MR. MICHAEL A. OMO VS JUDICIAL SERVICE COMMITTEE OF DELTA STATE & ORS
June 25, 2025IKKO KASHADADI v. INGILLAS ARKIN NOMA
June 25, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2000) Legalpedia (SC) 13722
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
HOLDEN AT ABUJA
Thu Jul 6, 2000
Suit Number: S.C. 71/1999
CORAM
BODE RHODES -VIVOUR JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
M.L. UWAIS, CHIEF JUSTICE, NIGERIA
A.I. IGUH
MICHAEL EKUNDAYO OGUNDARE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT(Read the Leading Judgment)
PARTIES
THE STATE APPELLANTS
GODFREY AJIE RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The accused person was alleged to have hit the deceased on the neck. The deceased slumped and died afterwards. The medical report however stated that the deceased died as a result of fracture in the skull.
HELD
The court set aside the conviction of the accused for murder as the variation in the prosecution’s evidence and the medical report was fundamental.
ISSUES
Was the Court below right in making use of the contents of Exhibit ‘E’ in arriving at the decision it handed down in the Appeal before it. If Exhibit ‘E’ was properly admitted in evidence was the Court below justified in their decision (sic) that the trial Court did not arrive at a fair decision on the case before it as presented by the prosecution and the Defence?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
A PATHOLOGIST’S REPORT IS A SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF THE EVIDENCE STATED THEREIN
“A Medical Officer in the service of a State for purposes of undertaking a post-mortem examination is a pathologist and his report is a Certificate as envisaged in Section 42(1) (a) of the Evidence Act (ibid). The Certificate when tendered and admitted in evidence is regarded as sufficient evidence of the facts stated therein”…
AN APPELLATE COURT WILL NOT INTERFERE IN THE FINDINGS OF THE LOWER COURT EXCEPT WHERE IT IS PERVERSE
“Appellate Courts ought not to interfere with findings of fact of trial Courts which had the unique opportunity of seeing and hearing the witnesses give evidence and observing their demeanour in the witness box. There are, however, a number of exceptions to this rule…”
WHEN A DECISION IS PERVERSE
“An Appellate Court will also interfere with findings of fact where such findings are perverse. A decision is said to be perverse:-
(a) When it runs counter to the evidence; or
(b) Where it has been shown that the trial Court took into account matters which it ought not to have taken into account or shuts its eyes to the obvious; or
(c) When it has occasioned a miscarriage of justice.”
CASES CITED
Chief Frank Ebba v. Chief Warri Ogodo (1984) 4 SC. 84 at pages 98-100;|Fabunmi v. Agbe(1985) 1 NWLR (Part 2) 200 at 314;|Fatoyinbo v. Williams (1955) 1 FSC. 87 and|Ukatta v. Ndinaeze (1997) 4 NWLR (Part 499) 257,|Missr v. Ibrahim (1974) 5 SC. 55;|Incar Ltd. v. Adegboye (1985) 2 NWLR 455 and|Ramonu Atolagbe v. Shorun (1985) 4 SC. (Part 1) 250 at 282.
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Section 42(1) (a) of the Evidence Act|
CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT
