BEST LAW REPORT SUBSCRIPTION PRICE!!

  • Amusa v. State.
  • 148
  • 2003-03-31
  • ₦ 200
  • Buy Now

Amusa v. State.

ADEBOYE AMUSA

V

THE STATE

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

MUHAMMADU LAWAL UWAIS, CJN ( Presided )

MICHAEL EKUNDAYO OGUNDARE, JSC

SYLVESTER UMARU ONU, JSC ( Read the Lead Judgment )

ALOYSIUS IYORGYER KATSINA-ALU, JSC

EMMANUEL OLAYINKA AYOOLA, JSC

SC. 336/2001

FRIDAY, 31ST JANUARY, 2003

APPEAL - Concurrent findings of the courts below - Whether the Supreme Court will disturb

APPEAL - Fresh issue on appeal - Failure to seek and obtain leave of court to argue

COURT - Concurrent findings of the court below - Whether the Supreme Court will disturb

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE - Dangerous driving - Meaning of

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE - Dangerous driving - Prosecution alleging cause of death by dangerous driving of accused - Burden of proof on prosecution

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE - Homicide - Cause of death -

Mechanical evidence of - Whether can be dispensed with

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE - Homicide - Cause of death -

Whether could be inferred

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE - Road traffic offence - Negligence Whether sufficient to ground conviction

EVIDENCE - Cause of death - Mechanical evidence of - Whether can be dispensed with

EVIDENCE - Cause of death - Prosecution alleging cause of death by dangerous driving of accused - Burden of proof on

EVIDENCE - Subsidiary legislation of which court has taken judicial notice -  Whether needs further proof

MEDICAL PRACTITIONER - Pathologist - Who is - Effect of certificate issued by a pathologist

STATUTE - Subsidiary legislation - Federal Highways (Declaration) (No. 3) , Order, 1982 made pursuant to section 24 of the Federal Highways Act 1991 - Whether subsidiary legislation

STATUTE - Subsidiary legislation taken as having the force of law - Whether needs further proof

WORDS AND PHRASES - ‘Dangerous driving’ - Description of

Issues:

1.            Whether from the totality of the evidence adduced at the trial, the Court of Appeal rightly affirmed that the charge of causing death by dangerous driving against the appellant was proved beyond reasonable doubt in accordance with section 138 of the Evidence Act (Cap. 112) Laws of the Federation.

2.            Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right in affirming the decision of the trial court that the accident occurred on a Federal Highway.

3.            Whether the Court of Appeal was right in holding that the deceased was positively identified to the doctor who performed the post-mortem examination on the corpse of the deceased.

Facts:

Appellant herein was arraigned and charged with offences of (1) Causing death by dangerous driving on a Federal Highway contrary to and punishable under section 4 of the Federal HighWay Decree No. 4 of 1971; and (2) Dangerous driving on a Federal Highway contrary to and punishable under section 5(1) of the Federal HighWay Decree No. 4 of 1971.

In its judgment, the learned trial court found the appellant guilty and sentenced him to three years imprisonment on the first count and six months imprisonment on the second count.

His appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed. He therefore further appealed to the Supreme Court.