[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]

EMMANUEL BEN V. THE STATEEVIDENCE:- Proof – Murder- Cause of death – Medical evidence:- When can be dispensed with EVIDENCE:- Witnesses – Tainted witness – Blood relationship of witness with deceased – Whether makes witness a “tainted witness” – Relevant consideration.
EMMANUEL EGWUMI V. THE STATECRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – EVIDENCE:- TAINTED WITNESS:- Criminal trials – Where there is blood relationship between the victim or the injured person and the witness for the prosecution – Whether court bounds to conclude that the witness is a tainted witness whose evidence is unreliable unless corroborated – Relevant considerations  
EMMANUEL NWAEBONYI V. THE STATEEVIDENCE:- VOLUNTARY CONFESSION: Whether voluntary confession is sufficient for proof of guilt and enough to sustain a conviction
EMMANUEL OCHIBA V. THE STATEEVIDENCE:- VITAL EVIDENCE: Meaning thereof – Whether such evidence that goes to the root of the ingredients or elements of an offence of which an accused person is charged
EMMANUEL OFULUE V. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF NIGERIAEVIDENCE:- Bail application – Burden of proving entitlement to bail – On whom lies.
EMMANUEL UGWUMBA V. THE STATEEVIDENCE:- Proof of crime – Identity of accused – Identification parade – When unnecessary. EVIDENCE:- Proof of crime – Prosecution’s case – Number of witness required Whether every material witness need be called.
EMMANUEL V. UMANA & ORSEVIDENCE:- DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE: Whether documentary evidence must be linked to a specific aspect of a party’s case EVIDENCE:- EXPERT OPINION: Admissibility of expert opinion – Requirements of the law thereto EVIDENCE:- CERTIFICATION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENT: Essence of  – Statutory provisions as regard certification of public documents EVIDENCE:- CROSS-EXAMINATION: Court – Whether can place probative value on evidence which does not pass the test of cross examination
ENDURANCE MATTHEW V. THE STATEEVIDENCE:- INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE:- Rule that inadmissible evidence even if not objected to in cross-examination must be rejected by the court – Duty of appellate court where trial fails to do so – Exception – Where the evidence can be interpreted as complying with appropriate statutory requirement – Duty of court to take that into consideration when interpreting the evidence that it went unchallenged – Where the evidence, depending on circumstance is capable of being either admissible or inadmissible – Onus on party alleging inadmissibility to prove same via cross-examination
ENEMUO V. DIMEVIDENCE:- INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE:- Rule that inadmissible evidence even if not objected to in cross-examination must be rejected by the court – Duty of appellate court where trial fails to do so – Exception – Where the evidence can be interpreted as complying with appropriate statutory requirement – Duty of court to take that into consideration when interpreting the evidence that it went unchallenged – Where the evidence, depending on circumstance is capable of being either admissible or inadmissible – Onus on party alleging inadmissibility to prove same via cross-examination
ENEWOH V. STATEEVIDENCE:- Murder – Identification of corpse done by a person who died before the trial – Whether facts sufficiently showing cause of death will suffice -Medical EVIDENCE:- When dispensed with – Proof of crime – Duty on prosecution
ENIGBOKAN V. AKINOSHOEVIDENCE:- Presumption of existence of state of things – Section 148(6), Evidence Ordinance – Application of
ENIGWE V. AKAIGWEEVIDENCE:- Visit to locus in quo -General guiding principles when resorted to.
ENITAN V. THE STATEEVIDENCE:- Conflict between unsworn statement and evidence on oath – Effect thereof. EVIDENCE:- Statements made to the Police – Effect against co-accused.
ENYIMU V. THE QUEENEVIDENCE:- Charge of murder – Evidence of an accomplice – Corrobora­tion of – Requirement of.
ERINMWIONGHAE V. CHUKWUDEBELUEVIDENCE:- Unchallenged EVIDENCE:- Whether raises presumption of truth – How treated
EROKORO V. GOVERNMENT OF CROSS RIVER STATEEVIDENCE:- Proof – Juristic personality – Burden of proof of – On whom lies.
