JOHN AKERELE V. THE KING

POLICY AND PRACTICE LAW REPORTS, 2PLR

Search

Search

–

JOHN ONI AKERELE

V.

THE KING

JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL

THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 1942

PRIVY COUNCIL APPEAL NO. 17 OF 1942

2PLR/1942/5 (P.C.)

–

OTHER CITATION(S)

2PLR/1942/5 (P.C.)

LEX (1942) – P.C. 17/1942

(1942) VIII WACA PP. 5 – 12

–

BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS:

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

LORD PORTER

SIR GEORGE RANKIN

SIR MADHAVAN NAIR

–

BETWEEN:

JOHN ONI AKERELE – Appellant

AND

THE KING – Respondent

–

ORIGINATING COURT(S)

1.     THE WEST AFRICAN COURT OF APPEAL

2.     ASSISTANT JUDGE AT UMUAHIA SESSIONS OF THE HIGH COURT OF THE ENUGU-ONITSHA DIVISION IN THE PROTECTORATE OF NIGERIA

–

ISSUE(S) FROM THE CAUSE(S) OF ACTION

HEALTHCARE AND LAW – INNOCULATION – CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE:- Degree of negligence required to prove that a medical professional was criminally liable in the course of treating his patient(s) – Duty of court thereto

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE:- Prosecution for Manslaughter contrary to section 325 of the Criminal Code; Reckless and negligent acts contrary to section 343(1)(e) of the Criminal Code in giving medical treatment in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life or to be likely to cause harm – Reckless and negligent acts contrary to section 343(1)(J) of the Criminal Code in dispensing or administering medicine or poisonous or dangerous matter to a patient – Standard prosecution must satisfy to succeed

–

CASE SUMMARY

ORIGINATING FACTS

The appellant was a duly qualified medical practitioner who carried on practice in Nigeria. On the 7th March; 1941, he was charged before the Assistant Judge at Umuahia Sessions of the High Court of the Enugu-Onitsha Division in the Protectorate of Nigeria on three charges including Manslaughter; Reckless and negligent in giving medical treatment in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life or to be likely to cause harm; and Reckless and negligent acts in dispensing or administering medicine or poisonous or dangerous matter. During the course of his duties, he had administered innoculative treatments on patients including 10 children who appear to have been suffering from an endemic disease known as yaws which attacks both adults and children causing lesions and ulcerations on all parts of the body and in particular on the lower limbs and feet. Two methods of inoculative treatment for treating the disease are then well recognised, the injection (i) of N.A.B., an arsenical preparation and (ii) of Sobita, which consists of sodium bismuth tartrate as given in the British Pharmecopoea, and is a trade preparation supplied to the doctor by a drug company in the form of a powder. The proper dose for an adult is three grains and for a child one. Following his treatment, ten children died and the issue arose as to whether he was criminally negligent in their treatment and thus liable for their death.

–

DOWNLOAD PREMIUM PDF COPY (N2,000)

READ MORE

JUDGMENTS BY AREAS OF PRACTICE

JUDGMENTS BY PRACTICE/PROCEDURE ISSUES