[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 and or text 07067102097]

BUA  V. DAUDAEVIDENCE:- Proof – Importance of evidence with respect thereto – Defendant – When will be deemed to have accepted facts adduced by plaintiff EVIDENCE:- Proof-Unchallenged and uncontradicted evidence – How treated. EVIDENCE:- Proof- Undue influence- How proved- Burden on plaintiff – How discharged – Burden on defendant
BUBA V.  THE STATECRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE:– Evidence for proof of crime  – Whether prosecution is obliged to call all witnesses listed for their case to be proved
BUHARI V. OBASANJOEVIDENCE -Admissibility – Inadmissible evidence – When admitted by trial court – Duty on appellate court with respect thereto. EVIDENCE:- Judicial notice – Enormous cost of conducting presidential election – Whether court can take judicial notice of. EVIDENCE:- Notice to produce document -Where issued and served on party to suit – Effect of – Whether party served therewith obliged to produce document – Where he fails to do so – Proper procedure to follow.
BUJE  V. STATEEVIDENCE:- Circumstantial EVIDENCE:- When sufficient to ground conviction. EVIDENCE:- Culpable homicide – Cause of death – Proof of  – When dispensed with. EVIDENCE:- Intent – How Proved. EVIDENCE:- Proof – Burden of proof cast on prosecution in criminal cases – Limitation thereto. EVIDENCE:- Proof – Culpable homicide – What prosecution mast Prove.
BULET INTERNATIONAL NIGERIA  LTD. V. BALOGUNEVIDENCE:– Documentary evidence – whether oral evidence is admissible to prove arithmetical error in contractual document under section 132(1)(a) of the Evidence Act.
BUNGE  V. GOVERNOR OF RIVERS STATEEVIDENCE:- Admissions – Admission in pleadings – Effect – How treated. EVIDENCE:- Documentary EVIDENCE:- Evaluation of documentary EVIDENCE:- Competence of appellate court with respect thereto. EVIDENCE:- Documentary EVIDENCE:- Importance of- Where there is contradiction in oral evidence, use of documentary evidence to resolve. EVIDENCE:- Documentary EVIDENCE:- Interpretation of documents – Clear and unambiguous words in a document – How construed.
C & C CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD V. OKHAIEVIDENCE:- Exaggerated testimonies of a witness- How treated. EVIDENCE:- Onus of proof – Inevitable accident – On whom lies. EVIDENCE:- Proof of pain and suffering – Whether medical evidence is the best evidence to prove pain and suffering.
C.C.B. (NIG.) LTD. V. ODOGWUEVIDENCE:- Admissibility ‑ Public document ‑ Type of secondary evidence thereof admissible. EVIDENCE:- Public document under Section 108(a)(iii) Evidence Act ‑ Type of secondary evidence thereof admissible.
C.C.ONYEMELUKWE V. L.D’ALBERTO AND CO. LTD.EVIDENCE – Subpoena ad testificandum and subpoena duces tecum – distinction between – person summoned thereby – whether becomes a witness liable to be cross-examined.
CADBURY NIGERIA PLC V. R. BENKAY NIGERIA LIMITEDEVIDENCE:- BURDEN OF PROOF: “Sections 135 and 137 of the Evidence Act – On whom lies the burden of proof in civil cases – Whether the burden is static and does not shift from the Claimant to the Defendant
CALABAR CEMENT CO. LTD.  V. ABIODUN DANIELEVIDENCE:- Proof – Wrongful dismissal or termination of employment – On whom onus lies – flow discharged.
CALABAR CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE  V. EKPOEVIDENCE:- Conflicts in affidavit – resolving conflict through calling of oral evidence – Whether conflict can be resolved on the basis of authentic documentary evidence which supports one of the affidavits in conflict.