EROMA V. QUEENEVIDENCE – Prosecution – Initial statement of witness contradicting evidence on oath – Whether ground to treat witness as hostile Duty of court in treatment thereof.
ERONINI V. IHEUKOEVIDENCE:- Estoppel per rem judicatam – Bar on subsequent Proceedings – Judicious consideration.
ETIM OKOKON ITA V. NKOYO EKPENYONGEVIDENCE:– Burden of proof in an action for declaration of title – On whom lies – circumstances when such burden may shift to the defendant. EVIDENCE:– Burden of proof – Party admitting that another party owns land in dispute – Burden to establish any contrary title with respect thereto.
ETIM V. EKPEEVIDENCE:- Documents – Admissibility By Consent – Implications.
EUBA V. ANIMASHAWUNEVIDENCE:- Admission – Raising of fresh issue after – Duty of trial court. EVIDENCE:- Admission – Unqualified – Effect of.
EUGENE ANYAEGBU V. YAHAYA HUSSAINIEVIDENCE:– Evaluation of evidence – conflicting versions of evidence – duty on court to evaluate – how discharged. EVIDENCE:– Onus of proof – on whom it lies – when it will shift. EVIDENCE:– Conflicting evidence – attitude of trial court thereof.
EVANGELIST JACOB ONAKOVWE KPEKU & ORS. V. CHIEF DOUFA SIBEKENEKUMU & ORSEVIDENCE:- ADMISSIBILITY: Admissibility of area maps by virtue of the provisions of S.151(1) of the Evidence Act 2011
EWA V. ABUNAEVIDENCE:- Admission – Based on mistaken view of one’s right- Whether it precludes subsequent claim of such right. EVIDENCE:- Admission – Useful against only the maker thereof.
EWO V. ANIEVIDENCE:- Proof – Burden of proof – Party alleging or asserting fact – Burden thereon to establish same – Where party makes a negative assertion – Whether any burden rests on him. EVIDENCE:- Proof – Burden of proof – Where wrongly placed by the court – Effect. EVIDENCE:- Proof – Burden of proof in civil cases – On whom lies – How discharged. EVIDENCE:- Proof-Evidence led on fact not pleaded – How treated. EVIDENCE:- Proof-Title to land – Burden of proving that original owner of property has been divested of ownership – On whom rests.
EWULU V. NWANKPUEVIDENCE:- Evaluation of evidence -Application of the rule in Mogaji V. Odofin (1978) 4 S.C. 91. EVIDENCE:- Proof – Onus of proof – Plaintiff in an action for declaration of title to land admitting that defendant is in possession – Onus on plaintiff. EVIDENCE:- Proof – Visit to locus in quo – Section 76(d)(ii) of the Evidence Act – Principles applicable.
EYIFOMI V. ISMAILEVIDENCE:- Section 131(1) Evidence Act – Applicability of. EVIDENCE:- Document – Admissibility of – Section 131-(1) Evidence Act. EVIDENCE:- Document – Admissibility of. EVIDENCE:- Document tendered in previous proceedings – Admissibility of in another proceeding.
EYO OKON EYO V. CHIEF SAMUEL OKON INYANGEVIDENCE:- Affidavit evidence – resolution of conflict – oral and documentary evidence – how treated. EVIDENCE:- Affidavit evidence – resolution of conflict – when the court is required to call oral evidence.
EZE V. THE QUEENEVIDENCE:- Witnesses- Evidence of accomplice – Need for corroboration.
EZEANYA V. OKEKEEVIDENCE:- Estoppel per rem judicatam – Application of – Nature of – Whether a question of law. EVIDENCE:- Section 34(1) of the Evidence Act – Purport and import of EVIDENCE:- Proof – Evidence in previous proceedings – Use to which it can be put in subsequent action – Section 34(1) Evidence Act – Purport of
EZECHI V. QUEENEVIDENCE:- Admissibility – Accomplice and victim distinguished. EVIDENCE:- Of accomplice – Uncorroborated – Section 177(1) Evidence Act – Trial Judge not warning himself – Effect.
