IDOWU ALASE & ORS VS SANYA OLORI ILU & ORS
September 3, 2025M.A. ALATISHE VS H.R. SANYAOLUN
September 3, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1964-12) Legalpedia 52672 (SC)
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Holden at Lagos
Wed Dec 23, 1964
Suit Number: SC 374/1964
CORAM
ADEMOLA, CHIEF JUSTICE, NIGERIA
BRETT, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
BAIRMIAN, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
BAIRAMIAN, CHIEF JUSTICE, NIGERIA
AJEGBO, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
ARUA EME
APPELLANTS
THE STATE
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
None.
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellant complained that the learned trial judge erred in law by refusing him the right to call his defence witnesses to corroborate his statement.
The appellant sought an order of dismissal or retrial on the ground that the provisions of section 287 (1) (a) of the Criminal Procedure Act had not been complied with
HELD
The court overruled the decision in Oladimeji V the king and held that the appellant had no witness who could have been of any assistance to him and he is in no way prejudiced by the failure to ask him If he had any witnesses to examine.
ISSUES
Whether failure to comply with the provision of section 287 (1) (a) of the Criminal Procedure Act shall vitiate the trial
RATIONES DECIDENDI
1. ON OBJECT OF A PROVISO
The object of a proviso is to qualify or cut down something which has gone before, usually called the enacting clause;- ONYEAMA,J.S.C.
2. ON EFFECT OF FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISION OF SECTION 287 (1) (A) OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT
Failure to comply with section 287 (1) (a) of the Criminal Procedure Act, although an irregularity, does not render the trial null; the effect of such failure must depend on the circum stances of the particular case, and the appellate court is at liberty to allow the appeal and order an acquittal or a retrial, or dismiss the appeal if it considers that no substantial miscarriage of justice has occurred.- ONYEAMA J.S.C.
ON OBJECT OF A PROVISO
The object of a proviso is to qualify or cut down something which has gone before, usually called the enacting clause;’- ONYEAMA,J.S.C.
ON EFFECT OF FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISION OF SECTION 287 (1) (A) OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT
Failure to comply with section 287 (1) (a) of the Criminal Procedure Act, although an irregularity, does not render the trial null; the effect of such failure must depend on the circum stances of the particular case, and the appellate court is at liberty to allow the appeal and order an acquittal or a retrial, or dismiss the appeal if it considers that no substantial miscarriage of justice has occurred.’- ONYEAMA J.S.C.
CASES CITED
1. Oladimeji v. The King 13 W.A.C.A. 275
2. Adikun Oke v. Inspector-General of Police 14 W.A.C.A 645
3. Salawu Atunde v. Commissioner of Police 14 W.A.C.A. 171
4. Igwenagu (1959) N.R.N.LR. 80.
5. N.I.P.C. and Mansour v. Bank of West Africa Ltd. (as yet unreported; but see F.S.C. 478/61 decided on 7th November, 1962)
6. West Derby Union v. Metropolitan Life Assurance Society [1897] A.C. 647 at p. 651
7. Oladimeii v. The King, 13 WA.C.A. 275
STATUTES REFERRED TO
1. Criminal Procedure Act (Cap. 43)
2. Land Registration Act (Cap. 99 in the 1958 Laws of the Federation
