ARUEYEE V. THE STATE

• Pages: 148-151

148



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1967] N.S.C.C.

mission purported to exercise a power which was not a power of disciplinary con-

trol and was therefore not vested in it, we can only rest our judgment on that ground.

The Minister, in whom the power is vested, is not a party to these proceedings and

the question how he ought to exercise what we have held not to be a disciplinary

power does not arise. So that there may be no doubt about what the decision of



5

this Court is on the issue raised in this appeal we repeat that the appeal against

the refusal to dismiss the suit summarily fails on the ground that the power of re-

quiring a police officer to retire from the public service under section 9 of the Pen-

sions Act is not vested in the Police Service Commission. No other matter was

argued before us. The appeal is dismissed, with costs assessed at 33 guineas.



10

Appeal dismissed.

ARUEYEE V. THE STATE



15

AVBOTUYEVBE ARUEYEE

V

THE STATE

APPELLANT

RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. SC 72/1967

20

SUPREME COURT

BRETT,

COKER,

LEWIS,

5th May, 1967.

OF NIGERIA

J.S.C.

J.S.C.

J.S.C.

25

Criminal Law & Procedure - Murder - Failure by trial court to advert to various

discrepancies in the evidence of witnesses on material points - Failure to make



30

adequate findings on material points - Miscarriage of justice - Improper

inferences by trial court.

ISSUES:

1.

Whether there is a duty on a trial judge in a jury trial to bring to the attention of



35

the jury various material inconsistencies as they exist in the evidence of the

prosecution.

2.

Whether a failure to consider material discrepancies, and drawing improper

inferences will amount to a serious miscarriage of justice.

FACTS:



40

The appellant was tried and convicted of murder in the High Court of Mid-West-

ern Nigeria. On appeal the main contention of appellant's counsel was that the

judgment did not properly advert to the various discrepancies in the evidence of

prosecution witnesses on a number of very material points, nor did it make any

adequate findings in regard to them. Counsel also referred to a passage in the



45

judgment in which the trial judge made an adverse comment as regards the fact

that the accused's parents were "on the run" and would not give evidence on his

behalf.

HELD:

1. Following

Sholuade v. The Republic (infra)

the learned trial judge should have



50

brought to the attention of the jury (he was sitting as a judge and jury) various

discrepancies in the evidence, and his failure to do so was a serious

miscarriage of justice.