DOCSLIB.ORG

2018) Lpelr-45157(Sc

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2018) Lpelr-45157(Sc RICHARD v. STATE CITATION: (2018) LPELR-45157(SC) In the Supreme Court of Nigeria ON THURSDAY, 14TH JUNE, 2018 Suit No: SC.446/2015 Before Their Lordships: IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD Justice of the Supreme Court KUMAI BAYANG AKA'AHS Justice of the Supreme Court CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE Justice of the Supreme Court AMINA ADAMU AUGIE Justice of the Supreme Court EJEMBI EKO Justice of the Supreme Court Between AMEH RICHARD - Appellant(s) And THE STATE(2018) LPELR-45157(SC)- Respondent(s) RATIO DECIDENDI 1. APPEAL - INTERFERENCE WITH CONCURRENT FINDING(S) OF FACT(S):Instances where the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact(s) made by Lower Courts "It is well-settled that this Court will not disturb concurrent findings of fact of Lower Court unless the appellant is able to fulfill the following pre-conditions: establish a substantial error apparent on the face of the record of proceedings; show that such findings of fact were perverse; the said findings were unsupported by the evidence before the trial Court; that the findings and conclusion were arrived at as a result of a wrong approach to the evidence or a wrong application of the principles of substantive law or Procedure. The cases on this point are legion: they are many. Only a handful will be cited here - Enang v Adu [1981] 11-12 SC 25, 42; Nwadike v Ibekwe [1987] 4 NWLR (pt. 67) 718; Igwego v Ezeugo [1992] 6 NWLR (pt. 249) 561, 576; Lamai v Orbih [1980] 5-7 SC 28; Woluchem v Gudi [1981] 5 SC 291, 326; Ike v Ugboaja [1993] 6 NWLR (pt. 301) 539, 569; Chinwendu v Mbamali [1980] 3-4 SC 31. The appellant has not been able to do these. In the circumstance, I therefore endorse the conclusion that the prosecution proved the first two ingredients of the said offence. I agree with the Lower Courts that the Prosecution proved that the deceased died. It also proved that in actual fact, the deceased died as a result of the act of the accused person, to the exclusion of all other possibilities, R. v. Nwokocha (1949) 12 WACA 453, 455; The State v. Omoni (1969) 2 ANLR 337; Adie v. The State [1980] 1-2 SC 116, 122-123; R. v. Owe (1981) ANLR 680; Princewill v. The State [1994] 7 - 8 SC (Pt. 11) 226, 240; Silas Sule v The State (2009) LPELR-3125 (SC) 24, F-G."Per NWEZE, J.S.C. (Pp. 12-13, Paras. B-D) - read in context 2. APPEAL - INTERFERENCE WITH CONCURRENT FINDING(S) OF FACT(S):Instances where the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact(s) made by Lower Courts "...My Lords, I have undertaken this extensive review of the views of the trial Court as duly affirmed by the Lower Court to expose the poverty of the appellant's arguments in this appeal. Interestingly, the appellant did not succeed in showing the perversity of these concurrent findings. I shall therefore not interfere with them, Princent and Anor v. The State [2002] 12 SC (Pt.1) 137; [2002] 12 SCNJ 280, 300; Ubani and Ors. v. The State [2003] 12 SC (Pt.II) 1; [2003] 12 SCNJ 111, 127-128; Sokwo v Kpongbo [2008] All FWLR (Pt.410) 680, 695 - 696; Ogunbayo v. State [2007] 3 SC (Pt.11) 1, 27."Per NWEZE, J.S.C. (P. 23, Paras. C-F) - read in context 3. APPEAL - INTERFERENCE WITH CONCURRENT FINDING(S) OF FACT(S):Instances where the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact(s) made by Lower Courts "The two issues formulated by the Appellant all turn on facts. The two Courts below having found concurrently on those facts the Appellant herein, in this further appeal, has the burden of convincing us that those concurrent findings of fact are perverse, unreasonable and have occasioned a miscarriage of justice to him. Those are the special circumstances that warrant this Court to disturb or interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the two Courts below. In this regard, the Appellant, through his Counsel, has failed to satisfactorily establish in what respects the said concurrent finding are perverse and or occasion miscarriage of justice to him."Per EKO, J.S.C. (Pp. 35-36, Paras. D-A) - read in context (2018) LPELR-45157(SC) 4. CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE - OFFENCE OF MURDER: Essential ingredients that must be proved by the prosecution to ground a conviction for murder "My Lords, the ingredients of the offence of murder are well-settled. This Court has dealt extensively with them. For example, in Iliyasu v State (2015) LPELR-24403 (SC) 25; B - G, this Court [per Nweze, JSC] held that: The three constitutive elements or ingredients of the offence which must be proved in order to seiure a conviction under this section have been generously outlined in case law, Maigari v. State (2013) 6 - 7 MJSC (Pt. 11) 109, 125, citing Ochemaje v. The State (2008) SCNJ 143; Daniel v. The State (1991) 8 NWLR (Pt. 443) 715; Obudu v. State (1999) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1980) 433; Gira v. State (1996) 4 NWLR (Pt.428) 1, 125. Under the said section, the prosecution is obliged to prove: (1) is obliged to that the deceased died; (2) that his/her death caused by the accused; (3) that she/he intended to either kill the victim or cause her/him grievous bodily harm. These ingredients, which are the same with the ingredients of the offence of murder under the Criminal Code, have witnessed consistent espousal in many jurisdictions, for example, by English Courts, R v. Hopwood (1913) 8 Cr. App. R. 143; Hyam v. DPP (1974) 2 All ER 41; Woolmighton v. DPP (1935) AC 462; by Nigerian Courts, Madu v. State (2012) 15 NWLR (Pt.1324) 405, 443, citing Durwode v. State (2000) 15 NWLR (Pt. 691) 467; Idemudia v. State (2001) FWLR (Pt. 55) 549, 564; [1999] 7 NWLR (pt. 610) 202; Akpan v. State [2001] FWLR (Pt. 56) 735; [2000] 12 NWLR (pt. 682) 607 and by Courts in other Commonwealth jurisdictions, see for example, R. v Nichols (1958) QWR 46; R v Hughes (1958) 84 CLR 170; Timbu Kolian v. The Queen (1968) 42 A.L.J.R.; R v. Tralka [1965] Qd. R. 225, [Queensland, Australia]. Scholars have seldom disagreed with judicial authorities on this question, C. O. Okonkwo, Okonkwo and Naish: Criminal Law in Nigeria (Second Edition) (Ibadan: Spectrum Books Ltd, (2009) 209 et seq; A. G. Karibi-Whyte, History and Sources of Nigerian Criminal Law (Ibadan; Spectrum Books Ltd, 1988) passi Archbold's Pleadings: Evidence and Practice in Criminal Cases (Fourth Edition) (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 1979) passim, K.S. Chukkol, The Law of Crimes in Nigeria (Zaria: Ahmadu Bello University Press Ltd, 1988); P. Ocheme, The Nigerian Criminal Law (Kaduna: Liberty Publications Ltd, 2006) 194 et seq."Per NWEZE, J.S.C. (Pp. 8-10, Paras. C-B) - read in context (2018) LPELR-45157(SC) 5. CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE - INTENTION: How intention is inferred in murder cases "As indicated earlier in this judgment, the third ingredient of the offence under consideration is that the Prosecution must prove that the accused person intended to either kill the victim or cause him grievous bodily harm, C. O. Okonkwo, Okonkwo and Naish: Criminal Law in Nigeria (supra); Maigari v State (supra); Ochemaje v. The State (supra); Daniel v. The State (supra); Obudu v. State (supra); Gira v State (supra). I have had an intimate perusal of the reasoning of the Lower Court on the third ingredient of the offence of murder. At page 235 of the record, the Lower Court admirably dealt with