[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]

JIBRIL V. THE STATEEVIDENCE:-  Medical evidence towards the determination of age of person charged with culpable homicide punishable with death – Where given without opportunity for cross-examination – Effect
JIDDUN V.ABBA ABUNA & GONI ADAMEVIDENCE – Assertion that a wife pre-deceased her husband – How proved under Islamic Law.
JIDE TAIWO & CO. V. DANBARE TRAVELS AGENCY LIMITEDEVIDENCE:- Affidavit – whether document can be tendered by referring to it in an affidavit.
JIMBA V. A.P. (NIG.) LTDEVIDENCE:- Admissibility – Secondary evidence of document in possession of adversary – Where sought to be tendered – Duty on party seeking to tender to give prior notice to produce to the adversary
JIMOH  YESUFU V. THE STATEEVIDENCE:- Confessional statement – Confession accepted by trial court – Conviction justified.
JIMOH ABUDU V. JOHNSON EGUAKUNEVIDENCE:- Presumptions – Long possession and enjoyment of land – Presumption raised thereby – Facts that need be pleaded to raise same.
JOB CHARLES (NIG.) LTD. Vs. OKONKWOEVIDENCE – Affidavit evidence – uncontradicted averments in same – effect of.
JOBI V. OSHILAJAEVIDENCE:- Disputed handwriting – Sections 99, 100 and 107 of Evidence Act – Power of court to examine and form opinion. EVIDENCE:- Disputed handwriting – Duty of court to form opinion – Need for expert assistance in case of jury.
JOHN AGBO V. THE STATEEVIDENCE – DOCUMENT: – Document in court’s file – Record of appeal – Power of court to consider same – Propriety thereof EVIDENCE: – Cross-examination – Failure of party to cross-examine opponent’s witness – Relevant consideration EVIDENCE: – Proof – Contradiction in evidence – Meaning – Distinction with “discrepancy in evidence” – Where witness’s sworn evidence contradicts his with previous unsworn or extra-judicial  statement – How treated
JOHN AJIBO V. THE STATEEVIDENCE:- ADMISSIBILITY OF A PREVIOUS JUDICIAL PROCEEDING: Previous judicial proceedings – Whether can be used or admitted in subsequent proceedings to prove the truth of the fact which it states, irrespective of the outcome of the proceedings or how it was concluded – Need to comply with S. 46(1) Evidence Act, 2011 EVIDENCE – BURDEN OF PROOF:- S. 135(3) Evidence Act, 2011 – Alibi – Evidential burden imposed on the accused to prove reasonable doubt in the case of the prosecution against him – Evidential burden of eliciting some evidence in support of the plea of alibi the accused had raised during investigation – Evidential burden to show that during investigation he informed police of the facts that constitute this plea – Whether lies on defendant or prosecution
JOHN I. OGBU V. BEST WOKOMAEVIDENCE – ONUS OF PROOF: Whether or not onus of proof in civil cases is fixed on a plaintiff
JOHN OHADUGHA V. TANIMU GARBAEVIDENCE:– Unchallenged evidence – whether amounts to conclusive proof of loss of earning.
JOHN ONYENGE AND ORS V. EBERE AND ORSEVIDENCE:- Burden of proof in civil proceedings – How determined EVIDENCE:- Proof of existence of customary law – How established – Concurrent finding of facts – Meaning of
JOHN PETER (ALIAS IKIRI PETER) V. THE STATE (SC)EVIDENCE:- Alibi – Where raised – Prosecution producing credible evidence rebutting same – Duty on accused to call evidence in proof of his alibi – Failure so to do – Effect. EVIDENCE:- Alibi – Where raised by accused – Nature of burden on prosecution and defence – How discharged. EVIDENCE:- Circumstantial EVIDENCE:- Validity of to ground conviction – Conditions that must be satisfied.