EZEIGWE V. AWAWA AWUDUEVIDENCE:– Fraud – Whether required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt in civil proceedings
EZEKIEL ADEDAYO V. ALHAJI YAKUBU BABALOLA AND ORSEVIDENCE:- Admission – Fact admitted – Treatment of: EVIDENCE:- Estoppel – Issue estoppel – Plea of – Operation of – Guiding principles. EVIDENCE:- Estoppel – Issue estoppel – When it arises – Conditions precedent to operation of – Implication of decided issues in earlier suit on a later one. EVIDENCE:- Estoppel – Res judicata – Issue estoppel – Relationship between – Operations of the two. EVIDENCE:- Estoppel per rem judicatam – Condition of sameness of parties – Scope of the term “sameness of parties” – Whether includes privies. EVIDENCE:- Estoppel per rem judicatam – Privies – Classification of – Who qualifies as a privy.
EZEKIEL APATA V. JAMES OLANLOKUN & ANORzEVIDENCE:- ESTOPPELS PER REM JUDICATEM:- Definition – How a plea of estoppel per rem judicatem is established – Essentials – Identity of the parties (or privies) – Identity of the res, namely the subject-matter of the litigation – Identity of the claim and the issue in both the previous and the present action in which the plea is raised – Whether burden is on the party who sets out the defence to establish the same
EZEMBA V. IBENEMEEVIDENCE:- Whether oral evidence can be excluded where a transaction is reduced into writing.- Section 132(1) of the Evidence Act 1990 EVIDENCE:- “Burden of proof” in civil cases – meaning of phrase – Section 149(d) of the Evidence Act – applicability of
EZEONWU V. ONYECHIEVIDENCE:- Admission – Effect of – Party who admitted the existence of a fact – Whether can subsequently deny same. EVIDENCE:- Proof – Allegation of crime – Standard of proof required – How discharged.. EVIDENCE:- Proof – Fact alleged by a party – Burden of proof of – How burden discharged -Section 137 Evidence Act. EVIDENCE:- Proof – Signatures – Mere fact of dissimilarity of – Whether conclusive proof of fact of not being made by same person.
EZEWANI & ORS V. ONWORDI & ORSEVIDENCE:- Estoppel- Res Judicata and Issue Estoppel- Distinction.
EZEWUIHE IKOKU & ORS V. REUBEN EKEUKWU & ORSEVIDENCE:- ESTOPPEL PER REM JUDICATAM:- What needs to be established for a plea of estoppel per rem judicatam to succeed and on whom lies the burden thereof EVIDENCE:- DEFENCE OF ESTOPEEL PER REM JUDICATAM: Nature of defence of estoppel per rem judicatam and on whom does the onus lie EVIDENCE:- DEFENCE OF ESTOPPEL PER REM JUDICATAM: Two considerations that a defence of estoppel per rem judicatam is based on
EZUKWU V. UKACHUKWUEVIDENCE:- Evaluation of evidence by trial court – Attitude of appellate court thereto. EVIDENCE:- Proof-Averments in pleadings-Whether party bound to prove all. EVIDENCE:- Proof- Standard required in civil matters.
EZULUMERI OHIAERI V.  ADINNU AKABEZEEVIDENCE:- Declaration of title -Evidence adduced in proof of title – to be credible -Plaintiff not to rely on weakness of defendant’s case – Pleadings – Facts not pleaded – Not admissible EVIDENCE:- Unchallenged EVIDENCE:- To be accepted.
EZUMA V. UGWAEVIDENCE:- Res judicata – Previous judgment of competent court –Whether applicable as.
F.B.N. PLC V. NAGARFIEVIDENCE:- Proof – Evidence at variance with facts pleaded – How pleaded.
F.S.B. INTERNATIONAL BANK LTD. V. IMANO NIGERIA LTD. & ANOR.EVIDENCE:– Affidavit evidence – Conflicts in affidavit of both parties to a suit – Principles governing resolution of.
FAKOYA V. ST. PAUL’S CHURCH, SHAGAMUEVIDENCE:- Unregistered agreement pleaded in support of claim for specific performance – When admissible.
FALLON v. CALVERTEVIDENCE:- Witness – Recall – Official Referee – Report by Official Referee ordered by judge – Evidence given at trial by defendant – Jurisdiction of Official Referee to recall defendant – R.S.C., Ord. 36A, rr. 2, 7, 9.