this requirement. Hear the Court's reasoning: ...the appellant knew that death of human being would be the natural consequence of firing an AK47 rifle into the crowd, but he went ahead to fire the rifle into the midst of the people. By so doing, he intended to kill or cause bodily harm to the people. [page 235 of the record; italics supplied for emphasis] I entirely agree with the Lower Court. After all, it is settled on several authorities that proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond any shadow of doubt, Aigbadion v State [2000] 7 NWLR (Pt. 666) 686; Agbo v. State [2006] 6 NWLR (Pt. 977) 545; Igabele v. State [2006] 6 NWLR (pt. 975) 100; Kim v. State [1992] 4 NWLR (Pt. 233) 17; Ubani v State [2003] 18 NWLR (Pt. 851) 224; Ameh v. State [1978] 6-7 SC 27. On the contrary, it has been held that the expression "proof beyond reasonable doubt" is a concept founded on a rational and critical examination of a state of affairs and law rather than in fancied, whimsical or capricious and speculative doubt,Akindipe v State [2008] 15 NWLR (pt. 1111) 560; State v Onyeukwu [2004] 14 NWLR (pt. 893) 340. In Bakare v. State (1987) LPELR-SC.242/1985, Obaseki JSC opined, most poignantly, that: Proof beyond reasonable doubt means proof of an offence with the certainty of the Criminal Law. That certainty is that the offence has been committed and that no other person but the accused person on the evidence committed the offence. Where the evidence conclusively establishes these facts, the case is said to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. [Italics supplied for emphasis] As Karibi- Whyte, JSC, put it in Bakare v. State (supra): The intention to kill or to cause grievous bodily harm, ...which resulted in death will be, and in this case was sufficient to establish the offence with which appellant was charged, Gwoji lire v.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Chukwudi Ugwanyi V Federal Republic of Nigeria
    In the Supreme Court of Nigeria On Friday, the 23rd day of March 2012 Before their Lordships Walter Samuel Nkanu Onnoghen ...... Justice Supreme Court Ibrahim Tanko Muhammad ...... Justice Supreme Court Olufunlola Oyelola Adekeye ...... Justice Supreme Court Bode Rhodes-Vivour ...... Justice Supreme Court Mary Ukaego Perter-Odili ...... Justice Supreme Court SC.190/2010 Between Chukwudi Ugwanyi ...... Appellant And Federal Republic of Nigeria ...... Respondent Judgment of the Court Delivered by Bode RhodesVivour. JSC The appellant was charged and arraigned on a one count charge which reads: That you Chukwudi Ugwanyi (M) 50 years of age, of No 4 Arowojobe Street, Onigbongbo Maryland, Lagos on or about the 17th November 2000 at Bodinga along Sokoto-Yauri Road, Sokoto within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, and without lawful authority had in your possession 26 kilograms of Indian Hemp otherwise known as cannabis sativa, a narcotic drug similar to Cocaine and Heroin and thereby committed an offence contrary to and punishable under section 10H of the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (Amendment) Act No 15 of 1992. Hobon, J of the Federal High Court, Sokoto Division presided. The appellant entered a not guilty plea. Two witnesses testified for the prosecution. Both of them are officers from the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA). The prosecution tendered in court the following items, which were admitted as Exhibits: A. Certificate of testing analysis B. Packing of substance Forms C. Request for scientific aid D1 - D12 Twelve wrapped Sellotaped bundles recovered from the appellant. E. Drug analysis Report dated 4/1/2005 E2. Transparent evidence pouch with substances feature and descriptions of the accused and the case.