CALISTUS NWANJOKU V. ALEXANDER MBONU & ORSEVIDENCE:- STANDARD OF PROOF:- Civil cases – Duty of court to assess and evaluate facts by holding the evidence called by both sides to the conflict on an imaginary balance weighing them together
CALVENPLY LIMITED  V. PEKAB INTERNATIONAL LIMITEDEVIDENCE:– Onus of proof – allegation of forgery – on whom the burden of proof lies.
CAMEROON  AIRLINES V. ABDUL KAREEMEVIDENCE:– Burden of proof in civil cases – on whom lies – Sections 135 and 136 of Evidence Act considered – Conditions stipulated by statutes before award of damages – Duty on party seeking award to show compliance with same
CAPPA AND D’ALBERTO LTD. V. DEJI AKINTILOEVIDENCE:– Admission – considerations governing whether issues in a matter are negotiated or admitted or whether an offer is made by a party.
CARDOSO V. DANIELEVIDENCE:- Presumptions – Due execution of instruments 20 or more years old where produced from proper custody – Applicability to certified true copies – Absence of rebutting EVIDENCE:- Due execution of original of registered conveyance rightly inferred from properly produced certified true copy coupled with proof of lands registry procedure on registration of compensation – Correctness of recitals etc. in deeds 20 or more years old.
EVIDENCE:- Admissibility – Documentary EVIDENCE:- Secondary evidence – Certified true copy – Section 96(1)(f) and 96(2)(c) of the Evidence Act¬ Admissibility of EVIDENCE:- Documents – Presumption of due execution of- Section 122 of the Evidence Act – Guiding principles.
CHARLES OWOLOGBO UGBOTOR V. FLORENCE MAMUROMU UGBOTOREVIDENCE – BURDEN OF PROOF:- Divorce on ground of Incompatibility and adultery – Quality of evidence required – Whether a petitioner must stand or fall by the strength of his own evidence – Need to present compelling evidence to show that the parties are incompatible and consequently reach a conclusion that the marriage has broken down irretrievably
CHEVRON NIGERIA LIMTED V. THEOPHILUS NWUCHE & ORSEVIDENCE:- JUDICIAL NOTICE: Whether the court has a duty to take judicial notice of all relevant laws before it
CHIEF AKIN OMOBORIOWO & ORS V. CHIEF MICHAEL ADEKUNLE AJASINEVIDENCE:- PRESUMPTION OF ELECTION RESULT: Presumption of correctness of the result of any election declared by the returning officer and how the rebuttal needs to be proved
CHIEF ALEX OLUSOLA OKE & ANOR V. DR. R. O. MIMIKO & ORSEVIDENCE:- hearsay evidence – Duty to prove acts of infraction of the Electoral Act – Required standard of proof for infractions that are criminal in nature
CHIEF AMADI DIKE-OGU & ORS. V. OWHONDA FRANK AMADI & ORS.EVIDENCE – BURDEN OF PROOF: Burden of proof in civil cases, and on whom the burden lies
CHIEF BRIGHT ONYEMEH & ANOR V. MRS. GRACE IWUEZE & ANOREVIDENCE – BURDEN OF PROOF: In civil cases – On whom lies burden of proof in civil cases – whether the general or ultimate burden would be on the plaintiff who would fail, if no evidence at all were led in the case by either side – See Section 131(1) & (2) and 132 of the Evidence Act, 2011 – When in the course of trial, various issues arise from the pleadings of the parties  –  Whether the burden of proof of those issues will depend upon or be fixed by the pleadings  – Onus to show that findings of the trial court are wrong – On whom lies – Hearsay evidence – Nature and effect
CHIEF D. B. AJIBULU V. MAJOR GENERAL D. O. AJAYIEVIDENCE:- Burden of proof entitling a plaintiff to judgment in civil cases – When not discharged – Effect
CHIEF ELIJAH OMONIYI AJAYI V. TOTAL NIGERIA PLCEVIDENCE:- Estoppel by conduct- Section 151 of the Evidence Act CAP 112 Laws of Federation 1990 – Effect of a piece of evidence not supported by pleadings – Whether Counsel’s submission can substituted requirement for credible evidence
CHIEF EMMANUEL OGUNBADEJO V. OTUNBA A.L.A OWOYEMIEVIDENCE:- Admissibility – Fact not relevant to party’s case – Whether admissible. EVIDENCE:- Admissibility – Report of panel of inquiry – Whether admissible in subsequent proceedings of a court – Section 8. Tribunals of Inquiry Act Cap. 447 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990 and section 10, Commission of Inquiry Low Cap. 24 Laws of Ogun State considered. EVIDENCE –Proof of libel –Action for libel -Burden of proof of actual defamatory words – When plaintiff may discharge same by secondary evidence.