FALOBI V. FALOBIEVIDENCE:– Affidavit evidence – Conflicting affidavits before a court – How resolved.
FAROUNBI KAREEM V. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIAEVIDENCE:– Confessional statement – retraction of same by accused – Effect of – Whether accused person would be allowed to retract same under re-examination. EVIDENCE:– Proof of crime – duty on prosecution to call only material witnesses – Whether evidence of one witness is sufficient to ground conviction.
FASEL SERVICES LTD. V. NIGERIAN PORTS AUTHORITYEVIDENCE – Proof – Onus on party alleging illegality or unauthorisation of contract to establish same.
FASHANU V. ADEKOYAEVIDENCE:- Credibility of witnesses – Appraisal of evidence Pre eminently duty of trial court When Court of Appeal would intervene.
FASORO AND ANOTHER. V. BEYIOKU AND OTHERS IIEVIDENCE:- Presumption of title – Section 145 Evidence act – When availing – What plaintiff must prove to be entitled to the benefit of the presumption – Nature of presumption – Scope and authority of the decision in Ekpo V. 1ta.
FATOYINBO V. A.G.EVIDENCE:- Circumstantial evidence – Value and meaning of – Sufficiency of to ground conviction.
FATUNBI V. OLANLOYEEVIDENCE:- Admissibility -Documentary evidence – Where maker disagrees with contents of document – Objection thereto – When appropriate – Whether can be challenged on appeal. EVIDENCE:- Presumptions – Illiterates Protection Law, section 3 – Presumption raised thereby – How treated
FEDERAL POLYTECHNIC BAUCHI & ANOR V. ABDULFATTAH ABOABA & ANOREVIDENCE:- EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE:- Rule that evaluation of evidence and ascription of probative value thereto is the primary function and duty of a trial Court – Duty of appellate court thereto
FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA V. MAGAJI IBRAHIM & ANOREVIDENCE – EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE:- Evaluation of evidence in criminal cases – Whether slightly different from that in civil cases because civil cases are determined on preponderance of evidence while criminal cases are based on proof beyond reasonable doubt EVIDENCE – EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE:-As reviewing and assessing evidence with a view to giving it probative value – Criminal trials – Need to first consider whether the prosecution had proved its case and thereafter a consideration of the defence
FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA V. VIJAY LALWANIEVIDENCE:- Evidence Act – Section 134 and 135 (1) (2) and of the Evidence Act, 2011 – Whether made provisions for trials (that is, criminal and civil) side by side, when it provided the standard of proof for each
FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY, MINNA & ORS V. DR. (MRS) ADAEZE G.N.C. OKOLIEVIDENCE:- BURDEN OF PROOF:  Public Officer – Allegation of bad faith – What complaint must prove – Implications of ‘Abuse of office and bad faith’  as factors that deprive a party who would otherwise have been entitled to the protection of section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Law of such protection – Relevant considerations
FELICIA AKINBISADE V. STATEEVIDENCE:- DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE: For the purposes of obtaining a balanced picture in documentary evidence – Need for the entire documents to be interpreted as a whole and not in parts or pockets convenient to a party – Need for a party not to pick and choose extract from a document that is convenient to his case – Justification EVIDENCE:- EXPERT OPINION: Handwriting expert – When failure to  is prejudicial to the case of the prosecution – Where there is a very strong connecting link between the accused and the document to the extent that the circumstances zero on the commission of the offence by the accused – Whether the court is entitled to draw the inference circumstantially that the accused was the author of the document and therefore the author of the crime- Relevant considerations
FELIX ANYAKORA & ORS. V. NWAFOR OBIAKOR & ORS.EVIDENCE:- EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE: Whether it is the primary duty of the trial court to evaluate evidence and make findings of facts
FELIX CHINDA V. AMADIEVIDENCE:- Evidence which is at variance with the pleadings – effect of.
FERODO LIMITED V. IBETO INDUSTRIES LIMITEDEVIDENCE:- Burden of proving infringement of Trademark – Where it lies.
