF EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE: Whether extrinsic evidence is admissible to prove the express terms of a written document |
| BADEJO V. FEDERAL MINISTER OF EDUCATION | EVIDENCE:- Affidavit evidence – Facts stated in affidavit -Where not denied by opponent – Treatment of |
| BAHAR V. YAURI N.A. POLICE | EVIDENCE:- of previous convictions —prosecutor’s statement – Whether not evidence. |
| BAKARE V. THE STATE | EVIDENCE:- Evaluation of evidence – Duty of trial court thereto – Attitude and approach of appeal court |
| BALA YA’U V. BANK OF THE NORTH LIMITED | EVIDENCE:- Bindingness of pleadings as basis of evidence led and made by court |
| BALOGUN AND ORS V. AKANJI AND ORS | EVIDENCE:- Proof – Title to land – Acts of possession – Reliance on to establish title to land-Import of. EVIDENCE:- Proof – Title to land – Ways of proving same. EVIDENCE:- Proof – Title to land – Proof by traditional history and proof by acts of possession – Distinction between – Incidence of each. |
| BALOGUN V. ODE | EVIDENCE:- Estoppel per rem judicatam – Conditions for successful plea of- Burden to establish same – On whom lies. EVIDENCE:- Estoppel per rem judicatam – Pre-conditions for successful plea of- Decision of Judicial Tribunal of Inquiry -Whether qualifies as decision of court to ground plea. EVIDENCE:- Res judicata – Decision of Judicial Tribunal of inquiry- Whether can ground plea of res judicata. |
| BALOGUN V. OLIGBEDE | EVIDENCE:- Evaluation of evidence- Conflicting evidence of genealogy – Duty on Court to evaluate. EVIDENCE:- Proof – Action for family status – Line of succession – Need to prove. |
| BALOGUN V. U.B.A. LTD. | EVIDENCE:- Civil cases – How determined. EVIDENCE:- Proof-Defendant not calling evidence – Quantum of proof required of plaintiff EVIDENCE:- Proof – Failure of defendant to give evidence – Defendant resting case on plaintiff’s evidence – Whether defendant could still be entitled to judgment. |
| BALOGUN V. LABIRAN | EVIDENCE:- Burden of proof in civil cases – When burden may shift – When defendant sets up as defence to trespass – Effect on onus of proof – Witnesses – Credibility of – Place of appellate court in assessment of. |
| BAMGBOSE V. JIAZA | EVIDENCE:- Documentary EVIDENCE:- Contents of document – How proved – Effect of failure to prove. EVIDENCE:- Documentary EVIDENCE:- Existence of document – How proved – Effect of failure to prove. EVIDENCE:- Proof – Onus of proof – Party relying on power of Attorney granted in favour of his grantor -What to prove. |
| BAMGBOYE V. OLUSOGA | EVIDENCE:- Proof – Trespass to land – Action therefor – Requirements for establishing same. |
| BAMIDELE AND ANOTHER V. ADEYEMI AND OTHERS | EVIDENCE:- Improper use of document by trial court – Effect on judgment of trial court |
| BANK OF THE NORTH LIMITED V. SUARAU AKOREDE | EVIDENCE:- What constitutes a proper admission of fact and treatment |
| BANK OF THE NORTH LIMITED V. ADEHI | EVIDENCE:- Allegation of fraud – Standard of proof required where fraud is raised – whether trial court was right to hold that the withholding of the Certificate of Occupancy No. 304 by the appellant in this case was fraudulent. |
| BANK OF THE NORTH LTD. V. AKINTOYE | EVIDENCE:- Section 132 of the Evidence Act, whether oral evidence is allowed to add to, vary or contradict a written document |
| BANK OF THE NORTH LTD. V. MEMUDU ADIGUN ONIYO | EVIDENCE:– “Proof” – meaning of. EVIDENCE:– Burden of proof in civil cases – on whom lies. EVIDENCE:– Proof – negative assertions – whether capable of legal proof. EVIDENCE:– Section 149(d) of Evidence Act, 1990 – purport of. |
| BARIDAM V. STATE | EVIDENCE:- Proof – Onus of proof on prosecution in criminal cases – How discharged. |
| BARO BAJODEN AND ANOTHER V. IROMWANIMU AND ANOTHER | EVIDENCE:- Admission – Facts admitted – Whether require further proof. EVIDENCE:- Proof- Survey plan -Whether must be tendered by maker in all cases -Relevant consideration – Ordia V. Piedmont (Nig.) Ltd. (1995) 2 NWLR (Pt. 379) 516 distinguished. |
| BARR. ENNOCH ETSU KWALI & ANOR V. HON. ISAH EGAH DOBI & ORS | EVIDENCE:- ADMISSIBILITY OF DOCUMENTS: The rule regarding admissibility of documents |
| BASHAYA V. STATE | EVIDENCE:- Evaluation of evidence by trial court – Attitude of appeal court thereto – When it will interfere therewith – When it will not. EVIDENCE:- Proof – Alibi – Onus of proof of – On whom lies – When duty on prosecution to investigate alibi arises – When it does not. EVIDENCE:- Proof – Identification of an accused person – Identification parade – When necessary – When unnecessary – Governing principles. |
| BASSEY AKPAN ARCHIBONG V. THE STATE | EVIDENCE:- DOCUMENT:- Principles governing admissibility of document – When to raise objection thereto – Inadmissible EVIDENCE:- Whether can be admitted by consent of parties – Wrongful admission of inadmissible EVIDENCE:- Whether sufficient ground for reversal of judgment EVIDENCE:- Circumstantial EVIDENCE:- Nature of –Attitude of court thereto – whether sufficient to prove commission of crime. |
| BASSEY EDET BASSEY V. C. O. P | EVIDENCE:- Burden of calling defence witnesses – Failure of prosecution to call material witness for both parties – On whom lies. |
| BASSEY V. THE STATE | EVIDENCE:- Confessional statement – When conviction can be grounded thereon. EVIDENCE:- Corroboration – What amounts to. |
| BATURE MANYA V. STATE | EVIDENCE:- CONFESSION: Statutory definitions of the substantive offence of unlawful possession and the word “confession” in the adjectival Evidence Act – Irrefutable proposition arising therefrom – Whether while possession is a constitutive aspect of the offence of unlawful possession, a confession, as an admission or acknowledgement of the prohibited conduct, is always subsequent to the consummation of the constitutive ingredients or elements of an offence – whether effect is to relieve the prosecution of the legal burden of proof – Whether, in effect, a confession does not qualify as an “element of an offence” |
| BATURE V. STATE | EVIDENCE:- Evaluation of evidence by trial court – Attitude of appellate court thereto. |
| BEARMANS LTD. V. METROPOLITAN POLICE | EVIDENCE:- Evidence Act, 1938 – “Person interested” – Claim for compensation under Riot (Damages) Act, 1886 – Store broken into – Statement to police by watchman |
| BELLO ADELEKE V. BENJAMIN ADEWUSI | EVIDENCE: Evidence Ordinance, s. 34 and ss. 48 to 55 – Conditions under which previous proceedings, or parts thereof, may be put in evidence in subsequent suits. |
| BELLO MUSA MAGAJI V. ALHAJI ISHOLA ARE OGELE | EVIDENCE:- When a document is admissible or inadmissible – Whether a court has the permission of the law to use any available documentary evidence as the barometer to decide the veracity of the conflicting evidence of two adverse parties in a proceeding – Who puts questions under cross- examination – Whether evidence given by a witness in a previous proceeding is relevant in a subsequent proceeding for proving the truth of the facts it stated – Whether court can take judicial notice of a question of law |
| BELLO OGUNDELE & ANOR. V. SHITTU AGIRI & ANOR. | EVIDENCE:- STANDARD OF PROOF: How fraud is proved |
| BELLO V. KASSIM | EVIDENCE:- Failure to call a witness – Whether correct to apply the presumption in s.148 (d) of the Evidence Act |
| BELLO V. PATEGI | EVIDENCE:- Unchallenged evidence – Treatment of law: |