    [Show full text]
  • Bernard Ojeifo Longe V First Bank of Nigeria
    In The Supreme Court of Nigeria On Friday, the 5th day of March 2010 Before Their Lordships Dahiru Musdapher ...... Justice, Supreme Court George Adesola Oguntade ...... Justice, Supreme Court Francis Fedode Tabai ...... Justice, Supreme Court Ibrahim Tanko Muhammad ...... Justice, Supreme Court Olufunlola Oyelola Adekeye ...... Justice, Supreme Court S.C. 116/2007 Between Bernard Ojeifo Longe ....... Appellant And First Bank of Nigeria Plc ....... Respondent Judgement of the Court Delivered by George Adesola Oguntade. J.S.C. The appellant was the plaintiff before the Federal High Court Lagos where on 4-07-02, he issued a Writ of Summons against the respondent as the defendant claiming the following reliefs: (i) A declaration that the Defendant's Board of Directors cannot lawfully hold any meeting of the said Board without giving notice thereof to the Plaintiff and accordingly all decisions taken at any such meeting is unlawful, invalid, null and void and incapable of having any legal consequence; (ii) A declaration that in particular the decision of the Defendant's Board of Directors held on the 13th of June 2002 to revoke the Plaintiff s appointment as Managing Director/Chief Executive is wrongful, unlawful, invalid, null and void and incapable of having any legal consequence; (iii) A declaration that any purported implementation of the said decision made by the Board on the 13th of June 2002 (including any appointment to the office held by the Plaintiff in the Defendant Company) is ineffective, unlawful and null and void; (iv) An order of injunction restraining the said Defendants from giving effect or continuing to give effect to any of the decisions of the Board mentioned in claims (i) and (ii) hereof without first complying with the mandatory procedural requirements stipulated in Section 266(3) of C.A.M.A.
    [Show full text]
  • Law COMPANION Is Restricted by Territory, That Law Cannot Be Applied Outside That Territory
    JOSEPH MORAH APPELLANT AND FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA RESPONDENT SC.160/2015 SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD JSC OLUKAYODE ARIWOOLA JSC KUMAI BAYANG AKA'AHS JSC (Delivered Lead Judgment) JOHN INYANG OKORO JSC PAUL ADAMULAW GALINJE COMPANION JSC AT ABUJA, ON FRIDAY, 23RD MARCH, 2018 COURT- Offence with multiple elements- Where the elements occur in two or more states- Court with jurisdiction to try. CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE- Offence of conspiracy- Acts or omission of a co- conspirator- When will be ascribed to other conspirators Rationale for. CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE- Offence of conspiracy- What constitutes- Gist of- What prosecution must prove to secure a conviction. CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE- Offence of obtaining by false pretence- What constitutes. 1 CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE- Offence with multiple elements- Where the elements occur in two or more states- Court with jurisdiction to try. CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE- Offence with multiple elements- Where the elements took place in two or more states- Entry into a state where one of the elements occur- What constitutes. CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE- Section 124(2) (b) of the Criminal Code- Purport of. EVIDENCE- Offence of conspiracy- Acts or omission of a co- conspirator- When will be ascribed to other conspirators Rationale for. EVIDENCE- Offence of conspiracy- What constitutes- Gist of- What prosecution must prove to secure a conviction. EVIDENCE- Offence of obtaining by false pretence- What constitutes. JURISDICTION- Offence with multiple elements- Where the elements occur in two or more states-LAW Court with jurisdiction COMPANION to try. STATUTES- Section 124(2) (b) of the Criminal Code- Purport of.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Panel of the National Judicial Council Holden at Abuja