FESTUS S. YESUFU V. AFRICAN CONTINENTAL BANK LTDEVIDENCE:- Banker’s statement of customer’s current account – Sufficiency as proof of banker’s liability EVIDENCE:- Matters within the special knowledge of a party – Burden of proof of such matters – Effect of non-discharge of that burden
FIRST BANK OF NIGERIA PLC V. MAY MEDICAL CLINICS AND DIAGNOSTIC CENTRE LIMITEDEVIDENCE:- Affidavit Evidence:- Conflicting affidavit evidence:- How resolved.
FIRST BANK OF NIGERIA PLC V. MRS DIBO ABOKOEVIDENCE:- Proof of damages – Whether necessary in libel case – Award of damages in libel cases – Assessment – Relevant factors court must consider EVIDENCE – ACTION:- Libel – Cause of action- Essential elements – Words complained of – Where not published – Effect of. EVIDENCE – ACTION:- Parties to an action – Wrong done to or by an accredited employee of a company – Action therefor – Person
FIRST BANK OF NIGERIA PLC V. TSOKWA OIL MARKETING CO. NIG. LTDEVIDENCE:- Unchallenged affidavit evidence – Treatment of
FIRST BANK OF NIGERIA PLC. V. A. MAMMAN (NIGERIA) LTD.of Appea1EVIDENCE:– Relevancy of entries in books of account under the Evidence Act.
FIRST NATIONAL SECURITIES LTD. V. JONES AND ANOTHEREVIDENCE:- Deed – Execution – Seal – Mortgage – Printed form described as legal charge – Document in form of deed with circle inscribed “L.S.” – Signature across circle – Document attested but no seal affixed or wafer – Whether due execution.
FOLORUNSO OLUSANYA V. ADEBANJO OSILEYEEVIDENCE:– Burden of proof – onus on a party claiming declaration of right to succeed on the strength of his own case and notion on the weakness of the respondents case. EVIDENCE:– Weakness of defendant’s case – when the plaintiff can use to support his case.
FOLUSO OLADELE V. THE STATEEVIDENCE:- Evidence of insanity – Evidence prone to conflicting interpretations – Which interpretation is to be preferred. EVIDENCE:- Evidence of insanity- How established -Aiworo V. State (1987) 2 NWLR (Pt.58) 526 distinguished. EVIDENCE:- Evidence of physician – Nature of. EVIDENCE:- Evidence of physician who treated accused – Admissibility of – Whether amounts to hearsay evidence.
FORSON V. CALABAR MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENTEVIDENCE:– Content of exhibit – how same can be denied or controverted. EVIDENCE – Public document – how to prove same – provision of section 113(a) of the Evidence Act considered.
FRANCIS IDIKA KALU V. THE STATEEVIDENCE:- Circumstantial evidence – When sufficient to ground conviction.
FRIDAY KAMALU & ORS V. DANIEL NWAKUDU UKA UMUNNA & ORSEVIDENCE:- ADMISSION: Nature of admission EVIDENCE:- ADMISSION: Effect of admission EVIDENCE:- ADMISSION: Effect of admission by a party
GABRIEL ERIM V. THE STATEEVIDENCE:- Proof – Proof of conspiracy – How supplied – Whether can he inferred.
GABRIEL IWUOHA V. NIGERIAN POSTAL SERVICES LTD.EVIDENCE:– Evidence not pleaded or at variance with pleadings – rule governing same.
GABRIEL V. THE STATEEVIDENCE:- Contradictory EVIDENCE:- Effect – Circumstantial EVIDENCE:- required standard – Expert opinion given in court – Medical report – whether necessary.
GAFARI YISAU V. THE STATE (2)EVIDENCE:- Section 138 Evidence Act – on whom lies burden of proof in criminal cases
GANIYU OSUOLAIDE V. THE STATEEVIDENCE:- Witnesses ‑ Recalling of Witnesses ‑ Where charge is amended and accused represented by counsel ‑ Whether court obliged to remind accused of right to recall witnesses. EVIDENCE:- Witnesses ‑ Recalling of witnesses where charge is amended ‑ Right of accused in respect thereof
GANSALLO V. IDOWUEVIDENCE:- Judicial notice – Nature of title under native law and custom.
