Center For Legal Learning

ABDULLAHI & ORS v. ADETUTU
(2019) LPELR-47384(SC)

EVIDENCE - ADMISSIBILITY OF UNREGISTERED REGISTRABLE INSTRUMENT - Whether an unregistered registrable instrument is admissible to prove title to land
"What is more, the said Exhibit D8 was a registrable instrument by virtue of the provision of Section 15 of the Instruments Registration Law of Lagos State, as amended. However, by the non-registration thereof, Exhibit D8 has been rendered rather inadmissible... [Italics supplied for emphasis] From their pleadings and oral evidence, it is not in doubt that the said exhibit, [that is, Exhibit D8], was pleaded and sought to be tendered in evidence for the purpose of proving or establishing title to the land or interest in the land in dispute. The lower Courts were, therefore, right in their positions that it was inadmissible by virtue of its non-registration, being a registrable instrument, Akintola v. Solano (supra); Registered Trustees of Muslim Mission Hospital Committee v. Adeagbo (supra), Oredola Okeya Trading Co. v. Attorney General, Kwara State (supra); Co-operative Bank Ltd v. Lawal (supra); Etajata v. Ologbo (supra); Gbinijie v. Odji (supra); Umoffia v Ndem (supra)."

*Whether the Governor of a State can dissolve a Democratically elected Local Government Chairman and appoint people and local government caretaker or transition committee*

Per Supreme Court of Nigeria.

"It is now no longer a scholarly secret that a democratic elected Local government council does not exist at the pleasure, whims and Caprice of either the Governor or house of assembly.

The misconception that Constitution does not intend to grant or gurantee autonomy to local government is only a brain wave nurtured by sheer aggrandisement and megalomaniac instinct to conquer and make Local Government a mere parastatal of the State. That is the very mischief the section 7 sets to cure. It must be so read and construed.

An elected individual is not an employee of anybody except the electorates that voted him in. It is only the electorates that can sack him."

Ajuwon & Ors v. Governor of Oyo State & Ors.
(2021) LPELR-55339(SC)

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE: This is proof of facts by document. The definition of document under section 258 of the Evidence Act is wide, it covers, graphs, plans or drawing inscribed on any substance. This will include writings or drawings on buildings.

a) Primary Evidence: This is the document itself.
b) Secondary Evidence: This is evidence that has been reproduced from the original document, such as a photocopy of a document. It also includes oral accounts of the content of a document.

Only primary evidence is admissible for proof of a content of a document. However, in certain circumstances, the court may allow secondary evidence.

ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
This refers to evidence produced from a computer. (S. 84 of the Evidence Act 2011).
S. 258 defines a computer as any device for storing and processing information. This includes mobile phones, special calculators capable of storing data etc.

*Locus classicus case*👇👇👇👇👇

*If a woman buys property in the name of her husband, it doesn't belong to him, but if a husband buys a property in the name of his wife, it belongs to her.*

Case:
JOLUGBO & ANOR v. AINA & ANOR
(2016) LPELR-40352(CA)

The law also makes a distinction between the husband and the wife - when a wife buys a property, and conveys it in the name of her husband, there is no presumption of advancement infavour of her husband; he holds in trust for his wife. However, if the husband purchases a property in his wife's name, this is prima facie a gift to her - see Silver v. Silver (1958) 1 All E. R.523."
Per Justice AMINA ADAMU AUGIE, JCA
(as she then was)

(Pp 27 - 29 Paras A - D).

*PILLARS NIG. LTD v WILLIAMS DESBORDES*
_(Suit No SC/105/2010)_

*ISSUE:*
_IRREGULAR NOTICE TO QUIT_

*PRINCIPLE*
Even if the initial notice to quit was irregular, the minute the Writ of Summons dated 13/5/1993 for repossession was served on the Appellant, it served as adequate notice. Equity demands that wherever and whenever there is controversy on when or how notice of forfeiture or notice to quit is disputed by the parties, or even where there is irregularity in giving notice to quit, the filing of an action by the landlord to regain possession of the property has to be sufficient notice on the tenant, that he is required to yield up possession.

Their Lordships clarified that, while statutory notice may be given as the situation requires (whatever form the periodic tenancy is, whether weekly, monthly, quarterly, yearly etc.), immediately a Writ is filed to regain possession, the irregularity of the Notice, if any, is cured. Time to give notice, should start to run from the date the Writ is served. If for example, a yearly tenant, six months after the Writ is served and so on. All the dance drama around the issue of the irregularity of the Notice, ends thereby.

Standard of Proof in Criminal Cases.

Life is like a proof. It has to be….woo, I really don’t know. It is a proof. Nevertheless, I know that proofs are important in both civil and criminal cases.

To determine the guilt of the accused or secure a conviction in a criminal case, there has to be proof beyond reasonable doubt. This has been given statutory provision in Section 135 of the Evidence Act.

In criminal cases, the legal burden is entirely on the Prosecution to prove the guilt of the Defendant. This resonates with the landmark principle of law that who asserts must prove. As such, if an individual is being accused of committing a crime, the prosecution has the onus of adducing clear and credible evidence showing the culpability of the accused to the alleged offence.

It is pertinent to state that this legal burden does not shift if the prosecution must secure conviction. This is because, there is the presumption of innocence in favour of the Defendant, by virtue of Section 36(5) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), as he has no responsibility in law to prove his innocence.

What then is Proof beyond Reasonable Doubt? The Supreme Court, in a plethora of cases, defined the principle to mean the standard which the prosecution must meet in order to successfully find the accused guilty of a crime. For instance, if an accused is charged with a homicide (murder), the prosecution must prove that:
(a) the deceased is dead;
(b) that the death was caused by the accused;
(c) that the accused intended to either kill the victim or grievously harm. him. See Idemudia v State @2001 FWLR (PT.55) 549 at 564, Akpan v State (2001) FWLR (Pt.56) 735; Madu Vs. State (2012) 15 NWLR (Pt.1324) 405 etc. If these vital ingredients are proven by clear and compelling evidence to the satisfaction of the Court, then the persecution has successfully proved the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Contrary, when there is any doubt in the course of proving any ingredient of the offence; the doubt will be resolved in favour of the Defendant which will lead to his exculpation as that will mean that the prosecution has not proved his case beyond reasonable doubt.

Furthermore, there are very few things in this world that we know with absolute certainty, and in criminal cases, the law does not require proof that overcomes every possible doubt. In fact, there cannot probably be any proof that can be beyond all doubts or shadow of doubt. For as long as we are on this side of life, we are limited to grasp the total truth of what transpired in a matter. As such, it will be wilting to prove a criminal case beyond any shadow of a doubt. The Courts frown on proving a case beyond all doubt or shadow of doubt because it is practically impossible. Fabiyi (JSC) (as he then was) stated in the case under review that ‘Proof beyond reasonable doubt should not be stretched beyond a reasonable limit. Otherwise, it will cleave.’

In conclusion, presenting evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt is one of the important features of criminal trials. The burden which is stationary placed on the Prosecution doesn’t mean the case should be proved beyond all shadow of doubts. Rather, the prosecution must successfully establish every ingredient for the offence charged. Once this is achieved, then such a case has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. Failure to establish all ingredients of a crime will lead to the accused being exculpated.

INFORMATION!!!
The Senate Constitution Review earlier scheduled to start today, will now hold tomorrow, Thursday, May 27 and Friday, May 28, 2021.
Venue: Dr. Obi Wali International Conference Centre, Chief G. U. Ake Road, Port Harcourt.
Time: 10AM - 5PM Daily.

*A Federal High Court in Abuja on Thursday rejected a suit that sought to compel President Muhammadu Buhari to instruct security agencies in the country to enforce the Benue State’s Open Grazing Prohibition and Ranching Law passed in 2017. Justice Ijeoma Ojukwu, in a judgment read during a virtual court proceeding, said her court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the suit brought by the plaintiff and proceeded to strike it out.

*SUPREME COURT FORBIDS LAWYERS FROM PLEADING ALLOCUTUS*

April 26, 2021

*Francis v. Federal Republic of Nigeria [2021] 5 NWLR (Pt. 1769) 398 at 412, per Eko, JSC:*

“Allocutus”, as defined in Earl Jowitt: The Dictionary of English Law, is what the convict has to say why the court should not proceed to sentence him. That is, what the convict shows “Why the sentence should not be passed.” The convict, not the defence Counsel, pleads his allocutus. In other words, it is for the convict himself to show cause why the prescribed sentence for the offence he was convicted of be not passed or imposed on him.

Notes:
Apart from using the plea of allocutus to seek that sentence should not be passed, the essence of the plea also goes to appeal to the emotions of the court (even though the court is said to have none) to possibly declare a lighter sentence, subject to statutory provisions and within the legally allowed boundaries of exercise of discretion in sentencing.

What the Supreme Court appears to be saying by the above pronouncement is that the plea of allocutus is strictly reserved for the person already found guilty of the offence charged and duly convicted. In other words, while the role of the defence counsel as a hired advocate is appreciated, counsel’s advocacy ends the moment there is a conviction. While as counsel, he is hired to plead the cause of his client (the defendant), he is not permitted to plead for leniency in sentencing by way of allocutus. At the stage of allocutus, a convicted person who feels he has something to say to the court in persuasion should do so by himself or herself. The court might appear to be more interested in listening to the voice of the convict, rather than the voice of counsel.

*Mohammed V. AGF (2021) 3 NWLR (Pt.1764), 397*

Appellant was convicted in 2011 by the triial court and sentenced to 3 years imprisonment.

After serving her term, she, through her lawyer, appealed her conviction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed her conviction/sentencing.

She appealed to the Supreme Court which faulted the decisions of the lower and the trial courts in terms of her sentencing.

The apex Court sentenced her to 10 years imprisonment.

Who's to blame? Lawyer or Litiigant?

NEVER RUSH TO APPEAR IN COURT:
HOW I WAS PREPARED FOR THE COURTROOM

Oluwemimo Ogunde SAN

1. I am always amused by the eagerness of young lawyers training to be litigation lawyers to appear in court on their own. Many times, i listen to complaints about "just sitting in the office, doing nothing", "just being led by my Principal to court without being given the opportunity to appear on my own". At other times, it may be the boast of another young lawyer bragging about "conducting a trial just two months after being called to Bar". I do not think there is any advantage in beginning courtroom appearance very early in a lawyer's career. The emphasis should be on how a young lawyer is prepared for courtroom appearance and not on how early he starts.

2. This is not to say there is a disadvantage in beginning early, but if i were to advise a young lawyer preparing for a career as a litigation lawyer, i would tell him that it is better to delay courtroom appearances until one is properly prepared for it.

3. I was called to the Nigerian Bar on 30th July, 1983. My first courtroom appearance was in September, 1984, the second in October and the third in January, 1985. I was posted to the Central Bank of Nigeria to undergo National Youth service from July,1983 till July 1984. I did not go near the courtroom throughout that year. At the end of the service year, i rejected an OFFER to be retained there as i had already made up my mind that i wanted to practise law. A very good friend of mine informed me of an job opportunity in Gani Fawehinmi's Chambers and i resumed work on 1st August, 1984.

4. How did this decision prepare me? The salary i was offered at CBN which i rejected was THREE TIMES that which i got as a junior in Chief Gani's Chambers. Some of my colleagues at CBN thought i made a mistake. The resolve to choose legal practice made me prepared for the rigours of work in a top law firm. That was all i had: RESOLVE. NOTHING MORE.

*UNDERSTAND WHAT IS PROBATE IN LEGAL TERMS.*

The word *probate* in Legal terms means; the process by which the assets of deceased person's is gathered in and dispersed to the rightful *heirs* where there is no *WILL,* or the beneficiaries if there is a Trust or will.

*Probate* law and legal definition: probate is a general term for the entire process of administration of *estate* of dead persons, including those without wills, with court.

The distinction between *probate* and *non probate.*

probate is where some assets are distributed to *heirs* by the court {probate assets} while *non probate* assets are some assets *bypass* the court process and go directly to the beneficiaries (I.e non probate assets).

*This is the type we are going to use to acelerate the process... In our case at hand*.

Why family or beneficiaries would avoid probate??
The two main reasons to avoid probate are the *time* and *money* it can take to complete. Remember that probate is a court process, and along with the various proceedings and hearings. Simply gathering assets and paying off debts of an estate can take months or even years after a letter of administration has been obtain.

What is considered *non probate property*
Non probate assets are those assets with a beneficiary designation or held as joint tenants with right of *survivorship.*
Non probate assets also include assets held in the name of a Trust or with a Trust named as the beneficiary. These assets will pass directly to the named beneficiaries.