COMPREHENSIVE INDEX TO ALL SUPREME COURT 2017 DECISIONS

CHARGES - Arraignment - Procedure - Accused shall be brought before Court unfettered - Charge shall be read and explained to him - And he shall be called upon to plead thereto (H1) Adamu v. State (2017) 1 KLR (pt. 394) 1; (2017) 7 NWLR (PT. 1565) 459

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Conviction - Validity - As appellant's plea was not taken in respect of conspiracy - Conviction on that count amounts to a nullity (H2) Adamu v. State (2017) 1 KLR (pt. 394) 1; (2017) 7 NWLR (PT. 1565) 459

ARMED ROBBERY - Proof - Ingredients - Prosecution must prove that there was robbery - That the robbery was armed robbery - And that appellant was the robber or one of the robbers (H3) Adamu v. State (2017) 1 KLR (pt. 394) 1; (2017) 7 NWLR (PT. 1565) 459

EVIDENCE - Single witness - Weight - Prosecution has discretion to call whatever number of witness - As evidence of single witness if credible and cogent - Is sufficient to ground a conviction (H4) Adamu v. State (2017) 1 KLR (pt. 394) 1; (2017) 7 NWLR (PT. 1565) 459

EVIDENCE - Evaluation - Identification - Where case is on identification - Court must closely examine evidence - And in acting on it must be cautious - So that any real weakness must be in favour of accused (H5) Adamu v. State (2017) 1 KLR (pt. 394) 1; (2017) 7 NWLR (PT. 1565) 459

EVIDENCE - Confession - Weight - Even though appellant retracted from his confession - Trial Court properly considered weight of the confession - In relation to other evidence adduced and proved by

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2017 DECISIONS

prosecution (H6) Adamu v. State (2017) 1 KLR (pt. 394) 1; (2017) 7 NWLR (PT. 1565) 459

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Proof - Standard of - Is beyond reasonable doubt - And once essential ingredients of offence is established - Court is enabled to convict the accused (H1) Adekoya v. State (2017) 1 KLR (pt. 394) 39; (2017) 7 NWLR (PT. 1565) 343

ARMED ROBBERY - Proof - Ingredients - Prosecution must prove that there was robbery - That the robbery was with arms - And that accused was the armed robber or one of the robbers (H2) Adekoya v. State (2017) 1 KLR (pt. 394) 39; (2017) 7 NWLR (PT. 1565) 343

ARMED ROBBERY - Proof - Mens rea - Armed robbery and conspiracy to commit armed robbery are not such offences - For which mens rea has to be established (H3) Adekoya v. State (2017) 1 KLR (pt. 394) 39; (2017) 7 NWLR (PT. 1565) 343

CRIMINAL LAW - Mens rea - Applicability of - Armed robbery and conspiracy to commit armed robbery are not such offences - For which mens rea has to be established (H3) Adekoya v. State (2017) 1 KLR (pt. 394) 39; (2017) 7 NWLR (PT. 1565) 343

IDENTIFICATION PARADE - Proof - Conditions - To prove identity of accused - Circumstances in which eye witness saw accused - And length of time the witness saw accused - Must be considered (H4) Adekoya v. State (2017) 1 KLR (pt. 394) 39; (2017) 7 NWLR (PT. 1565) 343

EVIDENCE - Blood relation - Weight - Mere fact that a witness is a blood relation of the victim - Does not translate without more to being a tainted witness (H5) Adekoya v. State (2017) 1 KLR (pt. 394) 39; (2017) 7 NWLR (PT. 1565) 343

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Conspiracy - Proof - Conspiracy is

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2017 DECISIONS

an offence that is often deduced or inferred from the acts of the parties - And not usually by direct evidence of the meeting of the minds (H6) Adekoya v. State (2017) 1 KLR (pt. 394) 39; (2017) 7 NWLR (PT. 1565) 343

APPEALS - Reply brief - Filing of - Where respondent raises issue relevant to appeal - Appellant is entitled to react to same by filing a reply - Otherwise appellant is deemed to have conceded the issue (H1) Asaboro v. Pan Ocean Oil Corporation Nig. Ltd. (2017) 1 KLR (pt. 394) 61; (2017) 7 NWLR (PT. 1563) 42

ACTIONS - Consistency of - A party should be consistent in the case he presents at trial and appellate Courts - As he is not allowed to present different cases before each hierarchy of Court (H2) Asaboro v. Pan Ocean Oil Corporation Nig. Ltd. (2017) 1 KLR (pt. 394) 61; (2017) 7 NWLR (PT. 1563) 42

ACTIONS - Cause of action - Time - Cause of action as pleaded by appellants arose in 1971 - And the action was instituted about 23 years after accrual of the cause of action (H3) Asaboro v. Pan Ocean Oil Corporation Nig. Ltd. (2017) 1 KLR (pt. 394) 61; (2017) 7 NWLR (PT. 1563) 42

ACTIONS - Statute barred - The action having been instituted 23 years after accrual of cause of action is statute barred - Thereby leaving Court with no jurisdiction to entertain same (H4) Asaboro v. Pan Ocean Oil Corporation Nig. Ltd. (2017) 1 KLR (pt. 394) 61; (2017) 7 NWLR (PT. 1563) 42

JURISDICTION - Fundamentality of - Jurisdiction is authority that empowers Court to adjudicate over a matter - And it can be raised orally even for the first time at whatever stage of adjudication (H1) Buremoh v. Akande (2017) 1 KLR (PT. 394) 89; (2017) 7 NWLR (PT. 1563) 74

COURTS - Competence of - Court is competent where inter alia it

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2017 DECISIONS

is properly constituted - Subject matter of action is within its jurisdiction - And action is initiated by due process of the law (H2) Buremoh v. Akande (2017) 1 KLR (PT. 394) 89; (2017) 7 NWLR (PT. 1563) 74

APPEALS - Fresh issue - Raising of - Where fresh issue is raised - Appellate Court must be satisfied that it has all facts of the new issue - And that no explanation could have been given in trial Court if it had been so raised (H3) Buremoh v. Akande (2017) 1 KLR (PT. 394) 89; (2017) 7 NWLR (PT. 1563) 74

ACTIONS - Issues - Determination - Court must avoid determination of substantive issue at interlocutory stage - As it is not proper to make pronouncement capable of prejudging real issue at such stage (H4) Buremoh v. Akande (2017) 1 KLR (PT. 394) 89; (2017) 7 NWLR (PT. 1563) 74

JURISDICTION - Challenge to - Time - A party's resolve to challenge legality of decision of Court given without jurisdiction - Cannot be too late (H5) Buremoh v. Akande (2017) 1 KLR (PT. 394) 89; (2017) 7 NWLR (PT. 1563) 74

APPEALS - Fresh issue - Application to raise - Grant of - The application is granted - As materials the respective parties require to argue and contest the fresh issue - Are readily available (H6) Buremoh v. Akande (2017) 1 KLR (PT. 394) 89; (2017) 7 NWLR (PT. 1563) 74

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - No case submission - Conditions for - It is made when there is no evidence to prove vital elements of the offence - And when evidence adduced by prosecution has been discredited (H1) COP v. Amuta (2017) 1 KLR (pt. 394) 121; (2017) 4 NWLR (PT. 1556) 379

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Criminal trespass - Bona fide claim of right - Should negative intention of criminal trespass - And where

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2017 DECISIONS

ownership is contested - Prosecution has burden to prove mens rea (H2) COP v. Amuta (2017) 1 KLR (pt. 394) 121; (2017) 4 NWLR (PT. 1556) 379

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - No case submission - Correctness of - Trial of accused from Magistrate to appellate High Court was a nullity - As no prima facie case was made out (H3) COP v. Amuta (2017) 1 KLR (pt. 394) 121; (2017) 4 NWLR (PT. 1556) 379

APPEALS - Notice of - Competence - The notice was not incompetent because of the preliminary objection filed - As all appellant needed to do was to apply to amend the notice (H1) Setraco Nig. Ltd. v. Kpaji (2017) 1 KLR (pt. 394) 143; (2017) 5 NWLR (PT. 1558) 280

APPEALS - Motion - Extension of time - Dismissal of - The motion was rightly dismissed - As appellant had filed notice to discontinue with the appeal (H2) Setraco Nig. Ltd. v. Kpaji (2017) 1 KLR (pt. 394) 143; (2017) 5 NWLR (PT. 1558) 280

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS - Court processes - Signing of - Validity of - Process not signed by a legal practitioner whose name appears on the roll - As provided for in LPA Act 2004 ss. 2, 24(1)(2) - Is incompetent and liable to be struck out (H1) Williams v. Adold Stamm Ltd. (2017) 1 KLR (pt. 394) 167; (2017) 6 NWLR (PT. 1560) 1

COURT PROCESSES - Competence of - Omission to place a tick beside name of legal practitioner who signed the process - Has not misled respondents as to who signed the process - And such omission cannot invalidate it (H2) (H1) Williams v. Adold Stamm Ltd. (2017) 1 KLR (pt. 394) 167; (2017) 6 NWLR (PT. 1560) 1

EVIDENCE - Appeals - Fresh evidence - Admissibility of - Conditions - For Court to grant leave to adduce fresh evidence on appeal - The evidence must inter alia be such that could not have been obtained for use at trial (H3) (H1) Williams v. Adold Stamm Ltd.

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2017 DECISIONS

(2017) 1 KLR (pt. 394) 167; (2017) 6 NWLR (PT. 1560) 1

DOCUMENTS - Fresh evidence - Admissibility of - As the documents were clearly not in existence at time of filing the suit - It would not have been possible for applicant to plead them at that stage (H4) (H1) Williams v. Adold Stamm Ltd. (2017) 1 KLR (pt. 394) 167; (2017) 6 NWLR (PT. 1560) 1

APPEALS - Document - Admissibility - Fresh documents will not be introduced at this stage - As their introduction is not crucial to determination of the appeal - And respondents will also be prejudiced (H5) (H1) Williams v. Adold Stamm Ltd. (2017) 1 KLR (pt. 394) 167; (2017) 6 NWLR (PT. 1560) 1

JURISDICTION - Fundamental nature of - Where Court delivers judgment in a matter it has no jurisdiction - The whole proceedings no matter how well conducted - Would amount to a nullity (H1) Adesigbin v. Military Governor Lagos State (2017) 2 KLR (pt. 395) 1; (2017) 10 NWLR (PT. 1574) 442

JURISDICTION - Land law - Acquisition - Compensation - Public Lands Acquisition Act 1976 confers jurisdiction on Lands Tribunal - To decide issue of compensation payable for land acquired by Government (H2) Adesigbin v. Military Governor Lagos State (2017) 2 KLR (pt. 395) 1; (2017) 10 NWLR (PT. 1574) 442

JUDGMENTS - Binding nature of - As there was no appeal against judgment of Lagos State Lands Tribunal delivered on 10/11/1981 - The said judgment remains correct and cannot be set aside (H3) Adesigbin v. Military Governor Lagos State (2017) 2 KLR (pt. 395) 1; (2017) 10 NWLR (PT. 1574) 442

JUDGMENTS - Enforcement - Appellants ought to have set in motion the process to enforce the judgment and appeal for interest - Rather than come by way of originating summons in High Court (H4) Adesigbin v. Military Governor Lagos State (2017) 2 KLR (pt. 395) 1; (2017) 10 NWLR (PT. 1574) 442

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2017 DECISIONS

MURDER - Proof - Ingredients - Prosecution must prove that deceased died - That the death was caused by accused - And that accused intended to kill deceased or cause grievous bodily harm (H1) Agu v. State (2017) 2 KLR (pt.395) 17; (2017) 10 NWLR (PT.1573) 171

MURDER - Self defence - Provocation - Difference - Self defence exonerates accused - While provocation does not exonerate - But only reduces the punishment for murder to manslaughter (H2) Agu v. State (2017) 2 KLR (pt.395) 17; (2017) 10 NWLR (PT.1573) 171

ALIBI - Plea of - Condition - Accused must raise the defence at earliest time - Giving unequivocal particulars of his whereabouts and those present with him (H3) Agu v. State (2017) 2 KLR (pt.395) 17; (2017) 10 NWLR (PT.1573) 171

MURDER - Judgment - Validity - Concurrent findings that prosecution proved it's cased beyond reasonable doubt is correct - Hence judgment of Court of Appeal affirming conviction of appellant is valid (H4) Agu v. State (2017) 2 KLR (pt.395) 17; (2017) 10 NWLR (PT.1573) 171

COURT PROCESSES - Service - Fundamental nature of - Service of originating process is condition precedent - To exercise of Court's jurisdiction - As party against whom suit is filed should be aware of same (H1) Emeka v. Okoroafor (2017) 2 KLR (pt. 395) 55; (2017) 11 NWLR (PT. 1577) 410

COURT PROCESSES - Affidavit of service - Regularity of - Affidavit of service deposed to by bailiff stating fact, place, mode and date of service - Shall be prima facie proof of the matter stated therein (H2) Emeka v. Okoroafor (2017) 2 KLR (pt. 395) 55; (2017) 11 NWLR (PT. 1577) 410

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2017 DECISIONS

COURT PROCESSES - Affidavit of service - Objection to - Where defendant intends to challenge such affidavit - He must file affidavit denying service - Detailing specific facts showing he was not served (H3) Emeka v. Okoroafor (2017) 2 KLR (pt. 395) 55; (2017) 11 NWLR (PT. 1577) 410

APPEALS - Evidence - Reevaluation - Appellate Court does not ordinarily interfere with findings of trial Court - But where evidence is documentary - It is in as good a position as trial Court to evaluate same (H4) Emeka v. Okoroafor (2017) 2 KLR (pt. 395) 55; (2017) 11 NWLR (PT. 1577) 410

COURT PROCESSES - Substituted service - Order for - Where there is order for specific mode of service - Bailiff must carry out the terms of the order - As he has no discretion in the matter (H5) Emeka v. Okoroafor (2017) 2 KLR (pt. 395) 55; (2017) 11 NWLR (PT. 1577) 410

COURT PROCESSES - Service - Affidavit of - Deposition - Bailiff is not precluded from deposing to specific facts - Where he has not effected service in accordance with order of Court (H6) Emeka v. Okoroafor (2017) 2 KLR (pt. 395) 55; (2017) 11 NWLR (PT. 1577) 410

AFFIDAVITS - Conflict in - Resolution - Where there is material conflicts in affidavits deposed to on either side - Learned trial Judge ought to have called for oral evidence - To resolve same (H7) Emeka v. Okoroafor (2017) 2 KLR (pt. 395) 55; (2017) 11 NWLR (PT. 1577) 410

COURT PROCESSES - Service - Proof - As there was challenge to mode of service - Onus shifted by extension to bailiff to prove that service was effected - In compliance with order of Court (H8) Emeka v. Okoroafor (2017) 2 KLR (pt. 395) 55; (2017) 11 NWLR (PT. 1577) 410

JURISDICTION - Determination of - It is plaintiff's claim that de

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2017 DECISIONS

termines the jurisdiction of Court - To entertain a cause or matter (H9) Emeka v. Okoroafor (2017) 2 KLR (pt. 395) 55; (2017) 11 NWLR (PT. 1577) 410

FAIR HEARING - Observance of - Non judicial body - Administrative bodies even though they are not Courts - Are bound to observe rules of natural justice - And fairness in their decision (H10) Emeka v. Okoroafor (2017) 2 KLR (pt. 395) 55; (2017) 11 NWLR (PT. 1577) 410

FAIR HEARING - Breach - Allegation of - Basis - In order to seek enforcement of right to fair hearing - The alleged violation must be in respect of proceedings before Court - And not before domestic tribunal (H11) Emeka v. Okoroafor (2017) 2 KLR (pt. 395) 55; (2017) 11 NWLR (PT. 1577) 410

JUDGMENTS - Reversal of - Basis for - Decision of Court which does not arise from evidence on record - Constitutes such miscarriage of justice - That imposes on appellate Court the duty to set same aside (H1) Igbikis v. State (2017) 2 KLR (pt. 395) 143; (2017) 11 NWLR (PT. 1575) 126

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Proof - Burden of - Onus of establishing crime beyond reasonable doubt lies on prosecution - Which does not shift - And where there is doubt - Accused is entitled to acquittal (H2) Igbikis v. State (2017) 2 KLR (pt. 395) 143; (2017) 11 NWLR (PT. 1575) 126

EVIDENCE - Murder - Circumstantial evidence - Weight - It is often the best evidence - None of which provides Court with cogent proof of guilt - But when viewed together create strong conclusion of guilt of accused - With highest degree of exactitude (H3) Igbikis v. State (2017) 2 KLR (pt. 395) 143; (2017) 11 NWLR (PT. 1575) 126

EVIDENCE - Murder - Suspicion - Weight - It does not constitute proof of appellant's guilt - Thus in absence of evidence linking

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2017 DECISIONS

appellant with the offences - Affirmation of his conviction is perverse (H4) Igbikis v. State (2017) 2 KLR (pt. 395) 143; (2017) 11 NWLR (PT. 1575) 126

APPEALS - Preliminary objection - Determination of - Objection must be heard first before resolution of issues in appeal - As appeal heard on defective process - Will result in a void decision (H1) Orianzi v. A-G Rivers State (2017) 2 KLR (pt. 395) 165; (2017) 6 NWLR (PT. 1561) 224

LAND USE ACT - Sale - Right of occupancy - Transfer of - Under L.U.A. s. 34(2) - When the disputed property was sold to appellant - Right of occupancy of original owner passed along with the property to appellant (H2) Orianzi v. A-G Rivers State (2017) 2 KLR (pt. 395) 165; (2017) 6 NWLR (PT. 1561) 224

APPEALS - Fresh issue - Determination of - Appellate Court is only concerned with matters that are properly placed before it - As it has no jurisdiction over matter that was not raised at trial Court (H3) Orianzi v. A-G Rivers State (2017) 2 KLR (pt. 395) 165; (2017) 6 NWLR (PT. 1561) 224