JOHN PETER (ALIAS IKIRI PETER) V. THE STATEEVIDENCE – Condition precedent to admissibility of dying declaration
JOKANOLA V. THE MILITARY GOVERNOR OF OYO STATEEVIDENCE:- Plaintiff in chieftaincy action – Plaintiff therein – Onus thereon.
JOLAYEMI V. ALAOYEEVIDENCE:- Hearsay EVIDENCE:- What constitutes – How treated. EVIDENCE:- Proof-Burden of proof in civil cases – Where plaintiff fails to prima facie establish his case – Effect – Burden of proof on defendant. EVIDENCE:- Proof – Evidence led on fact pleaded – Effect.
JOSEPH AGBAHOMOVO AND ORS V. APATA EDUYEGBEEVIDENCE:- Document – Admissibility – depends on purpose for which it is being tendered – Test to be applied in considering admissibility is relevance only – Same principle applies in civil and criminal cases. EVIDENCE:- Wrongful exclusion of evidence – Whether tantamounts to violation of right of fair hearing
JOSEPH CHIKE ODOGWU & ANOR V. SAMUEL NWAJEI & ORSEVIDENCE:- TRADITIONAL EVIDENCE:- Law that documentary evidence is unknown to native law and custom – Effect on evidence documentary evidence tendered to establish acts of possession in recent times of land which title is asserted under customary law – Whether avails
JOSEPH IFETA V. SHELL PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT COMPANY OF (NIG). LTDEVIDENCE:- Failure of party to adduce evidence in support of pleadings – Consequence of.
JOSEPH MANGTUP DIN V. A-G. OF THE FEDERATIONEVIDENCE:- Affidavit evidence – Conflicts – Resolution – Proper verdict thereof.
JOSHUA ALONGE V. IGPEVIDENCE:- Proof of commission of crime – need for same to be proved beyond reasonable doubt – Evidence Ordinance, s.137 – Propriety of convicting on “oath against oath”
JOSHUA GUTING V. TUNYANG DAVWANGEVIDENCE:- EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE:-  Primacy of trial court who heard and observed the witnesses in evaluation of evidence – Exceptional cases – When an appellate court is deemed to be in a position to examine the fact or evidence led at the trial court in order to discern whether the ascription of probative value to the evidence led at trial court was misplaced or misapplied – Guiding principles for appellate court
JULES V. AJANIEVIDENCE:- Burden of proof in civil proceedings – Forgery – On whom lies – Whether on person who alleges same – Standard of proof thereof EVIDENCE:- Admissibility under 5.30(2) of Lands Instruments Registration Law of Western Nigeria – Certified true copy issued pursuant to S.30(1) from certified true copy retained as prescribed by S.18(1) to (5) in land registry – Absence of thumb impressions of purported executants in both copies – Whether presumption of due execution of original document applies
JULIUS BERGER NIGERIA PLC & ANOR V. MRS. DOLAPO OGUNDEHINEVIDENCE:- BURDEN OF PROOF: – Civil cases – the onus of proving an allegation – whether on the plaintiff and does not shift until he has proved his claim on the preponderance of evidence and balance of probability – Need for a party to prove its case on credible evidence of its witnesses and make a case or rely on the weakness of its opposite party in order to succeed
JULIUS BERGER NIGERIA PLC & ANOR V. MRS. PHILOMENA UGOEVIDENCE:- DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE: – A person’s signature, written names or mark on a document – Effect of – Section 75 of the Evidence Act, 2004 EVIDENCE:- HEARSAY EVIDENCE: – Meaning and effect of – Section 37 and 38 of the Evidence Act 2011 EVIDENCE:- WITNESS: – Duty of a witness in a case – Investigating Police Officer – Witness about what he personally saw or discovered in the course of his investigation into the cause of accident – Whether hearsay evidence – Admissibility
JUSTICE PARTY V. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC)EVIDENCE:– Affidavit evidence – When two affidavits are irreconcilably in conflict – How resolved.
JUSTIN OAMHEN V. THE STATEEVIDENCE:- CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE: whether a trial court may infer cause of death from circumstantial evidence EVIDENCE:- MEDICAL EVIDENCE: whether medical evidence is essential in all homicide cases
JUWA V. THE STATEEVIDENCE:- Refusal by Judge to recall medical witness to testify as to mental condition of accused – Wrong under 5.237 and 193 (2) C.P.C. – Medical report of Government Doctor admissible under 5.250 if not under S.249(3)(a) CP.C. – 5.126 (2) C.P.C. must be complied with it? circumstances of S. 126
K LINE INC. V. K. R. INTERNATIONAL (NIG) LTD; ALRAINE (NIGERIA)EVIDENCE – Ship owner’s liability – On whom burden of proof of exclusio lies
KABELMETAL NIGERIA LTD V. GABRIEL ATIVIEEVIDENCE:– Onus of proof – Claim for wrongful termination of employment – Onus of proving that termination was not in accordance with terms and conditions of contract of service – On whom lies
KABIRU MUSA RANGAZA V. MICRO PLASTIC COMPANY LIMITEDEVIDENCE:- AFFIDAVIT EVIDENCE: Conflict in affidavit evidence – How resolved – Whether it is not only by calling oral evidence – Whether such a conflict can be resolved by authentic documentary evidence which supports one of the affidavits in conflict with another – Whether a court an suo motu resolve conflicting affidavit evidence by resort to the documentary evidence EVIDENCE:- BURDEN OF PROOF:- EVIDENCE:- BURDEN OF PROOF:- Rule that he who asserts a fact, and which fact is not admitted by the other party, has the onus of proving that fact – Indebtedness – Where defendant admits indebtedness to plaintiff – Whether it is the defendant that has the burden of proving how debt was liquidated
KABO AIR LIMITED V. THE O’ CORPORATION LIMITEDEVIDENCE:- JUDICIAL NOTICE: Rule that a Court can take judicial notice of an enactment and any subsidiary legislation – Whether entitles court to suo motu raise the issue of applicability of a statute and pronounce thereon without giving parties opportunity to address court – Ordinance of 1958 (now cap. 152 LFN 1990) (supra) vide Section 122 (2) (a) of the Evidence Act, 2011, (former S. 74 (1) (A) of the Evidence Act, 2010 –Effect
KADA V. YAWAEVIDENCE:- Proof – Oath of judgment under Islamic law – What constitutes – When proffered.
KADUNA REFINING & PETROCHEMICAL COMPANY LTD. V. MR. FELIX ONUORAEVIDENCE:– Pleadings not supported by evidence – effect of
KALA V. POTISKUMEVIDENCE:- “Burden of Proof’ -Meaning of EVIDENCE:- Hearsay EVIDENCE:- What amounts to – Evidence of a witness of a statement made to him by person not a witness – When amounts to hearsay EVIDENCE:- When does not. EVIDENCE-Onus of proof in civil cases- On whom lies-Relevant considerations for determining.
KALU MARK V. GABRIEL EKEEVIDENCE:- Affidavit evidence-Conflicts therein-How resolved. EVIDENCE:- Proof – Service of court process – How proved – Conflicting affidavit on whether service effected – How resolved. EVIDENCE:- Proof – Service of court process – Proof of service – Affidavit of service by bailiff-Whether conclusive.
KALU V. STATEEVIDENCE:- Presumptions – Judicial and official acts – Presumption of regularity of – Section 150(1) of the Evidence Act.
KAMALU V. UMUNNAEVIDENCE:- admissions – do not constitute conclusive proof but may create estoppel – circumstances and weight to be attached to them are important factors to be considered. EVIDENCE:- Admissions – Proof of admitted facts – Whether necessary EVIDENCE:- Findings of fact – Findings by trial judge in favour of plaintiffs not supported by evidence of defendants which are supported by admissions made by witnesses for plaintiffs and estoppels in previous judgments – Duty of appellate court thereto
KARIBO V. GRENDEVIDENCE:- Evaluation of EVIDENCE:- Conflicting assertions – Duty on court – Mogaji V. Odofin (1978) 4 S.C. 37 revisited. EVIDENCE:- Proof – Traditional history -Conflicts in -How resolved- Application of the rule in Kojo 11 V. Bonsie (1957) 1 WLR 1223. EVIDENCE:- Traditional history – conflicts therein – How resolved.