CHIEF GAFARU AROWOLO V. CHIEF SUNDAY OLOWOOKERE & ORSEVIDENCE:- EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE: Whether it is the primary duty of the trial judge to assess the witnesses and ascribe probative value to them
CHIEF GIBSON PENCYL ORUNENGIMO V. MADAM MARGARET EGEBEEVIDENCE:- insufficiency of pleadings – Legal effect – Proper role of court thereto
CHIEF H.I.S. IDISI V. CAPTAIN SHULGIN OLEKSANDREVIDENCE:– Appellate Court – Fresh evidence – Conditions that must be fulfilled to justify reception of.
CHIEF HARRISON IYALA AND 2 ORS V. CHIEF AARON F.D. OFFO AND OTHERSEVIDENCE:- Evidence given by a witness against the interest of the party that called him – Treatment of. EVIDENCE:- Plaintiff in a claim for declaration of title – Onus on Plaintiff. EVIDENCE:- Onus of proof- Rule that Plaintiff must rely on the strength of his case and not on the weakness of the Defendant’s case.
CHIEF HENRY ASUQUO ETIM & ORS V. MR. N.E.O. ETTA & ORSEVIDENCE:- ESTOPPEL BY CONDUCT: Whether the conduct of a person to an action in which he has an interest can estop him from litigating on that same issue
CHIEF IBIBO OBU DOKUBO & ANOR. V. CHIEF J. OMONI & ORSEVIDENCE:- ESTOPPEL: Guiding principles for application of estoppel EVIDENCE:- ESTOPPEL: When estoppel arises  NWLR (Pt.246) 156 at 183.” PER KALGO, J.S.C (Pp. 31-32, paras. G-B)
CHIEF IMAM BUSARI IDOWU DAUDA & ANOR V. THE HON. ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF LAGOS STATE & ORS.EVIDENCE – DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA ESTOPPEL: What must be established by a party who sets up res judicata by way of estoppel as a bar to the other party’s claim
CHIEF JACOB CLEOPAS BIARIKO V. CHIEF A.M. EDEH AND ORSEVIDENCE -Estoppel – Plea of in land matters – Conditions for application – Where land in subsequent suit larger than land in previous proceedings upon which plea of estoppel founded – Whether plea of estoppel will succeed. EVIDENCE:- Estoppel of standing-by – Meaning and scope of – Whether includes giving evidence in support of one side or the other. EVIDENCE:- Proof – Title to land – How proved – Party claiming declaration of title to land – Where relies on more than one root of title – Whether must prove all.
