SOLACE CHAMBERS BUK

The necessity of an identification parade depends largely on the circumstances surrounding the identification of the accused person. Nigerian courts have consistently held that an identification parade is not an automatic requirement in every criminal trial; rather, it becomes necessary where there is a genuine doubt as to the identity of the accused and where the witness had no previous opportunity of knowing or seeing the accused before the commission of the offence. This principle was clearly explained in OSHO V. THE STATE OF EKITI (2026) 7 NWLR (PT. 2042) 381, where the court emphasized that the need for an identification parade is determined by the facts of each case. The court made it clear that an identification parade is required where the identity of the accused is in dispute or where the witness’s ability to recognize the accused is uncertain. However, where the accused is well known to the witness, or where the circumstances of the offence gave the witness suffic...

It is these three elements that must be proved simultaneously and beyond reasonable doubt, failure of which will result back to the presumption of the innocence of the accused. However, it may be asked, how does the prosecution prove the second element of the crime, that the death of the victim was really caused by the action of the accused? To that one may instinctively respond that: “By medical evidence!” How then in the absence of such?? The Supreme Court in the very recent case of UMAR V. STATE (2026) 5 NWLR (PT. 2036) 67 answered the above question. The facts of the case, straightforward and devoid of complexities, are remitted thus: On the 25th June, 2015, at about 12:30 pm, in Tafa Town along the Kaduna-Abuja Expressway, Kaduna State, one Sgt. Mohammed Tiji of the Nigeria Police, Zaria Command, was going home, after close of work, when he heard a shout. He looked around and saw that appellant, who was on trial accused of being guilty of culpable homicide punishable ...

The doctrine of audi alteram partem (hear the other side) is one of the twin pillars of natural justice in Nigeria. Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution guarantees every person a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations. Because of this, the general rule is that a court must not decide any issue that has not been raised by the parties and argued before it. However, Nigerian courts have recognized narrow, well-defined circumstances where a court may raise an issue suo motu (on its own motion) and even determine it without calling on parties to address it. These exceptions exist because some matters go to the root of the court’s power to adjudicate at all. If left unaddressed, the entire proceedings would be a nullity. Despite the general rule, the courts will intervene without hearing parties where the issue is fundamental to jurisdiction or to the integrity of the judicial process. The main categories when court can raise issue suo motu and ...

To effectively navigate through the aforestated topic, recourse shall be made to the recent case of ORI V. STATE (2022) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1824) 441 (SC), which involves an appeal against the judgement of the Court of Appeal delivered on 13th July, 2018, refusing the appellants application for dismissing the judgement of the High Court which was delivered on 6th July, 2017. The Supreme Court in an unanimous decision allowed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the two lower courts. A brief of narration of what transpired in the case was that: A police officer was on his way along Iwofin-Olorunda Road from his duty post in the vehicle of a couple, one Mr. Fatokun and his wife, when they suddenly sighted some armed men, including the appellant, who stopped the vehicle. The appellant approached the police officer at close range where he was seated in the vehicle and dispossessed him of his bag containing his police uniform. He also, together with his accomplice, took away a bag ...

Litigation in Nigeria can be protracted, costly, and sometimes abused by parties who have no real defence but seek only to delay justice. To curb this, Nigerian civil procedure provides for summary judgment. It is a procedural device designed to enable a court to determine a claim promptly and expeditiously, without delay, where the defendant has no arguable defence. In order to adequately explore the Nature Of Summary Judgment: It’s Purpose, Procedure, and the Duty of Court Under Same, recourse shall be made to the very recent case of O.S.B.I.R. & 2 Ors. v. Sidex Consulting Ltd. (2026) 7 NWLR (Pt. 2042) 309, wherein the 3 Learned Justices of the Court of Appeal (Ibadan Division) reinforced some very fundamental principles thereto. The detailed but complex fact leading to the commencement of this case at the trial court, which was later appealed to the Court of Appeal, is as follows: The case of the respondent was that following the appellants’ desire to boost the Inter...

Burden of proof, or onus probandi, refers to the obligation on a party to establish the facts necessary to support their case. In Nigeria, it is primarily governed by the Evidence Act, 2011. The doctrine has two aspects: Legal burden: The obligation to prove the case as a whole; and  Evidential burden: The obligation to adduce sufficient evidence on a particular fact to make it an issue. Burden of proof, as per the Evidence Act, says he who asserts must prove, and in everyday life this means that if you make an allegation, online, in interviews, or even on social media, the burden is on you to provide evidence, not on others to disprove it, this is why responsible speech matter. With respect to the principle of burden of proof and the nature of locus standi, I shall go on an adventure of the recent case of Ukegbu v. N.B.C. (2025) 2 NWLR (PT. 1976) 283, where the Honourable Justices of the Supreme Court made fundamental pronouncements. But before that, let’s have a look ...