DR. OLAWALE ALAKIJA & ORS VS ALHAJI ABDULAI
July 1, 2025ARTRA INDUSTRIES NIGERIA LIMITED V. THE NIGERIAN BANK FOR COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
July 1, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1998) Legalpedia (SC) 02511
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Apr 24, 1998
Suit Number: SC. 131/97
CORAM
OLATUNJI, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
SALIHU MODDIBO ALFA BELGORE, JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT
ABUBAKAR BASHIR WALI, JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT
MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA
SYLVESTER UMARU ONU, JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
CLEMENT OGUONZEE APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellant, an Assistant Superintendent of Police was charged with the offence of murder. Upon his arraignment before the High Court of Edo State holden at Benin, he pleaded not guilty to the charge.?
HELD
Concurrent judgment of the two lower courts affirmed, the conviction and death sentence passed on the appellant were sustained. Appeal dismissed.?
ISSUES
1. Whether the holding by the learned Justices of the Appeal Court that ‘it is my candid view that the learned trial Judge’s findings in this case can just not be faulted, and I do not intend to interfere with them’ was perverse having regard to the evidence before the trial court. 2. Whether the learned trial Judge and the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right in holding that the evidence of P.W. 2 and P.W. 4 corroborated each other. 3. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right by holding that a case of accidental discharge was not made out by the appellant.?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
A PERSON NEED NOT CALL EVERY AVAILABLE EVIDENCE
It is a well established principle of law that it is not necessary for a person on whom the onus of proof lies, even in criminal cases, to call every available piece of evidence in order to discharge that burden. It is enough if evidence is tendered sufficient to discharge the onus which the law lays upon the prosecution. Per A. I. Iguh J.S.C.
EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE-DUTY OF TRIAL COURT
It is a basic principle of law that the evaluation of evidence and the ascription of probative value to such evidence are the primary functions of a court of trial which saw, heard and assessed the witnesses while they testified before it. Per A. I. Iguh J.S.C.
CASES CITED
Mufutau Bakare v. The State (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt.52) 579Ogundiyan v. The State (1991) 3 NWLR (Pt. 181) 519Odofin v. Ayoola (1984) 11 SC. 72Ogbero Egri v. Uperi (1973) 1 NMLR 22Ogundulu & Ors. v. Phillips & Ors. (1973) NMLR 267Francis Odili v. The State (1977) 4 SC 1 or (1977) 11 NSCC 154 at 158?
STATUTES REFERRED TO
EVIDENCE ACT?