CHIEF JAMES OLUSEYI OLONADE & ANOR V. H. BABATUNDE SOWEMIMOEVIDENCE:- COUNSEL’S SUBMISSION: Whether counsel’s submission is part of evidence and should be equated with resolution of issue by the court
CHIEF JIMOH ABOLARIN & ORS V. PRINCE ABIODUN OGUNDELE & ORSEVIDENCE:- BURDEN OF PROOF: Whether customary law is a question of fact to be proved by evidence
CHIEF JOEL E. BABATOLA V. MRS. MARGARET ADEWUMIEVIDENCE:- Burden of Proof – Grant of a declaratory relief as to title to land – Whether of proof is on party seeking same – Need to lead credible evidence showing that he is entitled to the declaration of title sought
CHIEF JOHAN IKALAMA & ORS. V. MR. VELVET EDWARD & OS.EVIDENCE:- ESTOPPEL PER REM JUDICATAM: Requirements needed to found a plea of estoppel per rem judicatam
CHIEF JOSEPH AKINBINU AKINNAWO V. CHIEF LISADOKO JOHN OROTUSINEVIDENCE:- Whether the Evidence Act allows for an averment in an affidavit to be couched in the terms of a prayer – When an application can be granted in such terms – Whether court ought not to rely on an averment to clarify the terms of a prayer on a motion
CHIEF L.K. AJIBARE & ANOR V. JAMES AKOMOLAFE & ANOREVIDENCE – BUDEN OF PROOF: On whom lies the burden of establishing a case as disclosed in the pleadings.
CHIEF MARTIN A. NNABUIFE V. ONWUKA NWIGWEEVIDENCE:– Claim for a declaration of title to land – Onus on plaintiff seeking a decree of declaration of title – Whether plaintiff can rely on the weakness of the defence or the strength of his case to succeed.
CHIEF MENE KENON V. CHIEF ALBERT TEKAMEVIDENCE:– Visit to locus in quo – Where no serious conflict or doubt exists in the evidence of the parties which a judicial inspection of land would clear – Whether visit to locus in quo is necessary.
CHIEF OSIGWE EGBO V. CHIEF TITUS AGBARA & ORSEVIDENCE – WITNESSES: Importance of taking evidence of witnesses timously
CHIEF R.A. ADEAGBO V. PRINCE  M. A. WILLIAMS(CA)EVIDENCE:- Principles guiding proof of title of land
CHIEF SUNDAY N.A. UZOR (Suing by his Attorney, Mr. Solomon Iwebuzor) V. DELTA FREEZE NIGERIA LTD & ORSEVIDENCE:- ADMISSIBILITY OF DOCUMENTS:- On proof of documents – Whether trial Judge can expunge admitted documents in his judgment – Admissibility of primary evidence – Whether a pleaded primary document can be rejected – Whether wrongful exclusion of evidence is a good ground for the reversal of any decision
CHIEF TITUS ANAMASONYE ONWUGBELU V. MR. EJIOFOR EZEBUO & ORSEVIDENCE:- Pleadings – Whether constitute EVIDENCE:- Effects of unpleaded facts – EVIDENCE:- Burden of proof in civil proceedings – How discharged – Section 133(1) of the Evidence Act 2011 EVIDENCE:- ADMISSIBILITY OF HEARSAY EVIDENCE:- Whether hearsay evidence is admissible to prove the truth of its content  – Sections 37 and 38 of the 2011 Evidence Act – Whether the Evidence Act provides for the situations where such statement can be admitted
CHIKA NWOMEH V. STATEEVIDENCE:- Standard of proof in criminal cases- prosecution’s burden of proving guilt – Whether in proving the guilt of an accused person the prosecution must lead evidence to disprove any defence set up by an accused . EVIDENCE:- CONTRADICTIONS IN EVIDENCE: inconsistencies, contradictions and discrepancies – human faculty may miss some minor details mostly due to lapse of time and even error in narration in order of sequence, as to events, time or locations – whether a contradiction which does not touch a material point or substance of the case can vitiate a conviction based thereon once the evidence is clear and it is believed or preferred by the trial court
CHRISTOPHER N. TANKO V. GARDUGA N. NONGHAEVIDENCE:- EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE: Whether the trial court has the primary duty to evaluate all the evidence before coming to a conclusion
CHRISTOPHER OGBEMUDIA & ORS. V. EKHATOR OTABOR & ORS.EVIDENCE:- Primary duty of trial court to determine questions of fact – Presumption of the correctness of the findings of fact of courts
CHRISTOPHER U. NWANJI V. COASTAL SERVICES (NIG.) LTDEVIDENCE:- Photocopy of document pleaded by both parties – Whether admissible. EVIDENCE:- Testimony and evidence on maters not. pleaded – How treated.
