CORAM
ADEMOLA CHIEF JUSTICE, NIGERIA
MADARIKAN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
SULE IYANDA SALAWU
APPELLANTS
THE STATE
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellant was tried and convicted of murder in the High Court, Oshogbo on 22nd May, 1969. His appeal to the Western State Court of Appeal was dismissed. He then appealed to the Supreme Court.
HELD
The Supreme Court held that the trial judge fell into a fundamental error in holding that the evidence to be given by the witness was not essential to a just decision of the case. A retrial de novo by another judge was ordered and the appellant be granted all facilities necessary to call any witness he may wish to call for the purpose of ventilating his defence.
ISSUES
None.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
WHEN A COURT OF APPEAL CAN INTERFERE WITH THE DISCRETIONARY POWER OF A TRIAL JUDGE
“It is a well-established principle of law that a judge has in criminal trial a discretionary power, with which a Court of Appeal cannot interfere, unless it appear that an injustice has thereby resulted, of recalling witnesses at any stage of the trial and of putting such questions to them as the exigencies of justice require.” Per UDOMA, JSC
COMTETENCE OF WITNESSESS
“As a rule of law it is not within the province of a trial judge in determining whether or not he should allow witnesses to be called on behalf of an accused person to take into consideration the probability of the witness being able to give material evidence”. Per UDOMA, JSC
CASES CITED
Rex v. Remnant [1807]
Ruse and Rye, 136 C.C.R
Shorunke v. The King [1946] A.C. 316
STATUTES REFERRED TO