| BELLO V. RINGIM | EVIDENCE:- Documentary evidence – Documents tendered in absence of maker – Admissibility of and weight to be attached thereto. EVIDENCE:- Evidence Act, Section 90 – Evidence admissible pursuant thereto – Nature of. EVIDENCE:- Expert evidence- Admissibility of expert evidence – Principles applicable. EVIDENCE:- Expert evidence – Testimony of IPO and VIO – Whether necessary in civil cases of negligent driving. |
| BEN C. EMODI & ORS V. MRS. PATRICIA C. EMODI & ORS | EVIDENCE:- Whether an allegation not specifically denied or stated not to be admitted can be taken as admitted |
| BENEDICT UDEORAH & ORS v. OKWUNDU NWAKONOBI & ORS | EVIDENCE – BURDEN OF PROOF:- Whether a plaintiff can succeed in his claim on the weakness of a defendant’s case |
| BENJAMIN OBASUYI V. BUSINESS VENTURES LTD. | EVIDENCE – Special damages – Need for the plaintiff to make available to the defendants facts upon which the calculation are made – Need to prove particulars of damages with credible evidence. |
| BENJAMIN V. BANIGO | EVIDENCE:- Admissibility – Plan not counter-signed – Effect. |
| BENNETH UDE AGU V. MAXWELL NNADI | EVIDENCE:– Burden of proof – Burden on a plaintiff to prove his case – Rule that a plaintiff must show a prima facie case before the need to consider the defendant’s case can arise. |
| BENSON UKWUNNENYI V. STATE | EVIDENCE:- Onus of proof – Defence of alibi – Belief or disbelief of evidence – Basis of – Evidence of Children – Whether requires corroboration – Medical evidence – Sufficiency as corroboration. |
| BENSON ESANGBEDO V. THE STATE | EVIDENCE -”Burden of proof ‘and “Evidential burden” in criminal cases – Meaning and distinction. |
| BENSON IKOKU V. ENOCH OLI | EVIDENCE:- Facts in issue – Distinguished from facts which are merely collateral. EVIDENCE:- Malicious prosecution – Pleadings averring that charge was false but not stating that it was false to the knowledge or belief of defendant – Whether crime is directly in issue to require proof beyond reasonable doubt – Section 137 Evidence Act. |
| BEREDUGO V. COLLEGE OF SCIENCE AND TECH | |
| BEST WESTERN COMPANY LTD V. UDOMISOR | EVIDENCE:– Affidavit of service – whether prima facie evidence of service – need to file a counter affidavit to controvert facts deposed to in an affidavit of service. |
| BFI GROUP CORPORATION V. BUREAU OF PUBLIC ENTERPRISES | EVIDENCE:- CONFLICT IN EVIDENCE OF WITNESSES:- Where there is conflict in the evidence of witnesses – Whether documentary evidence will serve as a hanger on which the truth shall be resolved – Documents tendered as exhibits – Vital nature of EVIDENCE:- vital nature of documentary evidence – Duty of court thereto |
| BIKAY ENGINEERING LTD. V. GOVERNOR ONDO STATE & ORS. | EVIDENCE – BURDEN OF PROOF: -Commercial law proceedings – Onus to prove breach of contract – On whom lies – Need for |
| BILEWU OYEWUNMI V. OWOADE OGUNESAN | CUSTOMARY LAW – EVIDENCE:- Customary Law Proof of Requirements of s.73, Evidence Act Judicial notice What amounts to. |
| BISIMILLAHI V. YAGBA-EAST LOCAL GOVERNMENT | EVIDENCE:– Affidavit evidence filed by parties – Where conflicting – Principles governing resolution of EVIDENCE:– Civil cases – Standard of proof required thereof. |
| BOB DANIELS V. THE STATE | EVIDENCE:- Evidence of prosecution witness(es) – Where contradicts each other materially – Duty of court thereto – Whether can choose which to believe |
| BOLANLE ABEKE V. THE STATE | EVIDENCE:- Proof of crime – Mens rea – Actus reus – Meanings of Relationship between EVIDENCE:- Evaluation of evidence – Power of trial court with aspect thereto -Attitude of appellate court thereto – When may interfere therewith. EVIDENCE:- Proof of crime – Proof beyond reasonable doubt – Meaning of. |