CHUKWUDI OYEM V. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIAEVIDENCE:- Meaning of proof beyond reasonable doubt – ways prosecution can prove its case against an accused person beyond reasonable doubt
CHUNGWOM KIM V. THE STATEEVIDENCE:- Confessional statements of an accused person in conflict with his oral testimony in court – How treated – The cases of R. V. Itule (infra) and Asanya V. State (infra) discussed and explained – Confessional statements – Conviction solely thereon even if retracted at the trial propriety of- Weight attached thereto.
CLEMENT OBRI V. THE STATEEVIDENCE:- Witness testimony: Attitude of the Court to contradictions in witness statement EVIDENCE:- Witness testimony: Attitude of court to previous statement of a witness EVIDENCE:- Unsworn Evidence of a child: Proper attitude of court to Unsworn Evidence of a child
CLEMENT ODUNUKURE V. DENNIS OFOMATA & ANOREVIDENCE:- BURDEN OF PROOF- whether a plaintiff can succeed on the weakness of the defence- duty of the trial court to weigh parties’ evidence on the imaginary scale
CLIFFORD O. IMOH V. ABIODUN ONANUGA & ANOREVIDENCE:- BURDEN OF PROOF:-  Land law cases – Onus on plaintiff who claims declaration of title to land  -Need to satisfy the court that he is entitled on the evidence adduced by him to the declaration sought – Exceptions – if a party predicates his title on sale or grant by a particular person, family or community – What he must prove EVIDENCE:- FAILURE TO LEAD EVIDENCE: Whether fatal to claimant’s case
EVIDENCE:- EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE: Whether primarily the function of trial Court – Where the trial Court fails to evaluate such evidence properly or at all – Whether appellate Court can intervene and itself re-evaluate the evidence particularly where the bulk of the evidence is documentary
CONOIL PLC. V. VITOL S. A.EVIDENCE:- UNCHALLENGED EVIDENCE: The effect of facts being unchallenged in an affidavit
DADA V. DOSUNMUEvidence:- Onus of proof – whether primarily on the party who alleges a fact
DALEK NIGERIA LIMITED V. OMPADECEVIDENCE:- Document – Interpretation of – Clear words in a document – How construed. EVIDENCE:- Documentary EVIDENCE:- Admissibility of and weight to attach to a document – Distinction between – Relevance of distinction.
DALEX DADO V. MAI – ANGWA NUMSHUWANEVIDENCE:- Estoppel ‑ Claim based on failure of defendant to perform a duty ordinarily belonging to him ‑ Allegation of performance of duty by plaintiff ‑ Onus of proof EVIDENCE:- Estoppel ‑ Condition precedent to application of: EVIDENCE:- Proof‑ Burden and standard of proof in civil cases. EVIDENCE:- Withholding of EVIDENCE:- S .148(d) Evidence Act ‑ Claim based on nomination to a post by a third party ‑ Failure to call third parry in proof of nomination — Effect thereof
DAMIAN ANYANWU V. BRENDAN IWUCHUKWUEVIDENCE:– Pleadings – evidence led on fact not pleaded – how treated
DANIEL ENYIM V. BANK OF BRITISH WEST AFRICA LTDEVIDENCE:- Whether renewal of room lease will be made – Matter of evidence- Court not to take judicial notice
DANIEL ESIKA AND ORS V. GODWIN MEDOLU EVIDENCE: Contradiction in evidence of plaintiff’s witnesses in proof of an issue: Effect thereof
DANIEL HOLDINGS LTD V. UNITED BANK FOR AFRICA PLCEVIDENCE:- Judicial Notice: Whether judicial notice can be taken of bank notes as provided by the Evidence Act?
DANIEL V. IROERIEVIDENCE:- Admissibility – Testimony of witness in previous proceedings – Wrongly relied on in different proceedings between different parties about different land.
