AIWORO' V. THE STATE

• Pages: 710-719

710



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1987] 2 N.S.C.C.

of Appeal's refusal to hear the Appellant or his counsel was in breach of his right

to fair hearing under both the rules of natural justice and the Constitutional provi-

sions of Section 33(1) of the 1979 Constitution.

It was for all the reasons given above and for the fuller reasons in the lead Rea-

sons for Judgment that I on the 17th of February 1987 allowed this appeal and re-



5

mined same to the Court of Appeal Lagos Division to allow the unnamed

Plaintiffs/Respondents join and defend the verdict they won in the Court of first in-

stance. I also awarded the Plaintiffs/Appellants costs assessed at N300.00.

BELGORE, J.S.C.

On the 17th day of February, 1987, I found substantial merit



10

in the appeal in this case and allowed it reversing reasons for doing so to today. I

agree with the reasons advanced for the judgment by my learned brother, Obaseki,

J.S.C. Care should always be taken by Courts in matters being litigated upon in

a representative capacity so that the withdrawal of one of the litigants will not be

presumed to be the act of the entire interested parties being represented. It is in



15

the interest of justice that all that is said or raised in Court during hearing be taken

down in writing i.e. be properly recorded. When this is not done, and it is through

the affidavits of parties that the true records of what transpired during hearing could

be known. questions will usually be asked why the Court adopted such a

procedure. I agreed with the reasons advanced by Obaseki, J.S.C. and I also



20

allowed the appeal for the same reasons whereby I ordered retrial in the Court of

Appeal.

Appeal allowed; retrial ordered.

25

AIWORO V. THE STATE

MICHAEL AIWORO

V

THE STATE

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

ESO,



J.S.C.

ANIAGOLU,



J.S.C.

KAZEEM,



J.S.C.

KAWU,



J.S.C.

OPUTA,



J.S.C.

15th May, 1987

APPELLANT

RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. SC 11

7

/

1

986

30

35

40

Criminal Law - Murder - Burden on defence to prove insanity and intoxication

not discharged by evidence only that accused smoked Indian Hemp -

Corroborative evidence required - Evidence - Opinion of Psychiatrist based on



45

facts obtained from other persons is hearsay.

ISSUES:

1.

Whether a defendant can discharge the burden on him of proving his defence

of insanity and intoxication by merely stating that he had smoked Indian Hemp



50

without calling any corroborative evidence.

2.

Whether the opinion of a Psychiatrist based on facts obtained from other

persons is inadmissible hearsay evidence.

3.

Whether absence of motive can be relevant in a defence of insanity.