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