GARUBA V. KWARA INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD.EVIDENCE:- Documentary EVIDENCE:- Unsigned document – Attitude of court thereto – Weight to attach thereto. EVIDENCE:- Proof – Take over of company – Transfer of assets and liabilities of one company to another- How proved.
GBADAMOSI AND ANOTHER V. THE STATEEVIDENCE:- Statements by an accused implicating a co-accused – Whether can be used as evidence against the co-accused – Voluntariness of an accused statement – Burden of proof thereby – On whom lies – Trial within trial – Scope and application of – Doctrine of recent possession – Application of – Circumstantial evidence – When can secure a conviction
GBADAMOSI RABIU V.  SILIFATU ABASIEVIDENCE:- Proof – Existence of customary law – How established.
GBADAMOSI V. STATE (CA)EVIDENCE:– Types of – Admissibility of – Presumption of “recent possession” – What constitutes – Whether a trial Judge has jurisdiction to believe evidence of a witness in instalments – What constitutes confessional statement – Duty of trial court in relation thereto
GBADAMOSI V. GOVERNOR OF OYO STATEEVIDENCE -Oral evidence-Appraising and ascribing probative value to oral EVIDENCE:- Role of trial and appellate Courts therein.
GBAFE V. GBAFEEVIDENCE:- Admissibility – Admissibility of evidence -Weight to be attached to EVIDENCE:- Distinction between – Relevance and importance of distinction. EVIDENCE:- Admissibility – Admissible evidence -Whether fact of admissibility thereof gives it probative value. EVIDENCE:- Admissibility – Wrongful exclusion of admissible EVIDENCE:- When not fatal to judgment reached thereby. EVIDENCE:- Evaluation of evidence by trial court – Attitude of appellate court thereto.
GBAJUMO BUNYAN & ORS. V. A. O. AKINGBOYE & ORSEVIDENCE:- EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE: Proper attitude of Court towards the evaluation of by the trial court
GBANIYI OSAFILE V. PAUL ODIEVIDENCE:- Evidence Matters which the court can take judicial notice of’ Categories of such matters Section 73(1), (2) and (3), Evidence Act considered.
GENERAL & AVIATION SERVICES LTD. V. CAPTAIN PAUL M. THAHALEVIDENCE:- Affidavit evidence – Inclusion of conclusions, inferences, legal arguments, prayers and objections – Effect of. EVIDENCE:- Affidavit evidence – Proper content of an acceptable affidavit. EVIDENCE:- Affidavit evidence – Test for determining the true facts and circumstances deposed to in an affidavit
GEORGE OKEGBE V. NNADI CHIKEREEVIDENCE – Proof of root of title to land by traditional history – Applicability of the rule in Kojo II V. Bonsie
GEORGE V. UNITED BANK FOR AFRICA LTD.EVIDENCE:- Assignment of debt not pleaded – Evidence in support wrongly admitted and insufficient.
GILBERT EZEIGWE V. AWAWA AWUDUEVIDENCE:- DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE: Whether it can be inferred that an illiterate person understood the contents of a document.
GILBERT T. ESANJUMI SAGAY V. EGBERUO IKPIRI SAJEREEVIDENCE:– Conflict in evidence – failure of trial court to resolve same – effect of. EVIDENCE:– Evaluation of evidence – need for trial judge to properly evaluate evidence upon which he based his belief.
GIRA V. THE STATEEVIDENCE:- Confession – Meaning of – Admissibility of to ground conviction. EVIDENCE:– Credibility of witnesses – Discrepancy in evidence of witness – Nature of discrepancy sufficient to destroy credibility of witness EVIDENCE:- Proof – Witnesses – Number of witnesses required in proof of a case -Whether material – Relevant consideration.
GLOVER V. ABARIEVIDENCE:- Witnesses – Reconcilable contradiction in evidence of witnesses – How reconciled.