LAND USE ACT - Right of Occupancy - Validity of - Kyari v. Ganaran - Where there is subsisting right of occupancy - It is good against any other right - As grant of another right over same land is invalid (H4) Orianzi v. A-G Rivers State (2017) 2 KLR (pt. 395) 165; (2017) 6 NWLR (PT. 1561) 224

LAND USE ACT - Customary Right of Occupancy - Condition for use - Whether the right is granted or occupied - The same must be used in accordance with customary law - Either by individual or family (H5) Orianzi v. A-G Rivers State (2017) 2 KLR (pt. 395) 165; (2017) 6 NWLR (PT. 1561) 224

LAND USE ACT - Units of ownership - L.U.A. s. 5 & 6 - The units are as follows inter alia - Formal statutory right of occupancy granted

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2017 DECISIONS

under s. 5 - And deemed statutory right of occupancy under s. 34 (H6) Orianzi v. A-G Rivers State (2017) 2 KLR (pt. 395) 165; (2017) 6 NWLR (PT. 1561) 224

LAND USE ACT - Right of occupancy - Revocation of - Proof - Onus of - Establishing facts of revocation is squarely on respondents - As he who asserts has the onus to prove what he asserts - If he is to succeed (H7) Orianzi v. A-G Rivers State (2017) 2 KLR (pt. 395) 165; (2017) 6 NWLR (PT. 1561) 224

LAND USE ACT - Revocation - Public purpose - Osho v. Foreign Finance Corp. - Where revocation was done on ground of public purpose - But land was later discovered to be in use for other purpose - The revocation is vitiated and unlawful (H8) Orianzi v. A-G Rivers State (2017) 2 KLR (pt. 395) 165; (2017) 6 NWLR (PT. 1561) 224

LAND USE ACT - Revocation - Public purpose - Conditions - To revoke right of occupancy for public purpose - Terms of revocation as provided under L.U.A. ss. 28 and 44 must be strictly complied with (H9) Orianzi v. A-G Rivers State (2017) 2 KLR (pt. 395) 165; (2017) 6 NWLR (PT. 1561) 224

PLEADINGS - Binding nature of - Once pleadings are filed and exchanged - Parties and Court are bound by same - And evidence which is not in conformity with pleadings - Goes to no issue (H1) Sogunro v. Yeku (2017) 2 KLR (pt. 395) 221; (2017) 9 NWLR (PT. 1570) 290

LAND LAW - Title - Proof - Traditional evidence - Such evidence must be cogent and positive - As where it is contradictory - It will be treated as unreliable and must be rejected (H2) Sogunro v. Yeku (2017) 2 KLR (pt. 395) 221; (2017) 9 NWLR (PT. 1570) 290

EVIDENCE - Land law - Hear say evidence - Exception to - Traditional evidence - Witnesses who give the evidence will not neces

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2017 DECISIONS

sarily give eye witness account - Hence such evidence is by virtue of E.A. 2011 s. 66 - Delisted from hear say rule (H3) Sogunro v. Yeku (2017) 2 KLR (pt. 395) 221; (2017) 9 NWLR (PT. 1570) 290

LAND LAW - Title - Traditional evidence - Weight - Where Court finds such evidence to be cogent and not contradictory - It will be sufficient to support claim for declaration of title (H4) Sogunro v. Yeku (2017) 2 KLR (pt. 395) 221; (2017) 9 NWLR (PT. 1570) 290

LAND LAW - Title - Proof - Traditional evidence - Conditions - A party cannot merely rely on such evidence - As he is bound to plead founder of land - How land was founded - And particulars of intervening owners (H5) Sogunro v. Yeku (2017) 2 KLR (pt. 395) 221; (2017) 9 NWLR (PT. 1570) 290

EVIDENCE - Evaluation - Ascription of probative value based on credibility of witness - Is exclusive role of trial Court - Which appellate Court does not venture into (H6) Sogunro v. Yeku (2017) 2 KLR (pt. 395) 221; (2017) 9 NWLR (PT. 1570) 290

EVIDENCE - Evaluation - Interference - Basis - Save trial Court adduces wrong reason for assessing witness - Appellate Court would seldom interfere with its ascription of credibility to witnesses (H7) Sogunro v. Yeku (2017) 2 KLR (pt. 395) 221; (2017) 9 NWLR (PT. 1570) 290

APPEALS - Concurrent findings - Validity - As appellants did not succeed in impeaching concurrent findings of lower Courts - There is no justification for Supreme Court to interfere with the findings (H8) Sogunro v. Yeku (2017) 2 KLR (pt. 395) 221; (2017) 9 NWLR (PT. 1570) 290