| BONIFACE ANYIKA AND CO. (Nig.) LTD. V. UZOR | EVIDENCE – CONTRADICTION OR DISCREPANCY OF EVIDENCE: How Courts treat apparent contradiction or discrepancy in the evidence of a witness EVIDENCE – BURDEN OF PROOF: What it means to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt – The onus on the prosecutor to prove his case beyond all reasonable doubt EVIDENCE – CORROBORATION: Nature of evidence which is deemed to constitute corroborative evidence |
| BONIFACE NNORODIM V. EZE PAUL EZEANI | EVIDENCE:– Evaluation of – Ascription of probative value – Effect of. |
| BOOTHIA MARITIME INC. V. FAREAST MERCANTILE CO. LTD | EVIDENCE – DOCUMENT:- Pleading of document – Where document referred to in a pleading – Whether becomes part of pleading – Limitations thereto – Whether court can look at such document in demurrer proceedings. EVIDENCE:- Demurrer applications – Affidavit evidence – Affidavit in support – Whether required in demurrer application. |
| BOSINDE AYUYA & ORS. V. CHIEF NAGHAN YONRIN & ORS. | EVIDENCE – EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE: Whether it is the duty of the trial court only to evaluate evidence produced by the contending parties in support of their contentions and how is the evaluation done |
| BOY IYAREGBA V. QUEEN | EVIDENCE:- Post-mortem report – Maker not called as a witness -Admissibility of |
| BOYE INDUSTRIES LIMITED & ANOR. V. ADISA SOWEMIMO | EVIDENCE – PROOF OF EXECUTION OF DOCUMENT: Duty of court when proving execution of document by an accused |
| BOZIN V. THE STATE | EVIDENCE:- Standard of proof in criminal cases – Where there is doubt in prosecution’s case – Effect – Evaluation of evidence – Duty of court – Need to make actual findings and not escape in the phrase: “I believe, “I do not believe” – Proof beyond reasonable doubt – Whether discharged where no proper findings made and where defence of alibi is neither investigated nor rebutted |
| BRAIMAH V. ABASI | EVIDENCE:- Burden of proof in civil cases – On whom lies – How discharged – Effect of failure to discharge |
| BRENDAN IWUCHUKWU V. DAMIAN ANYANWU | EVIDENCE:- Presumptions – Presumptions under section 148(d) of the Evidence Act – When raised. EVIDENCE:- Proof – Onus of proof of an assertion – On whom lies – Failure to discharge – Effect – Sections 134, 138 and 145 of the Evidence Act 1958. |
| BRIGGS V. BRIGGS | EVIDENCE:- Rules of evidence – Objects of – Application of incorrect procedure -Whether fatal – Relevant consideration. EVIDENCE:- Visit to locus in quo – Procedure thereat= Failure of trial court to make a separate note or record of the proceedings thereat – Whether fatal – Whether offends section 76, Evidence Act. EVIDENCE:- Visit to locus in quo – Purpose of – Principles guiding the court. |
| BRIGGS V. THE CHIEF LANDS OFFICER OF RIVERS STATE OF NIGERIA AND ORS. | |
| BRITISH & FRENCH BANK V. BRIT. C-WEALTH | EVIDENCE:- Debenture – Not registered – Admissibility of evidence – Res judicata – What constitutes. INSTRUMENT – Registration of – Debenture – Whether registrable under the Land Registration Act. |
| BRITISH-AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY NIG. LIMITED V. OMOLAYO | EVIDENCE:- Documentary evidence – Failure to produce relevant document – Effect EVIDENCE:- Unchallenged evidence – How treated. |
| BROWN V. BASSEY | EVIDENCE:- Doctrine of estoppel per rem judicatam – Principles undergirding plea of estoppel per rem judicatam – Application of estoppel per res judicatam EVIDENCE:- Effect of a successful plea of res judicata – Whether plaintiff can also raise plea of res judicata |
| JUDGMENTS OF NIGERIAN COURTS | |
| By Substantive Areas | By Litigation/Procedure Areas |
JUDGMENTS BY AREAS OF PRACTICE
JUDGMENTS BY PRACTICE/PROCEDURE ISSUES
