TAMBARI MAIJAMAA VS THE STATE
September 4, 2025SAMSON AYOOLA & ORS VS DAVID OGUNJIMI
September 4, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1964-06) Legalpedia 21072 (SC)
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Holden At Abuja
Thu Jun 11, 1964
Suit Number: SC 57/1964
CORAM
BRETT JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
TAYLOR JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
BAIRAMIAN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
MOMODU ADISA
APPELLANTS
THE STATE
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellant was convicted on a charge of murder and he sought an order of court discharging and acquitting him of the offence.
HELD
Appeal allowed
ISSUES
RATIONES DECIDENDI
WHEN A RETRIAL SHOULD NOT BE ORDERED
Retrial should not be ordered for the purpose of enabling the prosecution to prepare their case anew and bring new evidence which they omitted to call at the previous trial.- BRETT, J.S.C.
PROVISION OF SECTIONS 207,208 AND 209 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT
Sections 207, 208 and 209 (c) clearly and expressly permit the calling of evidence to impeach a witness’ credit by proof of former statements inconsistent with any part of his evidence which is liable to be contradicted, as long as the witness has been cross-examined about the statements. Section 198 is to the like effect.- BRETT, J.S.C.
EFFECT OF PREVIOUS STATEMENT MADE BY AN ORDINARY WITNESS IN A CRIMINAL CASE
In a criminal case a previous statement made by an ordinary witness is admissible only as affecting the credibility of his evidence and not as proof of the truth of what it says.- BRETT, J.S.C.
CASES CITED
1. R. v. Abodundu, (1959) 4 F.S.C. 70
2. Ejukolem v. Police, (1952) 14 WA.C.A. 161
3. R. v. Akanni (1960) 5 F.S.C. 120
4. R. v. Itule [1961] All N.L.R. 462
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Evidence Act
