ADEWALE JOSEPH VS THE STATE

CORAM

CHARLES OLUSOJI MADARIKAN

UDO UDOMA

PARTIES

ADEWALE JOSEPH APPELLANTS

THE STATE RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant was charged and found guilty of causing death by dangerous driving, and failure to stop after an accident contrary to and punishable under section 5 of the Federal High Way Act, Cap.135 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990. Dissatisfied with the judgment the Appellant lodged an appeal to the Court of Appeal, Ibadan Division. That court confirmed the convictions and sentences of the trial court. Still dissatisfied with the judgment of the Court of Appeal, the Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

HELD

Appeal dismissed

ISSUES

1. Whether the Court of Appeal rightly held that by virtue of the Legal Notice No.60 of 1977, the trial court was right in taking judicial Notice of the road, i.e Igbogila/Ibara-Orile/Sokoto expressway on which the accident occurred as a Federal High Way under Section 74 of the Evidence Act. 2. Whether the court rightly affirmed the decision of the trial court in holding that the Respondent established beyond reasonable doubt that it was dangerous or reckless driving of the appellant on 12/5/2000 along the Igbogila/Igbo-Ora road that resulted in the accident.

RATIONES DECIDENDI

JUDICIAL NOTICE – PROOF OF A FACT IS NOT NECESSARY WHERE THE COURT TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE OF A FACT

Where the court takes judicial Notice of a fact, proof is no longer necessary. This is so because judicial Notice takes the place of proof, but it is not conclusive. A party who wishes to dispute the fact must provide evidence. Per Rhodes-Vivour JSC
PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT – PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT DOES NOT MEAN PROOF BEYOND EVERY SHADOW OF DOUBT
Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all doubt, or all shadow of doubt. It means the prosecution establishing the guilt of the accused person with compelling and conclusive evidence. It means a degree of compulsion which is consistent with a high degree of probability. Per Rhodes-Vivour JSC
PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT- PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT IS NOT ACHIEVED BY CALLING SEVERAL WITNESSES BUT BY THE TESTIMONY OF A QUALITY WITNESS
Proof beyond reasonable doubt is not achieved by the prosecution calling several witnesses to testify. The court is only interested in the testimony of a quality witness, so long as the charge is not one that needs corroboration. Per Rhodes-Vivour JSC
PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT – COURT MUST EVALUATE EVIDENCE OF BOTH PARTIES BEFORE MAKING A FINDING THAT A CASE HAS BEEN PROVED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
“A trial court must consider the evidence adduced by the prosecution, and the accused person, evaluate all evidence, before it can say the case was proved beyond reasonable doubt. Failure to consider the accused persons case is a denial of justice and fatal to the prosecution’s case.”

CASES CITED

State v. F. Usifor 1974 1NMLR pt.72|Miller v. Minister of Pensions 1947 2ALL E.R. p.372|Lori v. State 1980 8 – 11 SC p.81|Amusa v. State 13NSCQR p. 173|R. v. Tatimu 1952 20 NLR p. 60|Bakare v. State 1987 1NWLR pt.52 p. 579|Adio v. State 1986 2 NWLR pt. 24 p. 581

STATUTES REFERRED TO

Evidence Act|

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT