CORAM
ADEMOLA, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
BAIRAMIAN, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
BRETT, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
ENEBIENE IJOMA
APPELLANTS
THE QUEEN
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
LAW OF EVIDENCE—DEPOSITION—APPEAL (CRIMINAL LAW—CHARGE—OMISSION—APPEAL)
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellant was convicted on an indictment in nine counts: 5 counts of forgery contra Section 467 of the Criminal Code, 2 counts of uttering contra Section 468 of the Criminal Code, one count of procuring registration by false representation contra Section 26 of the Medical Practitioners and Dentists Ordinance, and one count of possession of poison for illegal purposes contra Section 59 of the Pharmacy Ordinance.
HELD
The appeal is therefore dismissed.
ISSUES
Not Available
RATIONES DECIDENDI
DEPOSITIONS
“It is accepted that, prima facie, depositions should not be admitted in evidence and the witnesses themselves should be called at the trial, but Section 34 of the Evidence Act was enacted to admit such depositions in a number of cases.” Per ADEMOLA C.J.F.
DEPOSITIONS
“In fact, a deposition is good enough and admissible in evidence if it bears no caption provided it is described as the examination of the witness, and the evidence contained in it is relevant to the charge.” Per ADEMOLA C.J.F
EFFECT OF OMISSIONS IN A CHARGE
“In the particulars the word “false” or “forged” was inadvertently left out in each of the two counts, thus rendering the particular incomplete. They are clear cases of defective or incomplete particulars; the omissions do not render the information bad in law.” Per ADEMOLA C.J.F.
CASES CITED
1. R. V Collins, 26 Crim. App. R. 117
2. R. V Langbridge, (1849) 3 Cox, 465
3. R. V Majekodunmi, 14 W.A.C.A. 64
4. R. V Ikpe, 6 F.S.C. 180
5. R. V Yakubu, 10 W.A.C.A. 267
6. Inspector-General of Police V Okoro, 14 W.A.C.A. 370
7. R. V Franks, (1950), 34 Criminal Appeal R. 222
8. R. V McVitie, 44 Crim. App. R. 201
STATUTES REFERRED TO
1. The Criminal Code
2. The Medical Practitioners and Dentists Ordinance
3. The Pharmacy Ordinance
4. The Evidence Act