Index

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 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 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 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 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. (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

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

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 determines 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 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 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 necessarily 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