AKINYEMI V. AKINYEMI & ANOR

• Pages: 271-276

AKINYEMI V. AKINYEMI & ANOR



271

This is said to be so in Ratanlal and Thakore, the Law of Crime, 9th Edition, page

382, where the case

Baldeo Sahai

(1879) 2 All 253 was referred to.

In that case A made an overture to B that if he would give him money, he (A)

had influence enough to see that an increased pension be given to B. The offer

5



was rejected by B, whereby A said that B would rue the rejection. It was held that

this was an attempt to obtain a reward under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code

which is a similar section to our section 115 of the Penal Code. With that view this

Court is in agreement.

Both grounds of appeal failed and the appeal is dismissed.

10



Appeal Dismissed.

AKINYEMI V. AKINYEMI & ANOR

15

STEPHEN 0. AKINYEMI



APPELLANT

V

20 1. ROSELLA A. AKINYEMI



RESPONDENTS

2. MR. MORRIS

SUIT NO. FSC 303/1962

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

TAYLOR,



J.S.C.

25



BAIRAMIAN,



J.S.C.

MORGAN,



Ag. J.S.C.

25th November, 1963.

Appeals in Civil Cases ,- Appeal Court's attitude to trial Court's inference on

30



the accepted facts.

Matrimonial Causes - Adultery - Proof beyond reasonable doubt.

ISSUES:

35



1. Whether an Appeal Court can arrive at a different inference from the trial Court's

own inference on the facts accepted as proved.

2. What is the standard of proof of adultery in civil cases, and when can a Court

infer adultery from available evidence.

FACTS:

40



The husband accused his wife of adultery with the co-respondent. The hus-

band was away; they went out for the evening; but he was back home before they

returned about half-past-two in the morning and saw them kiss at the door - which

led to a fight with the co- respondent. The trial judge thought their kissing at the

door was a hangover from their escapade of the evening. He did not believe their

45



relationship was so innocent as they described it, or their story as to the places of

amusement they went to; but in his view the evidence did not support an irresis-

tible inference that they had committed adultery; there was evidence of familiarity

but he thought none of opportunity.

The husband appealed; the wife did not appear; the co-respondent appeared

50



to oppose, arguing that the finding of no opportunity for adultery should not be

disturbed.