DARE KADA V. THE STATEEVIDENCE:– Expert evidence – Need to go to court with notes to refresh memory – Standard of proof in criminal cases – Reason for
DAVID EGHAREVBA V. COMMISSIONER OF POLICEEVIDENCE:- BURDEN OF PROOF:- Criminal proceedings – burden is on the prosecution to disprove alibi EVIDENCE:- CONTRADICTION AND PATENT DISPARITY IN EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION:- Contradictions and patent disparity in the evidence of the prosecution – Whether should create doubt in the mind of the learned trial judge which must be resolved in favour of the accused
DAVID KUMBUL V. DAVID UMEHEVIDENCE:- On whom lies the burden of proof – Shifting burden of proof in civil cases – Effect EVIDENCE:– Traverse of averments – Meaning and general effect of traverse – Proper traverse as a complete and sufficient denial – Traverse merely pleading that defendant is not in a position to admit or deny a particular allegation and/or that he will at the trial put the plaintiff to the strictest proof thereof – Whether insufficient – How determined
DEACON OYEWO OYELOWO V. THE MILITARY GOVERNOR OF OYO STATEEVIDENCE – Admissibility – document not specifically pleaded – whether admissible to rebut assertions in a statement of claim.
DENNIS AKOMA & ANOR V. OBI OSENWOKWU & ORSEVIDENCE:- RES JUDICATA: When can a plaintiff validly raise a plea of res judicata
DERBY & CO. LTD. AND OTHERS -V- WELDON AND OTHERS (NO. 9)EVIDENCE:- Computer based data of a organization – Access to portions of it pursuant to a court order – How treated
DIAMOND BANK LTD. V. PARTNERSHIP INVESTMENT CO. LTD & ANOREVIDENCE:- TENDERING OF EVIDENCE: Whether it is in all cases that evidence has to be adduced in respect of interest claimed before interest is awarded?
DIBIE V. THE STATEEVIDENCE:- CONTRADICTIONS:- Contradictions in the case of the prosecution – When deemed no more than mere discrepancies – Need for material contradiction to go to a material point – Relevant considerations EVIDENCE – DUTY OF PROSECUTION: Need for prosecution to prove case beyond reasonable doubt using credible evidence EVIDENCE – CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS: Extra-judicial confessional statements – When retracted by accused person – Duty of court to subject same to trial within trial in order to determine if they were made voluntarily – Admissibility of such confession when affirmed as voluntary by trial court – Whether there is of course no evidence stronger than a person’s own admission or confession
DICKSON ARISA V. THE STATEEVIDENCE:- Burden of proof in Criminal Cases – Insanity – Defence of – Accused’s Onus – Section 140(3) (c) Evidence Act, Cap. 62 – Opinion EVIDENCE:- Section 64, Evidence Act – Necessity of grounds for opinion to relevance.
DICKSON MOSES V. THE STATEEVIDENCE: Tainted witness – Meaning thereof – Whether a person not being an accomplice to a crime is deemed tainted witnesses simply because he is a victim of the crime  and may like to see accused person convicted – How to raise and sustain an objection to evidence on ground that it is tainted – Relevant considerations
DIN V. AFRICAN NEWSPAPERS OF NIGERIA LTDEVIDENCE:- Admission – Admitted fact – Whether unnecessary to give further proof of – S.74 Evidence Act considered EVIDENCE:- Evidence of character Proof of previous conviction – When evidence thereof relevant – S.224(1) Evidence Act EVIDENCE:- Secondary evidence of an original document – When admissible S. 97(b) Evidence Act considered
DODO DABO V. ALHAJI IKIRA ABDULLAHIEVIDENCE:- Title to land – Proof of by instrument of grant – Party claiming – What lie must establish – Principles guiding. EVIDENCE:- Claim for Title to land – Need for documents of title produced to be admissible in evidence
DOHERTY V. OGBARAEVIDENCE:- Admissibility – Admission of inadmissible evidence – Duty of court therewith – Evidence Act, S.226(1)  – Effect EVIDENCE:- Admissibility of secondary evidence – Conditions
DR. AKPO MUDIAGA-ODJE V. YOUNES POWER SYSTEM NIGERIA LTD.EVIDENCE:- JUDICIAL OF NOTICE:- Banking – Whether court is duty bound to take judicial notice of the current globalization of the Banking System, where payment can be made into an account number of the same Bank and automatically received or withdrawn in another jurisdiction – Implication for judicial proceedings relating to inter-jurisdictional payments EVIDENCE:- ADMITTED FACT:- Fact admitted or deemed admitted – Whether requires no further proof
DR. KWAZEME OFONDU V. S.E. NIWEIGHAEVIDENCE:- Proof – Evidence led at variance with facts pleaded – Now treated. EVIDENCE:- Proof -Failure of defendant to join issues with plaintiff – Onus of proof on plaintiff – How discharged.