GODWIN CHUKWUMA V. THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIAEVIDENCE:- WRONGFUL ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE: Evidence which is wrongly admitted in evidence or wrongly excluded from evidence – Whether cannot of itself be a ground for the reversal of any decision which otherwise could be sustained by any standard
GODWIN IGABELE V. THE STATEEVIDENCE:- WRONGFUL ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE:- Evidence which is wrongly admitted in evidence or wrongly excluded from evidence – Whether cannot of itself be a ground for the reversal of any decision which otherwise could be sustained by any standard
GODWIN MOGHALU V. RODRICK EGWUNGWU UDEEVIDENCE – Evidence not challenged by cross-examination – effect thereof
GOLD V. OSASERENEVIDENCE:- Declaration – Title to land -Judge on appeal re-hearing a case – Judge consulting and making use of evidence which was on the record before him though not given during the re-hearing by him – Whether proper-Customary Courts Law. W.N., s. 53.
GOODLUCK OVIEFUS V. THE STATEEVIDENCE – DEFENCE OF INSANITY: What needs to be made out for a successful defence of insanity, and the effect of tending defence of insanity only at the time of trial
GRACE AKINFE V. THE STATEEVIDENCE LAW – cross -examination is the examination of witness by a parry other than the party who calls him -5.187(2) E. Act. EVIDENCE LAW – dying declaration- takes effect as an exception in an instance of making the statement in extremity – the absence of proved settled hopeless expectation of death make dying declaration hearsay and inadmissible. EVIDENCE LAW – questions by the court –must not be such as make the court look like a prosecutor – power of court to ask questions is limited to clearing ambiguities or clarify a point which has arisen ex improviso.
GREEN FINGERS AGRO-INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED V. MUSA YUSUFUEVIDENCE:– Transaction reduced to writing – Nature of evidence admissible in respect of – Futility of contradicting same by oral or affidavit evidence
GUFFANTI (NIGERIA) PLC V. PIDRELLA INSTALT – VADUZ & ORSPRACTICE AND PROCEDURE -EVIDENCE:- whether witness can adopt the evidence of another witness or person
GUINNESS NIGERIA LIMITED V. ENGINEER UGWU ALEX UDEANIEVIDENCE:– Proof of title to land EVIDENCE:– Discharge of burden of proof – Sections 135-137 of the Evidence Act
GWANDU V. GWANDU N. A.EVIDENCE:- Criminal law – Culpable homicide punishable with death – Identity of murder weapon in issue – Admission of weapon tendered in evidence in court as murder weapon by counsel – Admissibility of
H. R. SANYAOLU V. MRS SHOLA COKER & ORS.EVIDENCE:- Evidence from an Abortive Trial –  Whether the evidence of a witness from an abortive trial, can be used in the retrial of the case
HABIB ALHAJI BUKAR V. ALHAJI BASHIREVIDENCE:- BURDEN OF PROOF:- Civil proceedings – Rule that the first burden is on the party who alleged the affirmative in the pleadings, the second burden, the evidential burden, lies on the adverse party to prove the negative – Sections 131 to 136 of the Evidence Act, 2011  – How applied – When burden of proof in a civil case is deemed to lie on a party, whether the plaintiff or the defendant, depending on the state of the pleadings, who would fail if no evidence at all was given on either side
HABIBU USMAN V. THE STATECRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – EVIDENCE:- PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT:- Meaning of – Section 138(1) of the Evidence Act – Whether proof beyond reasonable doubt is not proof beyond all iota of doubt CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – EVIDENCE:- CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT OF AN ACCUSED:- Confessional statements of accused/appellant fully descriptive of what transpired – Whether sufficient ground for a court after warning itself to make a finding of guilt based on proof beyond reasonable doubt – Where confessional statement is corroborated by the evidence of witnesses and medical report – Duty of court thereto
HADA V. MALUMFASHIEVIDENCE:- Admissibility – Evidence of relative under Islamic law – When admissible – When not admissible. EVIDENCE:- Admissibility – Inadmissible evidence -Duty on court to reject same even if not objected to. EVIDENCE:- Proof – Onus of proof under Islamic lam, – Onus of proof on plaintiff or claimant – How discharged. EVIDENCE:- Witnesses – Competent witness – Whether a party is a competent witness under Islamic law – Treatment of evidence of parties under Islamic law.
By Substantive AreasBy Litigation/Procedure Areas



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

Subscribe To Our Newsletter