ARMEL'S TRANSPORT LTD. V. MARTINS

• Pages: 22-26

22



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1970] N.S.C.C.

of this appeal which we assess at 67 guineas to each defendant and to their costs

in the High Court which we assess at 50 guineas to each defendant.

Appeal allowed: judgment of High

Court set aside: plaintiffs case

dismissed.

ARMEL'S TRANSPORT LTD. V. MARTINS

5

10

ARMEL'S TRANSPORT LTD.



APPELLANTS

V

MADAM ATINUKE MARTINS



RESPONDENT



15

SUIT NO. SC 10/1968

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

COKER,



J.S.C.

LEWIS,



J.S.C.

FATAI-WILLIAMS, J.S.C.



20

20th February, 1970.

Tort - Negligence - Motor vehicle - Collision

Evidence - Point

of

impact shown on plan not within personal knowledge of



25

policeman - Whether admissible by virtue of section 90 of Evidence Act. -

Witness - Credibility - Trial Judge not making any finding as to which

witnesses

he

believed - Court of Appeal reluctant to put itself in place of

trial court in regard to evidence adduced.

30

ISSUES:

1.

Whether evidence given by a policeman on the point of impact of vehicle in an

accident, which evidence is not within his personal knowledge, is admissible.

2.

Whether it is necessary for trial Judges to make finings of fact as to the credibility

of witnesses.



35

FACTS:

The Respondent claimed damages for the negligent driving of the Appellant's

driver of an omnibus which collided with the plaintiff's tipper.

The trial Judge accepted the evidence of the policeman even though he did not

know the exact point of impact (it was shown to him by people in a bus). The trial



40

Judge also interpreted a sketch plan which was not agreed upon by the parties.

The trial Judge did not make any findings as to which witnesses he believed but

gave judgment in favour of the Respondent.

The Appellant appealed.

HELD:



45

1.

The point shown on the plan as the point of impact not being within the personal

knowledge of the policeman and not being admissible by virtue of s.90 of the

Evidence Act was inadmissible, being hearsay evidence.

2.

The trial Judge never made any finding as to which witnesses he believed and

it is not the practice of a court of appeal to put itself in his place and make a



50

determination which he should have made.

3.

As the trial Judge made no findings of fact and wrongly relied on matters in the

sketch plan which were infact inadmissible there was no alternative but to order

that this case be re-heard.