CORAM

---

CLARA BATA OGUNBIYI

CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE

E.O. OGWUEGBU, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

---

PARTIES

---

DANIEL OKONKWO APPELLANTS

---

RESPONDENTS

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The plaintiff claims from the defendants damages for false imprisonment in that on or about the 2nd day of May, 1982 at Asaba the 1st defendant falsely and maliciously preferred before the Nigeria Police Asaba a charge of willful and unlawful damage to his (1st defendant’s) property at Asaba and falsely procured the arrest of the plaintiff by the 2nd defendant.  ?

---

HELD

---

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal wholly fails and I hereby dismiss it with N1,000.00 costs to the 1st respondent. ?

---

ISSUES

---

“I. Whether a case of false imprisonment was at all made out against the appellant at the trial by the 1st respondent in view of S. 17 of the Criminal Procedure Law Cap. 49, Laws of Bendel State of Nigeria, 1976, applicable to Delta State governing, Release on bail of a person arrested without warrant, and which point of law was not argued at the court below.2. Whether the failure of the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal to consider ground 2 of the appellant’s ground of appeal occasioned a miscarriage of justice against the appellant.3. Whether the onus of proof as regards the statement of the appellant to the Police was discharged by the respondent when the statement was not produced as the Primary Evidence of its content and when non-production was never explained out by the respondents. And accordingly whether section 148(d) of the Evidence Act enures in favour of the appellant against the respondent in the circumstance. 4. Whether the disclosure by Corporal Akinbowa, a serving police officer of what transpired between him and the complainant (appellant) in this case amounted to a violent violation of the Official Secrets Laws of Nigeria, and whether such evidence purporting to show what transpired between the Corporal and the complainant ought not to be disregarded and any judgment or – finding based on it vitiated.5. Whether Exhibit “B” is inadmissible and if it is, whether the trial court as well as the Court of Appeal ought not to have expunged that piece of evidence from the record being a secondary evidence of the content of an original document and which document was not produced nor foundation laid for the admissibility of its secondary evidence.6. Whether the findings of fact and conclusion of the learned trial Judge and affirmed by the Court of Appeal support the charge and evidence led at the trial.7. Whether the award made by the learned trial Judge and affirmed by the Court of Appeal support the evidence led or in the alternative whether the two courts below applied the correct principles of law in reaching the award made.?

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

WHEN NEW ISSUES CAN BE RAISED ON APPEAL.

---

“As a general rule, an appellant will not be allowed to raise on appeal a question which was not raised, tried and considered in the court below unless the question involves substantial points of law, substantive or procedural and it is clear that no further evidence could have been adduced which could affect the decision on them.” OGWUEGBU, JSC

---

CASES CITED

---

Shonekan v. Smith (1964) 1 All NLR 164 (Reprint); Stool of Abinabina v. Chief Kojo Enyimadu (1953) A.C. 209 at 215 and Akpene v. Barclays Bank of Nigeria & Or. (1977) 1 S.C. 47.  Fashanu v. Adekoya (1974) 6 S.C.83.

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

None.

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT