LION OF AFRICA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS STELLA ANULUOHA
August 20, 2025B. O. FAMUYIWA VS FOLAWIYO & ORS
August 20, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1972) Legalpedia (SC) 12249
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri May 5, 1972
Suit Number: SC.247/1971
CORAM
ELIAS JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
LEWIS JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
SOWEMIMO JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
PETER LOCKNAN HAPPY APOLO APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
TIMEOUS OBJECTION OF COUNSEL
The appellants beat a taxi driver for refusing their orders to take them to Auchi. The 1st appellant appealed on grounds of fair hearing and the 2nd appellant appealed contended that he had no common intention as the other accused though he was with them
HELD
The court held that the fact the court records did not reflect the presence of the interpreter on the subsequent days of trial was not alone sufficient to set aside the conviction of the appellant.
ISSUES
Whether the trial Judge was bound to show that the interpreter for the accused was present on every subsequent day after he is affirmed on the first day of trial and if failure to do so, will occasion a miscarriage of justice without more.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
BURDEN OF PROOF
“The burden is on an appellant to show that the irregularity has led to a failure of justice.” Per LEWIS, JSC.<foo< p=””></foo<>
BURDEN OF PROOF
“The burden is on an appellant to show that the irregularity has led to a failure of justice.” Per LEWIS, JSC.
ONCE IT HAS BEEN RECORDED THAT THE INTERPRETER WAS PRESENT ON THE FIRST DAY OF TRIAL, IT IS UNNECESSARY TO SHOW ON RECORD THAT THE INTERPRETER WAS PRESENT ON EVERY SUBSEQUENT DAY
“We do not think that, once the learned trial Judge had recorded the interpreter as being affirmed on the first day of the trial, it was absolutely necessary for him to show on the record that the interpreter was present on every subsequent day.” Per LEWIS, JSC.<foo< p=””></foo<>
ONCE IT HAS BEEN RECORDED THAT THE INTERPRETER WAS PRESENT ON THE FIRST DAY OF TRIAL, IT IS UNNECESSARY TO SHOW ON RECORD THAT THE INTERPRETER WAS PRESENT ON EVERY SUBSEQUENT DAY
“We do not think that, once the learned trial Judge had recorded the interpreter as being affirmed on the first day of the trial, it was absolutely necessary for him to show on the record that the interpreter was present on every subsequent day.” Per LEWIS, JSC.
THE PRACTICE USUALLY ADOPTED IN THE HIGH COURTS AND MAGISTRATE COURTS WHERE A WITNESS IS GIVING EVIDENCE IN A LANGUAGE NOT UNDERSTOOD BY THE ACCUSED.
“In our experience the practice usually adopted in the High Courts and Magistrates Courts where a witness is giving evidence in a language not understood by the accused, and where no interpretation into a language understood by the accused is being made for benefit of the court, is for an interpreter to stand near the accused and tell him what the witness is saying.” Per LEWIS, JSC.<foo< p=””></foo<>
THE PRACTICE USUALLY ADOPTED IN THE HIGH COURTS AND MAGISTRATE COURTS WHERE A WITNESS IS GIVING EVIDENCE IN A LANGUAGE NOT UNDERSTOOD BY THE ACCUSED.
“In our experience the practice usually adopted in the High Courts and Magistrates Courts where a witness is giving evidence in a language not understood by the accused, and where no interpretation into a language understood by the accused is being made for benefit of the court, is for an interpreter to stand near the accused and tell him what the witness is saying.” Per LEWIS, JSC.
CASES CITED
R V. LEE KUN (1916) 1 K.B 337
ADAN HAJI JAMA V. THE KING (1948) A.C 225
R V. EAST KERRIER EXPARTE MUNDY (1952)2 Q.B 719
OFFOR V. QUEEN (1955)15 WACA 4
REGINA V. GOLDER (1960)1 WLR 1169 AT 1172
QUEEN V. EKPONG (1961) ALL NLR 25
QUEEN V.EGUABOR (1962) 1 ALL NLR 297
AJAYI V. ZARIA NATIVE AUTHORITY (1963) 1 ALL NLR 169
NYAM V. THE STATE (1964) 1 ALL NLR 361
ASEMAKAHA V. THE STATE (1965) NMLR 317
EDUN & ORS V. I.G.P (1966)1 ALL NLR 17
STATUTES REFERRED TO
