OSO AYA VS EMMANUEL DANIEL HENSHAW - Legalpedia | The Complete Lawyer - Research | Productivity | Health

OSO AYA VS EMMANUEL DANIEL HENSHAW

F.O. LUKAN VS M. O. OGUNSUSI
August 20, 2025
BASSA VORGHO VS THE STATE
August 20, 2025
F.O. LUKAN VS M. O. OGUNSUSI
August 20, 2025
BASSA VORGHO VS THE STATE
August 20, 2025
Show all

OSO AYA VS EMMANUEL DANIEL HENSHAW

Legalpedia Citation: (1972) Legalpedia (SC) 19331

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Fri May 5, 1972

Suit Number: SC. 359/1966

CORAM


COKER JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

LEWIS JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

UDOMA JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT


PARTIES


OSO AYA (Alias) OSO EFFIONGIQUO EKPONG INYANG APPELLANTS


RESPONDENTS


AREA(S) OF LAW



SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Plaintiff/Respondent and Defendant/Appellant both claim title to a piece of land and trespass. The High Court Judge gave an order based Order 56 Rule 16 of High Court of Eastern Nigeria. The defendant appealed against such order.


HELD


The appeal was dismissed. It was held that the trial judge could use his discretion to call witnesses as the legislation permits.


ISSUES


Whether the learned Judge did not exercise his discretion properly in making an order under Order 56 Rule 16.


RATIONES DECIDENDI


CALL OF WITNESSES BY A TRIAL JUDGE


“We confirmed the principle that a trial Judge should not enter the arena and call witnesses himself but we also reaffirmed the right of a trial Judge to recall witnesses in appropriate circumstances” PER LEWIS, JSC.


DISCRETION OF JUDGE TO RECALL A WITNESS


Undoubtedly the discretion to recall a witness by a Judge is one which should be exercised with great care regard being had to the interest of justice and the desirability of remaining an impartial arbiter between the parties; but it I will be wrong to say that a Judge has an unfettered discretion to call or recall a witness in civil proceedings at any stage of the proceedings even when in the interest of justice he was obviously obliged to do so in order to clarify a point of evidence which had arisen in the proceedings before him and the implications of which are well within the knowledge of both parties to the litigation.” Ogbudu v. Odogha. (1967) NMLR. 221 at 223 Adopted by LEWIS, JSC.


CASES CITED


Re Enoch v. Zaretsky, Bock & Co. (1910) KB 327

Ogbudu v. Odogha. (1967) NMLR. 221 at 223


STATUTES REFERRED TO



CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT

Comments are closed.