DR. S. O. MEZU V. CO-OPERATIVE & COMMERCE BANK NIG. PLC & ANOREVIDENCE:- ESTOPPEL- whether needs to be pleaded in any particular manner
DR.TORTI UFERE TORTI V. CHIEF CHRIS UKPABI & ORS.EVIDENCE:- ADMISSIBILITY OF DOCUMENTS: Whether the issue of proper custody is relevant to the issue of admissibility EVIDENCE:- BURDEN OF PROOF: Standard of proof required to solve the issue of election petition
DUMEZ NIGERIA LIMITED V. PETER NWAKHOBA & ORSEVIDENCE:- BURDEN OF PROOF: Burden of proof on plaintiff for declaratory reliefs
EDET OFFIONG EKPE V. THE STATEEVIDENCE:- Confessional statement – How treated – When retracted – Whether retraction of any effect. EVIDENCE:- Confessional statement – Where inconsistent with testimony of accused in court – How treated – Present state of the law. EVIDENCE:- Proof of crime – Accused asserting that prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt – What he must show to succeed – Duty on court considering such complaint.
EFFANGA EFFIOM HENSHAW V. EFFANGA ESSIEN EFFANGA & ANOREVIDENCE:- ADMITTED FACT: An admission by a party against his interest  – Whether best evidence in favour of his adversary in a suit – Where facts in issue are admitted – Whether require no further proof Section 75 of the Evidence Act – Facts which parties to proceedings or their agents agree to admit at the hearing or before the hearing by writing under their hands, or which by any rule of pleading in force at the time they are deemed to have admitted by their pleadings – Whether requires no further proof
EJEKA V. THE STATEEVIDENCE:– When material contradiction is deemed to exist between extra-judicial statements and testimony made in court – Effect – How proved – Whether it is not every contradiction that will result in upsetting trial court’s judgment
EKAETE BASSEY OKPOSIN & ORS. V. FLORENCE ASSAM (MRS.) & ORSEVIDENCE:- Estoppel: Condition precedent to successful plea of res judicata  
EKPEZU V. NDEMEVIDENCE:- Admissibility – Evidence in previous proceedings – Whether admissible in later proceedings. EVIDENCE:- Estoppel – Estoppel per rem judicatam – Conditions precedent to valid plea of.
EKWEZE V. ENWELUMEVIDENCE:- Admissibility – Relevant yardstick – Irrelevant evidence inadmissible. EVIDENCE:- Cross-examining witnesses of parties whose interests are not in conflict – Propriety of. EVIDENCE -INTERPRETATION OF DOCUMENTS: Need to read documents together – Documentary EVIDENCE:- Admissibility of memoranda of acts and oral transactions relating to land.
ELABANJO V. ALHAJA A. O TIJANIEVIDENCE:- Evidence of counsel acting as both counsel and witness – Whether competent witness – Admissibility of such EVIDENCE:- Whether wrong to expunge his evidence from the record on ground that counsel may have broken any rule of professional conduct
ELAKHAME V. OSEMOBOREVIDENCE -Address of counsel – Whether a substitute for evidence EVIDENCE:- Proof – Burden of in proof in civil cases – On whom lies.
ELDER ESEME AKPAN V. EKANABASI ASIBONG UBONGEVIDENCE:- CONFLICTING AFFIDAVITS:- Rule that a court of law has no competence to suo motu reconcile conflicting affidavits without calling for oral EVIDENCE:- Whether it is not every conflict in affidavit evidence that the trial court must call oral evidence to resolve – Recognised legal exceptions EVIDENCE:- Where there is satisfactory documentary evidence upon which the court can rely to resolve the conflict – Duty of court thereto
ELEBUTE V. ODEKILEKUNEVIDENCE: Right of Counsel for plaintiff to address – Whether denied when nothing on record show counsel for defendant ever stated he was calling no evidence.
ELEGBE V. BABALOLAEVIDENCE:- Documents – Whether admissible in  evidence – Whether instruments under Land – Instruments Law Western Nigeria, ss.2,16.
ELEIHE V. QUEENEVIDENCE:- Accomplices – Medicine man who gave evidence that he made juju medicine designed to kill deceased – Deceased shown by medical evidence to have been killed via strangulation – Whether herbalist is an accomplice – How treated
ELEPO V. OGANLAEVIDENCE: Record of previous proceedings – How not to be used by the Trial Court.
ELF NIGERIA LIMITED V. OPERE SILLO AND ANOTHEREVIDENCE:- Admissibility – Expert EVIDENCE:- When to admit – When to reject – Guiding principles. EVIDENCE:- Expert EVIDENCE:- Admissibility of- Principles applicable.
ELIAS NNADI AND 16 OTHERS V. THE QUEENEVIDENCE:- Accomplice EVIDENCE:- Corroboration of – Whether accom­plices can corroborate one another.
ELIAS V. OMOBAREEVIDENCE:- Standard of Proof – Declaration of Title to Land – Need for same to be decided based on a preponderance of evidence – Burden of proof – Whether rests squarely on the plaintiff – Need for the plaintiff to rely on the strength of his own case – Effect of failure to discharge the onus of proof on plaintiff
ELUFISOYE V. ALABETUTUEVIDENCE:- Nature of evidence required to discharge onus depends on particular issues raised by a particular case – Non-suit – When to order in lieu of dismissal of claim – When the High Court Civil Procedure Rules Order 28 r.3 applies in cases on appeal from Customary Courts.
ELUJI KINGSLEY EZE V. THE STATEEVIDENCE:- CALLINNG OF WITNESSES: Whether the law imposes obligation on the prosecution to call a host of witnesses to prove its case – Discretion of the prosecution to call enough material witnesses to prove its case – Duty of accused person to call witness whose evidence is very essential to the defence of the accused and not to expect the prosecution to call the witness since the prosecution is not expected to perform the function of the prosecution and the function of the defence EVIDENCE:- CAUSE OF DEATH:- Duty of prosecution to prove the cause of death by direct or circumstantial evidence in order to obtain a conviction – Need for prosecution to establish not only that the act of the accused person could have caused the death of the deceased but that in actual fact the deceased died as a result of the act of the accused person to the exclusion of all other possibilities
EMIRI V. IMIEYEHEVIDENCE:- Proof of title – Identity of land in dispute – Duty on plaintiff to establish. EVIDENCE:- Proof of title – Identity of land in dispute – Proof of – Test of:
EMMANUEL ATUNGWU & ANOR V. ADA OCHEKWUEVIDENCE:- DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE:- How resolved – Whether it is not only by calling oral evidence that such a conflict should be resolved – Where there may be authentic documentary evidence which supports one of the affidavits in conflict with another – Whether that document is capable of tilting the balance in favour of the affidavit which agrees with it
By Substantive AreasBy Litigation/Procedure Areas



error: Our Content is protected!! Contact us to get the resources...

Subscribe To Our Newsletter