KARIMU OMISAKIN APATA V. YESUFU AWOYEMIEVIDENCE: Documentary evidence – Failure to tender and mark document as exhibit at trial – Effect of substantial but imperfect compliance with the rules of evidence – Whether invalidates judgment based thereon. EVIDENCE: Wrongful admission of inadmissible evidence – Whether in all cases necessarily a ground for reversal of trial court’s decision.
KATE ENTERPRISES LTD. V. DAEWOO NIG. LTD.EVIDENCE:- Onus of proof – Pleadings – Averments in pleadings not proved by evidence – Effect – Evidence of facts within personal knowledge of person adducing – Admissibility of – Evidence of sole witness – When not contradicted – Effect.
KAZEEM POPOOLA V. THE STATEEVIDENCE:- DEFENCE OF INSANITY: Evidence available to or adduced by an accused person in his defence of insanity – Evaluation of – Relevant considerations – EVIDENCE:- DEFENCE OF INSANITY: Rule that the law presumes every person, including any person accused of crime, sane until the contrary is proved – Section 27 of the Criminal Code – Rule that the Prosecution has no duty to prove what the law presumes in its favour – Rule that an accused person who raises insanity as his defence has the onus of proving such insanity cast on him – Rule that the standard of such proof is not as high as that cast on the prosecution for proof of crime charged – Rule that insanity is a blanket term embracing a considerable variety of mental abnormalities, mental infirmities, neurosis and psychosis – Effect EVIDENCE:- DEFENCE OF INSANITY: Requirement that to constitute a defence, the mental condition relied on should be such that could and did deprive the accused of capacity to understand what he was doing or to control his action or to know that he ought not to do the act or make the omission complained of as constituting the actus reus of the offence charged – Effect
KERRI. V. EZUNAKA BROTHERS ENTERPRISES LTD.EVIDENCE:– Tendering of certified true copies of public documents as exhibit – Reasons proffered for allowing same. EVIDENCE:– Tendering of a photocopy of a certified public document – Whether permitted under section 97 of the Evidence Act. EVIDENCE – Section 97(2) of the Evidence Act – nature of evidence admissible in the case of a public document under same.
KIM V. STATEEVIDENCE:- Circumstantial EVIDENCE:- When sufficient to ground convic­tion – Relevant considerations. EVIDENCE:- Confessional statement – Denial of by accused – Whether stands rejected by virtue thereof – Attitude of court. EVIDENCE -Confessional statement -How treated -Validity of to convict an accused.
KIRARANGE V. QUEENEVIDENCE:- Corroboration – When required – How satisfied – Effect.
KOSILE V. FOLARINEVIDENCE:- Witnesses’ EVIDENCE:- Uncontradicted – Duty of trial Judge to accept.
KPLISHI KUUSU V. VANGER UDOMEVIDENCE:- Area Court – Applicability of Evidence Act Admissibility – Oath taking – Affirmation – Necessity of in Area courts. – Failure to cross Examine witness – Whether it amounts to a miscarriage of justice.
KPOROARO V. DUGBOEVIDENCE:- Admissibility – Admission of inadmissible evidence -S.225(1) Evidence Act Cap. 63 – When invoked. EVIDENCE:- Admissibility in consolidated suits – Evidence tendered in one suit – Whether ipso facto constitutes evidence in another suit. EVIDENCE:- Admission of inadmissible EVIDENCE:- Lack of objection thereto – Effect.
KRAUS V. BRIGHT-ORIDAMIEVIDENCE:- Document produced from custody of Registrar of Companies- Whether sufficient evidence of its registration.
