CHIABEE BAYOL VS IORKIGHIR AHEMBA

CORAM

E.O. AYOOLA – JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

A.O. EJIWUNMI – JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

CORAM

E.O. AYOOLA – JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

MADARIKAN , USTICE, SUPREME COURT

CORAM

E.O. AYOOLA – JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

CORAM

E.O. AYOOLA – JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

E.O. AYOOLA – JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

CORAM

CORAM

MADARIKAN , USTICE, SUPREME COURT

A.O. EJIWUNMI – JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

E.O. AYOOLA – JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

CORAM

CORAM

A.O. EJIWUNMI – JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

E.O. AYOOLA – JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

CORAM

A.B. WALI JUSTICE, – SUPREME COURT

M.E. OGUNDAR – JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

MADARIKAN , USTICE, SUPREME COURT

A.O. EJIWUNMI – JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

E.O. AYOOLA – JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

CORAM

MADARIKAN , USTICE, SUPREME COURT

E.O. AYOOLA – JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

PARTIES

CHIABEE BAYOL APPELLANTS

IORKIGHIR AHEMBA

RESPONDENTS 

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The trial court considered the evidence given in a previous proceedings in determining the appellant’s case for malicious prosecution while the court of appeal raised issues and failed to consider some of the issues raised by the appellant. The lower courts however found that the appellant failed to establish lack of reasonable cause and malice.  ?

HELD

The court held that though the trial court wrongly relied on the evidence given in the criminal proceedings and the court of appeal raised issues outside the appeal and did not consider some of the a appellant’s issues, no miscarriage of justice was occasioned thereby. ?

ISSUES

1. Whether in coming to its dismiss (sic) appellant’s appeal the Court of Appeal dealt with an issue that did not arise under the grounds of appeal while omitting to deal with issues properly raised before it, and if so the Legal consequences of its so doing?

2. Whether the holding by the Court of Appeal that the court considered evidence properly adduced before it, and did not rely on the evidence of a witness not before it in reaching a decision to dismiss appellants case is correct having regard to the Record of Appeal?

3. Whether the rule that evidence of a witness in an earlier proceeding is irrelevant in a subsequent proceeding except for purposes of cross- examination as to credit and in circumstances envisaged by S.34 (1) of the Evidence Act, admits of exception in malicious prosecution cases?

4. What is the Legal consequence upon its judgment of the trial court considering and relying on the evidence of a witness not before it?

5. Whether the misdirection by the Court of Appeal in stating that “it was therefore not surprising when the criminal court wondered why in spite of their findings the police went ahead and prosecuted the appellant occasioned a miscarriage of Justice”.?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

CASES CITED

Olubode v. Salami (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 7) 282Jamgbadi v. Jamgbadi (1963)2 SC NLR 311, Uor v. Loko (1988) 2 NWLR (Pt. 77) 430 and Ebamowo v. Fadiyo (1973) 1 All NLR 134.?

STATUTES REFERRED TO

The Evidence Act 

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT