Judiciary-Poetry-Logo
JPoetry

NOT FUNCTION OF THE COURT TO SUPPLY OMISSION

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

Dictum

The main thrust of the appeal appears to be that if the original of the public document is lost or destroyed thereby rendering the making of a certified copy impracticable, it would be unjust not to admit other form of secondary evidence such as a photocopy of the original document. I share the plight of the appellant but it must be borne in mind that the duty of the court is to expound the law and not to expand it. It is not the function of the court to supply omissions in statutes and thereby embark on judicial legislation.

– Edozie, JSC. Araka v. Egbue (2003) – SC.167/1999

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

EVIDENCE IN EARLIER PROCEEDING NOT RELEVANT IN LATER TRIAL

Now it is settled law that the evidence of a witness taken in an earlier proceeding is not relevant in a later trial. except for the purpose of discrediting such a witness in cross-examination and for that purpose only.

– Kawu, JSC. Ogunnaike v. Ojayemi (1987)

Was this dictum helpful?

SECTION 84 WOULD HAVE AVAILED IF THE AFFIDAVIT HAD BEEN SWORN BEFORE A COMPETENT PERSON

In fact there is no doubt from the endorsement on the motion on notice as regards fees paid, that payment was made for oath taking, but there is no evidence the deponent attested before a commissioner for oath nor evidence of who endorsed on the stamp of the Court of Appeal. It is not sufficient to scribble an initial. Section 84 of the Evidence Act enjoins the court to permit a defective affidavit if satisfied it has been sworn before a person duly authorised. In the instance application the nature of the defect is not one in which this court can exercise discretion and allow same under section 84 of the Act.

— R.O. Nwodo, JCA. Onujabe & Ors. v. Fatimah Idris (CA/A/71/M/2009, 28 June 2011)

Was this dictum helpful?

IN LAND CASES THE PLAINTIFF MUST SUCCEED ON ITS OWN CASE

In land cases that the plaintiff when claiming a declaration of title must succeed on the strength of his case. The onus lies on the plaintiff to satisfy the court that he is entitled on the evidence brought by him to the declaration of title claimed. The plaintiff must rely on the strength of his case and not on the weakness of the defendant’s case. If this onus is not discharged, the weakness of the defendant’s case may not generally help him and the proper judgment will be for the defendant. Where, however, the case of the defendant lends support to the case of the plaintiff, it is recognised that the court cannot ignore it in arriving at a conclusion as to which side to believe.

– Iguh, JSC. Clay v. Aina (1997)

Was this dictum helpful?

UNCHALLENGED EVIDENCE IS GOOD EVIDENCE IN WHICH A COURT CAN ACT ON

I bear in mind in doing so that in law unchallenged evidence is good evidence on which a Court should act to make findings of facts. See Nwabuoku v. Ottih (1961) 1 All NLR 487 @ p. 490. See also Odulaja v. Haddad (1973) 11 SC 357; Isaac Omoregbe v Daniel Lawani (1980) 3 – 4 SC 108 @ p. 117; Oluhunde & Anor v. Prof. Adeyoju (2000) 14 WRN 160.

— B.A. Georgewill, JCA. Anyi & Ors. v. Akande & Ors. (2017) – CA/L/334/2014

Was this dictum helpful?

CLAIMANT IS TO ADDUCE EVIDENCE THAT WILL SUSTAIN HIS CLAIM ONLY

A claim is circumscribed by the reliefs claimed; and the duty of a claimant, therefore, is to plead only such facts and materials as are necessary to sustain the reliefs and adduce evidence to prove same So held the Supreme Court in Gabriel Ativie v. Kabelmetal (Nig.) Ltd [2008] LPELR-591(SC); [2008] 10 NWLR (Pt. 1095) 399; [2008] 5 – 6 SC (Pt. II) 47. I already held that by Dmez Nig Ltd v. Nwakhaba & 3 ors, the claimants cannot succeed on the evidence of the defendants; they can only succeed on their own evidence, something that is just not sufficiently before the Court. This means that the declaratory reliefs in terms of reliefs (1) to (3) cannot be granted given the insufficient facts/evidence advanced by the claimants in proof of same. I so hold.

— B.B. Kanyip, J. Olatunji v UBER (2018) – NICN/LA/546/2017

Was this dictum helpful?

TESTIFY: ANY OFFICIAL CAN TESTIFY FOR A COMPANY

It is not necessary that it is only that person who carried out the function on behalf of the company that must testify. Not at all, as any official of the company well equipped with the transaction and or related documents would suffice to testify. – Peter-Odili JSC. Chemiron v. Stabilini (2018)

Was this dictum helpful?

Load More
No more related dictum to show.

Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry

Facebook Twitter Whatsapp Telegram

External link(s)

BOOK: First 2-years as a Law Student: Experiences and Lessons.