CHIEF THOMAS OKPALA V M. U. OKPU & ORS
June 17, 2025EIMSKIP LIMITED V. EXQUISITE INDUSTRIES (NIG.) LTD.
June 17, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2003) Legalpedia (SC) 91611
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Jan 31, 2003
Suit Number: SC.361/2001
CORAM
PARTIES
NIGERIA AIR FORCE APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The respondent was charged with a 14-court charge for forgery, uttering and engaging in private business.
HELD
The Supreme Court held that the Power to convene a GCM could be and was properly delegated in this case and that the prosecution proved its case, However in respect of the charge relating to engaging in private business contrary to Administrative instruction, the court held that there was no evidence to that effect as mere inclusion of a person’s name as Director in a company in Form C07 (particulars of Director) is not sufficient proof.
ISSUES
1. Whether the responsibility of assisting the respondent’s defence by calling a witness rested on the prosecution or on the accused.2. Whether or not the prosecution had established a case of forgery and stealing against the respondent.?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
INGREDIENT TO PROVE FORGERY
It is an essential ingredient to be proved in a charge of forgery that “the accused forged the document in question A. O. EJIWUNMI, JSC
DUTY OF PROSECUTION
The duty of the prosecution is to prove the offence charged beyond reasonable doubt and so long as that burden is discharged, it does not matter whether a particular witness was not called to give evidence. NIKI TOBI, JSC
CASES CITED
Eze Ibeh V. The State (1997) 1 NWLR (pt. 484) 632Oguonzee V. The State [1968] 5 NWLR (pt. 551) 521
STATUTES REFERRED TO