    IN THE PANEL OF THE NATIONAL JUDICIAL COUNCIL HOLDEN AT ABUJA IN THE PETITIONS OF ALLEGED FINANCIAL IMPROPRIETY, INFIDELITY TO THE CONSTITUION AND OTHER ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL CRIMES RELATED LAWS BY THE ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL CRIMES COMMISSION AGAINST HON. JUSTICE WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN, GCON WRITTEN ADDRESS SUBMITTED BY THE COUNSEL TO THE RESPONDENT Respondent’s Counsel R.A. Lawal-Rabana, SAN Okon Nkanu Efut, SAN J.U.K. Igwe, SAN George Ibrahim,Esq Victoria Agi, Esq Orji Ude Ekumankama, Esq Opeyemi Origunloye, Esq Temitayo Fiki, Esq For Service On Counsel For the Petitioner Economic and Financial Crimes Commission Rotimi Oyedepo, Esq [email protected] 1 IN THE PANEL OF THE NATIONAL JUDICIAL COUNCIL HOLDEN AT ABUJA IN THE PETITIONS OF ALLEGED FINANCIAL IMPROPRIETY, INFIDELITY TO THE CONSTITUION AND OTHER ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL CRIMES RELATED LAWS BY THE ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL CRIMES COMMISSION AGAINST HON. JUSTICE WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN, GCON 1.0 Introduction 1.1 The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission sent two (2) petitions to the Chairman, National Judicial Council through the office of the Chief Justice of Nigeria against The Hon. Justice Walter Samuel Nkanu Onnoghen, GCON, Chief Justice of Nigeria. 1.2 The first petition is dated 4th February, 2019 vide reference EFCC/EC/GC/31/2253 while the second petition is dated 5th March 2019 vide reference EFCC/EC/CJN/05/59. 1.3 The petition was forwarded to the Hon. Chief Justice of Nigeria by the National Judicial Council vide a memo dated 11th February 2019 reference NJC/F1/SC.3/1/570 following the 17th Emergency meeting of the Council held the same 11th February 2019.
    [Show full text]
  • DR. OLUBUKOLA ABUBAKAR SARAKI V. FEDERAL REPUBLIC of NIGERIA SUPREME COURT of NIGERIA SC.852/2015 MAHMUD MOHAMMED. C.J.N. (Presi
    DR. OLUBUKOLA ABUBAKAR SARAKI V. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA SC.852/2015 MAHMUD MOHAMMED. C.J.N. (Presided) WALTER SAMUEL NKAKU ONNOGHEN. J.S.C. (Read the Leading Judgment) IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD, J.S.C. NWAL1 SYLVESTER NGWUTA. J.S.C. KUDIRAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN. J.S.C. CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE, J.S.C. AM1RU SANUSI, J.S.C. FRIDAY. 5TH FEBRUARY 2016 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Code of conduct for public officers -Purpose of. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Code of Conduct Tribunal - Jurisdiction of - Nature of. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Code of Conduct Tribunal - Powers of -Whether can compel appearance of person before it by bench warrant. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Code of Conduct Tribunal - Quorum of - Whether provided for in 1999 Constitution (as amended) or Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act - Sections 318(4), 1999 Constitution and 28 Interpretation Act considered. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Code of Conduct Tribunal - Sanctions of - Whether purely administrative. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Commission or Tribunal of Inquiry -Quorum of - What is - Section 28, Interpretation Act. APPEAL - Brief of argument - Reply brief - Purpose of. APPEAL - Concurrent findings of fact by lower courts - Attitude of Supreme Court thereto - When will interfere therewith - When will not. CODE OF CONDUCT - Code of conduct for public officers -Purpose of. CODE OF CONDUCT - Code of Conduct Tribunal - Existence of - Source of. CODE OF CONDUCT - Code of Conduct Tribunal - Jurisdiction of - Nature of. CODE OF CONDUCT - Code of Conduct Tribunal - Powers of-Whether can compel appearance of person before it by bench warrant. CODE OF CONDUCT- Code of Conduct Tribunal - Proceedings of - Rules governing - Application of Administration of Criminal Justice Act.