KUDU V. ALIYUEVIDENCE:- Election petition ‑ Allegation of non‑compliance with Electoral Law ‑ Onus of proof on the petitioner ‑ How onus discharged. EVIDENCE:- Evaluation of evidence by trial court ‑ Attitude of appellate court thereto.
KUFORIJI  V. V. Y. B. (NIG) LIMITEDEVIDENCE:– Marriage Certificate – Admissibility under Evidence Law Lagos State – Whether can be validly produced and tendered by counsel at the Bar instead of a witness EVIDENCE:– Marriage certificate issued in a Commonwealth country – Presumption of regularity in favour of such documents under the Evidence Law
KUPOLUYI V. PHILLIPSEVIDENCE:– Evaluation of evidence by trial court – applicable principles – circumstances when an appellate court would not interfere with the evaluation of evidence by trial court.
KURE V. THE STATEEVIDENCE:- Effect of psychiatric report on evidence before court where accused pleads defence of insanity – Onus of proof – On whom lies – Standard of proof – When satisfied – Defence snaking use of evidence tendered by prosecution – Whether proper – S.140(2) Evidence Act Cap. 62 Vo1. 2. Laws of Federation.
KUSE V. THE STATEEVIDENCE:- Dying declaration – Belief in approaching death – Res Gestae – Criminal Law and Procedure – Fitness to plead – Criminal Procedure Code s.320(1).
KWAJAFFA V. BANK OF THE NORTH LIMITED(SC)EVIDENCE:- Evaluation of evidence:- Rules governing – Duty on trial court in respect of – How discharged Respective positions of trial and appellate courts with respect to.
KWARANGA MUBARAK ARABI V. THE STATEEVIDENCE:– Plea of self defence – Onus placed on the prosecution where the plea of self defence is raised.
L. S. D. P. C. V. ADOLD STAMM INT’L (NIG.) LTD.EVIDENCE:- Affidavit evidence – “Conflict” in affidavit evidence that would warrant calling oral evidence – What constitutes. EVIDENCE:- Affidavit evidence – “Conflict ” in affidavit evidence – Whether exists to warrant calling oral evidence – How determined
L.S.D.P.C. AND ANOTHER V. NIGERIAN LAND AND SEA FOODS LTDEVIDENCE:- Uncontradicted oral evidence whether can be acted on by court.
LAAH V. OPALUWAEVIDENCE – Power of attorney – where same is considered to be registrable but unregistered and later discovered to be a registered instrument – whether such power of attorney could be pleaded and admissible in evidence thereafter.
LAGOS STATE DEVELOPMENT AND PROPERTY CORPERATION V.  ADOLD STAMM INTERNATIONALEVIDENCE:- Admissibility – Evidence in previous proceedings – Conditions for admissibility in later proceedings – Use to which it can be put. EVIDENCE:- Admissibility of documents – Record of previous proceeding sought to be used in later proceeding – When it may be admitted in evidence. EVIDENCE -Affidavit EVIDENCE:- Conflicts therein -When necessary to resolve by oral evidence – When unnecessary.
LAGURO V. TOKUEVIDENCE:- Presumption of ownership – Application of section 145 of the Evidence Act – How rebutted. EVIDENCE:- Proof – Onus of proof of assertion – On whom ties.
LAKANMI V. ADENEEVIDENCE:– Burden of proof – Decrees or Edicts or order of forfeiture which divested appellant of his right to subject matter of the suit – Onus on appellant to prove the invalidity or illegality of same.
LAMIDI LAWAL OBAWOLE AND OTHERS V. OLUSOJI COKER AND OTHERSEVIDENCE:- Relevancy of evidence of previous proceedings in subsequent proceedings
LAMU V. THE STATERELIGION AND THE LAW:- Evidence of non-Christian wife of accused person – Witness sworn on a knife and professes adherences to traditional religion – Burden of prosecution to prove that the nature of her marriage is non-monogamous – Where prosecution fails to so prove –Whether renders her an incompetent witness for the prosecution on any charge not coming within section 160(1) of the Evidence Law – Whether presumption of polygamous marriage can be inferred from act of swearing on a knife or expressing traditional/indigenous religion- Implication for justice administration EVIDENCE:-  Proceedings not coming within section 160(1) of the Evidence Law – Onus of proving that the spouse of an accused person is a competent witness for the prosecution – On whom lies – Whether presumption arises from the nature of oath taken or from the religious belief professed by the spouse – Wrongly admitted evidence – Where same removal raises a doubt as to the conviction made – Duty of appellate court thereto where prosecution fails to invite court to consider a retrial
LANLEHIN V. KOLA JAMESEVIDENCE:- Admissibility – Plan attached to registrable instrument – Absence of Surveyor’s signature and Surveyor-General’s counter-signature contrary to requirements of s.23 of the Survey Act – Effect.
LARMIE V. DATA PROCESSING MAINTENANCE & SERVICES (DPM) LTD.EVIDENCE:– Extrinsic evidence – Whether can be used to vary
LASISI ADEGBESAN ABIMBOLA V. SAKA ABATANEVIDENCE:– Onus of proof in civil cases – Onus on plaintiff to justify his claims on evidence adduced by him and the exception thereof
LASISI AYANRINOLA AKAYEPE & ANOR. V. GANIYU AYANRINOLA AKAYEPEEVIDENCE:- ONUS OF PROOF: Who has the burden of proof on whether land/property has been partitioned
LASISI KODE V. SUARA YUSSUFEVIDENCE:– When in conflict with fact pleaded – How treated.
LASISI OGBE V. SULE ASADEEVIDENCE:- ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE: Whether in determining admissibility of evidence, it is the evidence of such a document that is relevant and not how it was obtained
LATEEF ADENIJI V. THE STATEEVIDENCE:- Circumstantial evidence – When court needs to caution self before convicting based on same
LATEEF SADIKU V. THE STATEEVIDENCE:- EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE: Attitude of the Supreme Court to an invitation to interfere with successive findings of fact made by lower court – Justification – Presumption that a trial judge’s decision on facts is correct – need for the presumption to be displaced by a person who seeks to upset the decision – Need for an appellate court to always be reluctant to interfere or to substitute its view of the facts for those of the court of trial
LATEEF SHOFOLAHAN V. THE STATEEVIDENCE:- CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE:- Guilt of accused person – Whether can be established beyond reasonable doubt by circumstantial evidence – Need for such circumstantial evidence to link the accused person to the commission of the crime alleged – Duty of the trial Court to set out the circumstances, established by cogent, evidence which makes the accused bound to be convicted
LATIFU YUSUFU  V. THE STATEEVIDENCE:- Ipse Dixit – Admissibility -Weight to be attached
LATUNDE V. LAJINFINEVIDENCE:- Evidence Act – Customary Court – Applicability.
LAW UNION AND ROCK INSURANCE OF NIG. LTD. V. LIVINUS ONUOHAEVIDENCE:- Judicial notice – Duty on court to take judicial notice of all laws, Acts and enactments – Section 74 of the Evidence Act.
LAWAL V. DAWODUEVIDENCE:- Estoppel – Res judicata – Interlocutory decision on an issue – Binding effect on same proceedings – S.34(I) of Evidence Act.
LAWAL V. SALAMIEVIDENCE:- Estoppel per rem judicatam – Judgment of court – When can operate as. EVIDENCE:- Evidence in previous proceedings – Use of in a later suit – Extent and limit of. PEVIDENCE:- Proof – Res judicata – Burden of proof of – On Whom lies – Requirements for successful plea of.
LAWAL V. UNION BANKEVIDENCE:- Waiver or estoppel – When it operates.  
