AGU V. THE STATE

• Pages: 1195-1200

AGU V. THE STATE



1195

more than one construction. In such a case, EX.L ought to be construed as pros-

pective and not as retrospective.

The final question to consider is whether there is any section of the Oyo State

Chiefs Law itself that gave EX.L. a retroactive effect. EX.L is a subsidiary legisla-

5



tion. The enabling law is the Chiefs Law. The only relevant section in this regard

is section 8(2) which stipulates:

"S.8 (2) No declaration shall come into effect until it so registered".

10



EX.L was registered on the 25th February, 1982. It therefore came into effect

on the 25th February 1982. It could not therefore control events that happened on

or after 26th day of July, 1981 (but before 25/2/82) when EX.A was still an existing

law governing succession to Obaagun of Obagun Chieftaincy. I fully agree with

my learned brother, Obaseki, J.S.C. in his reasons for judgment that in the selec-

15



tion of a successor to late Oba Bakare Adekanola who died on 26th July, 1981,

EX.L (which came into force on 25th February 1982) was totally and completely ir-

relevant.

It was for the above reasons and for the fuller reasons in my learned brother

Aniagolu's reasons for judgment with which

I

am in complete agreement and which

20



I now adopt as mine, that I too allowed the appeal.

Appeal allowed.

25



AGU V. THE STATE

MATHEW AGU



APPELLANT

30



V

THE STATE



RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. SC 16

8

/

1

984

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

ESO,



J.S.C.

35



NNAMANI,



J.S.C.

KAZEEM,



J.S.C.

KARIBI-WHYTE,



J.S.C.

KAWU,



J.S.C.

23rd September, 1985

40

Criminal Law and Procedure - Murder - Alibi



Failure by defendant to put

forward any facts in support of his alleged alibi - Defendant's presence at

scene of crime established by credible evidence - Defendants' evidential burden

not discharged - conviction of Murder re- affirmed.

45

ISSUES:

1.

What is the evidential burden on an accused person who seeks to rely on the

defence of

alibi?

2.

Whether the

ipse dixit

of an accused person that he was not at the scene is

50



sufficient discharge of the burden of establishing a successful

alibi.

3.

Whether an

alibi

can be destroyed by prosecution evidence.