    [Show full text]
  • Nigerian Banking Law Reports
    NIGERIAN BANKING LAW REPORTS [2004 – 2006] VOLUME 13 PART III To be cited as: [2004 – 2006] 13 N.B.L.R. PART III Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation Plot 447/448 Airport Road Central Business District P.M.B. 284, Garki Abuja, Federal Capital Territory [FCT] Nigeria Tel: +23495237715–6, +523696740–44 Members of the LexisNexis Group worldwide South Africa LexisNexis (Pty) Ltd DURBAN 215 Peter Mokaba Road (North Ridge Road), Morningside, Durban, 4001 JOHANNESBURG Building No. 9, Harrowdene Office Park, 124 Western Service Road, Woodmead, 2191 CAPE TOWN Office Floor 2, North Lobby, Boulevard Place, Heron Close, Century City, 7441 www.lexisnexis.co.za Australia LexisNexis, CHATSWOOD, New South Wales Austria LexisNexis Verlag ARD Orac, VIENNA Benelux LexisNexis Benelux, AMSTERDAM Canada LexisNexis Canada, MARKHAM, Ontario China LexisNexis, BEIJING France LexisNexis, PARIS Germany LexisNexis Germany, MÜNSTER Hong Kong LexisNexis, HONG KONG India LexisNexis, NEW DELHI Italy Giuffrè Editore, MILAN Japan LexisNexis, TOKYO Korea LexisNexis, SEOUL Malaysia LexisNexis, KUALA LUMPUR New Zealand LexisNexis, WELLINGTON Poland LexisNexis Poland, WARSAW Singapore LexisNexis, SINGAPORE United Kingdom LexisNexis, LONDON USA LexisNexis, DAYTON, Ohio © 2013 Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation, published by LexisNexis (Pty) Ltd under licence ISSN 1595–1030 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, including electronic, mechanical, photocopying and recording, without the written permission of the copyright holder, application for which should be addressed to the publisher. Such written permission must also be obtained before any part of this publication is stored in a retrieval system of any nature.
    [Show full text]
  • Edwin Ezigbo V the State
    In the Supreme Court of Nigeria On Friday, the 1st day of June 2012 Before their Lordships Walter Samuel Nkanu Onnoghen ...... Justice, Supreme Court Ibrahim Tanko Muhammad ...... Justice, Supreme Court Suleiman Galadima ...... Justice, Supreme Court Nwali Sylvester Ngwuta ...... Justice, Supreme Court Olukayode Ariwoola ...... Justice, Supreme Court SC.35/2010 Between Edwin Ezeigbo ...... Appellant And The State ...... Respondent Judgment of the Court Delivered by Walter Samuel Nkanu Onnoghen. JSC his is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal Holden at Abuja in appeal no. CA/A/51 C/2007 delivered on the 8th day of January, 2008 in which the court dismissed the appeal of the appellant against the decision of the High Court of Niger State of Nigeria, Holden at Suleja in Charge No NSHC/SD/1C/2004 delivered on the 16th day of December 2005 in which the court convicted the appellant of the offence of rape and sentenced him accordingly. The instant appeal is therefore a further appeal against the decision of the said High Court. The facts of the case include the following:- On the 8th day of April, 2004 at about 4 p.m, PW.1 saw her two daughters Ogechi and Chioma ages 8 and 6 years respectively in the company of the appellant. The daughters were holding ice cream. When PW.1 called the two girls appellant changed direction and continued to walk away with the girls who also ignored their mother, PW.1. PW.1 became apprehensive and ran after appellant and the girls. On seeing PW.1 running towards them, appellant abandoned the girls and took to his heels.
    [Show full text]
  • 2018) Lpelr-45708(Sc
    SOCIO-POLITICAL RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT v. MINISTRY OF FCT & ORS CITATION: (2018) LPELR-45708(SC) In the Supreme Court of Nigeria ON FRIDAY, 28TH SEPTEMBER, 2018 Suit No: SC.203/2008 Before Their Lordships: IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD Justice of the Supreme Court OLUKAYODE ARIWOOLA Justice of the Supreme Court KUMAI BAYANG AKA'AHS Justice of the Supreme Court AMINA ADAMU AUGIE Justice of the Supreme Court SIDI DAUDA BAGE Justice of the Supreme Court Between SOCIO-POLITICAL RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT - Appellant(s) (2018) LPELR-45708(SC)And 1. MINISTRY OF FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY 2. HAJIYA MAIMUNA BELLO AJANAH - Respondent(s) 3. HAJIA HADIZA ABDULLAHI RATIO DECIDENDI 1. ACTION - LEGAL PERSONALITY: Position of the law as regards juristic or legal personality "Now, appellant's issue four which tallies with respondents' issue No.1, is a challenge on the legal personality of the appellant, that it is not a juristic personality. But, who is the appellant in this appeal? Paragraph 1 of the appellant/plaintiff's statement of claim at the Court of trial, stated that the plaintiff is a socio-political research and development company registered in Nigeria. The respondents' statement of defence, in denial, stated that the defendants were not aware of the plaintiff's status and that the plaintiff was not a juristic person in law. The trial Court treated the matter in a Ruling delivered on 9/12/99 holding that the plaintiff/appellant was an outfit registered in Nigeria: "All I now know about the plaintiff is that it is a Socio-Political Research and Development outfit registered in Nigeria as per paragraph 1 of the Statement of Claim.
