DNA TEST AND THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY

Certainly, Appellant cannot be allowed such whimsical past time, as it has no place in law. It is unimaginable for a Court to order two unwilling adults or senior citizens to submit to DNA test, in defiance of their fundamental rights to privacy for the purpose of extracting scientific evidence to assist Appellant to confirm...

This content is for PAYMENT - 1-DAY and PAYMENT - 1-MONTH members only.
Login Join Now

CHANGE IN LAW DOES NOT NULLIFY RIGHTS BASED ON THE OLD LAW

When the Supreme Court departs from its earlier decision on a point, the departure does not operate to generally overrule and nullify all previous decisions that followed the earlier decision it has departed from. The departure serves to chart a new direction to be followed without affecting the previous status quo. If the new decision...

This content is for PAYMENT - 1-DAY and PAYMENT - 1-MONTH members only.
Login Join Now

IMPROPER & IRREGULAR EXERCISE OF RIGHTS CONSTITUTES ABUSE

As I have observed, it is not the exercise of the right, per se, but its improper and irregular exercise which constitutes an abuse. Essentially, it is the inconvenience, inequities, involved in the aims and purposes of the application which constitute the abuse. Otherwise, where there is a right to bring an action the state...

This content is for PAYMENT - 1-DAY and PAYMENT - 1-MONTH members only.
Login Join Now

TWO WRONGS DO NOT MAKE A RIGHT – GARBA’S CASE

As the students were wrong in going on a rampage, the University Authorities will on their own part be wrong in using means other than those allowed them by law in dealing with the disturbance. Two wrongs, they say, do not make one right. – Oputa, J.S.C. Garba & Ors. v. The University Of Maiduguri...

This content is for PAYMENT - 1-DAY and PAYMENT - 1-MONTH members only.
Login Join Now

RIGHT VS PRIVILEGE

I hold that when a claim of right metamorphoses into one of supplication, it ceases to wear the clothe of a right but a mere privilege. In this case the appellant was literally begging the respondent for mercies. – Pats-Acholonu, JSC. ADECENTRO v. OBAFEMI (2005) Was this dictum helpful? Yes 0 No 0...

This content is for PAYMENT - 1-DAY and PAYMENT - 1-MONTH members only.
Login Join Now

RIGHTS ARE QUALIFIED

IN AMERICAN BANK & TRUST CO. VS. FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF ATLANTA (1921) 256 @ 500 US. 350, 358, 41 SC et 499 @ 500, the US Supreme Court aptly held: “[T]he word ‘right’ is one of the most deceptive of pitfalls; it is so easy to slip from a qualified meaning in the premise to an unqualified one in the conclusion. Most rights are qualified.”

A GUARANTEED RIGHT COULD BE DEROGATED FROM

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

Was this dictum helpful?

DNA TEST AND THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY

CHANGE IN LAW DOES NOT NULLIFY RIGHTS BASED ON THE OLD LAW

IMPROPER & IRREGULAR EXERCISE OF RIGHTS CONSTITUTES ABUSE

TWO WRONGS DO NOT MAKE A RIGHT – GARBA’S CASE

RIGHT VS PRIVILEGE

RIGHTS ARE QUALIFIED

Was this dictum helpful?