LAWAL V. WALEEVIDENCE:- Dispute as to ownership – Burden of proof – Prima facie person in possession owner until contrary is proved – Onus on person asserting the contrary – Evidence Act Section 145
LAWAL V. KOFFOEVIDENCE:- Co-Defendants as witnesses – Evidence contradicting the evidence of a co-defendant – Opportunity to cross-examine a co-defendant giving adverse testimony – When prejudiced because the co-defendants were represented by the same Counsel – Attempt by counsel to set up one of 2 contradictory evidence of 2 different defendants as the preferred evidence to the detriment of the case of one of the co-defendants – Attitude of court thereto PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Evidence – Existence of Court Judgment – Proof of – Need for certified true copy of the judgment to be tendered – effect of failure thereof
LAWANI ALLI V. ALESINLOYEEVIDENCE:– Traditional history – Admissibility of – Determination of weight attached to – Import of the experience of the judge in attaching weight to. EVIDENCE:– Oral evidence of tradition or traditional history in proof of title to land – When admissible under section 45 of the Evidence Act
LAWRENCE OGUNO & ANOR. V. THE STATEEVIDENCE:- VOLUNTARINESS OF A CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT: Essential questions that aids the court in the determination of the voluntariness of a confessional statement – Tests towards the ascertainment of the voluntariness of a confessional statement EVIDENCE:- TRIAL WITHIN TRIAL: Trial within trial – Duty of the prosecutor to satisfy the Court that the accused made the confessional statement voluntarily duty of prosecutor to start by leading evidence and not the accused person
LAWSON V. AJIBULUEVIDENCE:- Proof-Title to land – Claimant relying on documents o.1 title – Onus on him -What he must show to succeed. EVIDENCE:- Proof-Title to land – Onus of proof of-On whom lies – Whether shifts. EVIDENCE:- Proof – Title to land – Ways of proving same
LEITH McDONALD RATTEN V. THE QUEENEVIDENCE:- Australia – Victoria – Crime – Evidence – Admissibility – Homicide – Telephone call by victim shortly prior to death – Evidence by telephone operator – Evidence of “verbal facts” – Whether hearsay – Whether res gestae – Whether admissible
LIEUTENANT COMMANDER F.E. EBOHON (RTD.) VS.ATTORNEY GENERAL, EDO STATE AND OTHERS – SCEVIDENCE:- Affidavit evidence – Conflict therein in respect of crucial issue – Conflict relating to existence and origin of two letters – Whether conflict can be resolved by calling oral evidence – Address of counsel – Whether cannot cured same
LEONARD EZEAFULUKWE V. JOHN HOLT LIMITEDEVIDENCE:- Proof- Competence to sue – Where challenged – Onus of proof of-On whom lies – How discharged.
LEWIS & PEAT (N.R.I) LTD V. AKHIMIENEVIDENCE:- Fact in issue – Burden of Proof.
LEYIMI V. THE QUEENEVIDENCE:- Judge – proof of murder – Court accept the evidence of the Prosecution and re­ject that of the accused –  When justified
LIEUTENANT COMMANDER F.E. EBOHON (RTD.) VS.ATTORNEY GENERAL, EDO STATE AND OTHERS – CAEVIDENCE:- Resolution of challenged affidavit evidence EVIDENCE:- On whom lies burden of proof of an assertion
LIEUTENANT COMMANDER F.E. EBOHON (RTD.) VS.ATTORNEY GENERAL, EDO STATE AND OTHERS – SCEVIDENCE:- Affidavit evidence – Conflict therein in respect of crucial issue – Conflict relating to existence and origin of two letters need to call oral evidence to resolve conflict – Whether such conflict cannot be cured by addresses of counsel.
LINUS OKEREKE V. NWANKWOEVIDENCE:– Evaluation of evidence – Duty of trial court thereto – Section 46 of the Evidence Act, 1990 – Proving title to land by proof of possession of connected or adjacent land in circumstances rendering it probable that the owner of such connected or adjacent land would in addition be the owner of the land in dispute – Relevant considerations – when not applicable
LONESTAR DRILLING LTD. V. TRIVENI ENG. & IND.EVIDENCE:- Affidavit evidence – Format prescribed in Oaths Act for- concluding affidavit – Failure of deponent to comply with – Effect – Whether- strict compliance necessary EVIDENCE:- OATHS – Declaration – Affidavit evidence – Format prescribed in Oaths Act for- concluding affidavit – Failure of deponent to comply with – Effect – Whether strict compliance necessary.
LONG-JOHN V. BLAKKEVIDENCE:- Estoppel – Estoppel per rem judicatam – Basis of application of – Ingredients for successful plea of EVIDENCE:- Evidence adduced before trial court – Where relevant – Failure of court to consider – Effect.
LT. COMMANDER STEVE OBISI V. CHIEF OF NAVAL STAFFEVIDENCE:– Confessional statement – principles guiding the courts in relying on confessional statements made by an accused person. EVIDENCE:– Confessional statement – voluntariness of a confessional statement raised by an accused person – need to conduct a trial within trial.
LUCIEN HABIB V. PRINCIPAL IMMIGRATION OFFICEREVIDENCE:- Affidavits – Inclusion of legal argument and conclusions – Whether and where proper.
LUKE OKORO & ORS V. HILARY EGBUOH & ORSEVIDENCE – ADDUCING NEW EVIDENCE:- Guiding principles to adduce new evidence
M.I. EDIONHON V. UNION BANK OF NIGERIA PLCEVIDENCE:-  PROOF:- Civil cases – Standard of Proof required to succeed – Whether is on a balance of probability – Where the action was fought largely on documentary evidence – Evidence not contradicted – Whether deemed admitted
MACKAM V. THE QUEENEVIDENCE – MEDICAL EVIDENCE:- Murder proceedings – Medical evidence of deceased person – Desirability of tendering same to court in all murder cases where available – Whether fetters prosecution right to determine evidence needed to prove case
MADAM ABUSATU AGBOGUNLERI V. MR. JOHN DEPO & ORSEVIDENCE:- Estoppel: Presupposition that a final decision of a court of competent jurisdiction once pronounced between the parties cannot be contradicted by any of such parties in any subsequent litigation between them respecting the same subject matter –Three kinds recognized by Common law recognizes three kinds
MADUGA V. BAIEVIDENCE:- Driver of vehicle as servant of owner – whether there is a presumption. EVIDENCE:- Uncontested – Nature of proof.
MAFE V. I.G.P.EVIDENCE:- Circumstantial EVIDENCE:- When it can ground conviction.
MAIKUDI ALIYU V. THE STATEEVIDENCE:- Onus of proof of alibi – on whom burden does it lie
MAJOR HAMZA AL-MUSTAPHA V. THE STATEEVIDENCE:- CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE BASIS: – Need for circumstantial evidence to be, as a matter of law, based on credible evidence EVIDENCE:- DUTY OF A JUDGE IN CONTRADICTING EVIDENCE: Where evidence of witnesses are contradictory of each other – Duty of the Judge to discountenance same and treat the entire evidence as unreliable – Whether it a duty in law marked by discretion of court – Need for contradiction relied upon to be material and against the very life issue of a case going to the root of the Prosecution’s case
MAJOR S. G. IDAKWO (RTD) V. MALL. ALIYU IBRAHIM & ANOR.EVIDENCE:- BURDEN OF PROOF:- Whether or not a plaintiff is expected to succeed on the strength of his case and not on the weakness of the defence
MALLAM IBRAHIM SA’ID MOHAMMED V. DHL INTERNATIONAL NIGERIA LIMITEDEVIDENCE:– Evidence not pleaded – how treated. EVIDENCE:– Burden of proof – on whom onus of proof lies in civil cases – Section 136 Evidence Act, 1990 considered.
MALLAM SANI OGU V. MANID TECHNOLOGY & MULTIPURPOSE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITEDEVIDENCE:- ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE:- Basis of- whether facts which are not pleaded in a given case is admissible – Difference between primary evidence and secondary evidence – What the best evidence of the contents of a document is – Whether appellate court has the power to expunge an inadmissible piece of evidence erroneously admitted by a trial Court – Effect of insufficient denial or insufficient traverse



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

Subscribe To Our Newsletter