    [Show full text]
  • Download At: AFRICAN HUMAN RIGHTS LAW JOURNAL
    Editors International editorial advisory board Frans Viljoen Jean Allain Editor-in-chief; Professor of Human Rights Law Professor of Public International Law, Monash and Director, Centre for Human Rights, University, Australia University of Pretoria, South Africa Fareda Banda Solomon Ebobrah Professor in the Laws of Africa, School of Extraordinary Lecturer, Centre for Human Oriental and African Studies, University of Rights, University of Pretoria; Professor of Law, London Niger Delta University, Nigeria Gina Bekker Magnus Killander Teaching Associate, Monash University, Professor, Centre for Human Rights, University of Australia Pretoria Victor Dankwa Tshepo Madlingozi Professor of Law, University of Ghana Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law, University of Pretoria John Dugard Member, International Law Commission; Annelize Nienaber Extraordinary professor, Centre for Human Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Pretoria Rights, University of Pretoria Christof Heyns Publication manager Chair of the international editorial advisory Isabeau de Meyer board; Director: Institute for International and Comparative Law in Africa, University of Pretoria Assisted by Edward Kwakwa Foluso Adegalu Legal Counsel, World Intellectual Property Doctoral candidate, Centre for Human Rights, Organisation, Geneva, Switzerland University of Pretoria Sandy Liebenberg Rudo Chigudu HF Oppenheimer Chair in Human Rights Law, Doctoral candidate, Centre for Human Rights, University of Stellenbosch, South Africa University of Pretoria Tiyanjana Maluwa Rutendo Chinamona
    [Show full text]
  • List of Justices of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal
    LIST OF JUSTICES JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT THE HON. JUSTICE DAHIRU MUSDAPHER CHIEF JUSTICE OF NIGERIA THE HON. JUSTICE ALOMA MARIAM MUKHTAR JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT THE HON. JUSTICE MAHMUD MOHAMMED JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT THE HON. JUSTICE WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT THE HON JUSTICE FRANCIS FEDODE TABAI JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT THE HON. JUSTICE IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT THE HON. JUSTICE CHRISTOPHER MITCHELL CHUKWUMA – ENEH JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT HON. JUSTICE M.S. MUNTAKA – COOMASSIE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT THE HON. JUSTICE JOHN AFOLABI FABIYI JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT THE HON. JUSTICE OLUFUNLOLA OYELOLA ADEKEYE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT THE HON. JUSTICE SULEIMAN GALADIMA JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT THE HON. JUSTICE BODE RHODES – VIVOUR JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT THE HON. JUSTICE NWALI SYLVESTER NGWUTA JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT THE HON. JUSTICE MARY UKAEGO PETER- ODILI JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT THE HON JUSTICE OLUKAYODE ARIWOOLA JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT LIST OF JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF APPEAL HON. JUSTICE DALHATU ADAMU ACTING PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF APPEAL LAGOS DIVISION HON. JUSTICE KUMAI BAYANG AKAAHS JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL HON. JUSTICE HELEN MORONIKEJI OGUNWUMIJU JUSTICE OF COURT OF APPEAL HON. JUSTICE IBRAHIM MOHD MUSA SAULAWA JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL HON. JUSTICE JOHN INYANG OKORO JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL HON. JUSTICE SIDI DAUDA BAGE JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL HON. JUSTICE NOSAKHARE PEMU JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL HON. JUSTICE MOHAMMED AMBI-USI DANJUMA JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL KADUNA DIVISION HON.
    [Show full text]
  • PDP V Peterside (2016) NWLR (Pt 1512)
    PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY (PDP) V. 1. HON (DR.) DAKUKU ADOL PETERSIDE 2. ALL PROGRESSIVE CONGRESS (APC) 3. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC) 4. WIKE EZENWO NYESOM SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA SC. 1001/2015 MAHMUD MOHAMMED, C.J.N. (Presided) IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD, J.S.C. NWALI SYLVESTER NGWUTA, J.S.C. KUMAI BAYANG AKA'AHS, J.S.C. KUDIRAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN. .J.S.C. (Read the Leading Judgment) JOHN INYANG OKORO, .J.S.C AMIRU SANUSI, FRIDAY, 12TH FEBRUARY 2016 ACTION - Parties to an action - Parties having same interest in suit - Where dissatisfied with decision of court and desirous of appealing against same - Need for to file joint appeal. APPEAL - Appellants - Appellants having same interest in suit - Need for to file joint appeal. APPEAL - Parties to an appeal - Parties having same interest in suit- Where dissatisfied with decision of court and desirous of appealing against same - Need for to file joint appeal. JUDICIAL PRECEDENT - Supreme Court - Previous decision of - When Supreme Court will follow and apply in subsequent case. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Appeal - Appellants - Appellants having same interest in suit - Need for to file joint appeal. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Parties to an action - Parties having same interest in suit - Where dissatisfied with decision of court and desirous of appealing against same - Need for to file joint appeal. STARE DECISIS - Previous decision of Supreme Court - When Supreme Court will follow and apply in subsequent case. Issue: Whether the appellant's appeal ought to be allowed having regard to the decision of the Supreme Court in Nyesom v. Peterside (2016) 7 NWLR (Pt.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court of Nigeria Sc. 153/2013 Action
    [2014] 1 NWLR Oke v. Mimiko (No.1) 225 1. CHIEF ALEX OLUSOLA ORE 2. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY (PDP) V. 1. DR. RAHMAN OLUSEGUN MIMIKO 2. LABOUR PARTY (LP) 3. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC) 4. RESIDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER, ONDO STATE 5. THE STATE RETURNING OFFICER FOR THE ONDO STATE GOVERNORSHIP ELECTION SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA SC. 153/2013 IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD. J.S.C. (Presided and Read the Leading - Judgment) JOHN AFOLABI FABIYI, J.S.C. SULEIMAN GALADIMA, J.S.C. NWALI SYLVESTER NGWUTA. J.S.C. MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMAD, J.S.C. CLARA BATA OGUNBIYL J.S.C. STANLEY SHENKO ALAGOA, J.S.C. ACTION - Academic or hypothetical suit - What amounts to - Attitude of court thereto. APPEAL - Concurrent finding of fact by trial court and Court of Appeal - Attitude of Supreme Court thereto - When will interfere therewith - When will not. APPEAL- Exercise of discretion by two lower courts - Attitude of Supreme court thereto. 226 Nigerian Weekly Law Reports 13 January 2014 APPEAL- Extension of lime - Application therefor - Exercise of lower court’s discretion to grant or refuse - Attitude of appellate court thereto. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW- Delivery of judgment - Delivery of judgment by election tribunal-Time-limit therefor - Section 285(6), 1999 Constitution. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW- Election petition - Filing of Time limit therefor - Section 285(5), 1999 Constitution. COURT- Academic or hypothetical suit - What amounts to - Attitude of court thereto. ELECTION PETITION - Amendment of election petition – Whether can be made after expiration of period within which to present election petition - Paragraph 14(2)(a) and (c). First Schedule, Electoral Act. 2010.
    [Show full text]