ASIYANBI & ORS. V. ADENIJI

• Pages: 81-88

ASIYANBI & ORS. V. ADENIJI



81

it appears to us, appreciate that these inconsistencies coupled with the girl's ad-

mission at the trial that her evidence to the magistrate was untrue made her a wit-

ness whose evidence should have been treated with the greatest reservation

(compare

Agwu & 2 Ors v. The State

even if adequate corroborative evidence had

5



been forthcoming, and, as we have indicated, there was no such corroboration

on the admitted evidence which the learned trial judge found proved.

In the circumstances we have no alternative but to quash the conviction be-

cause of the unsatisfactory and untruthful evidence of the complainant. In view of

this we do not consider that this is a case where we could consider applying the

10



proviso to Section 26(1) of the Supreme Court Act because of the wrongful non-

admission of the confessional statement of the accused which could have afforded

the necessary corroboration.

We accordingly order that the conviction and sentence of the accused be set aside

and a verdict of acquittal be entered.

15



Appeal allowed.

ASIYANBI & ORS. V. ADENIJI

20

DANIEL ASIYANBI AND OTHERS



APPELLANT/APPLICANTS

V

25 EMMANUEL AWE ADENIJI



RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. SC 92/1964

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

ADEMOLA,



C.J.N.

COKER,



J.S.C.

30



LEWIS,



J.S.C.

10th March, 1967

Civil Action - Practice and Procedure - Judgment and formal order - Amendment

or correction of records after formal order - Inherent jurisdiction, 'slip rule'

35



- Principles.

Legislation - Supreme Court Rules, 1961, 0.7 r.29 - Rules of Supreme Court,

England, 0.20 r.11 and 0.5l r.9(1) (as in 1966 White Book; 0.20, r.11 and

0.59,r.10(1) in the 1967 White Book).

40

ISSUES:

1.

Whether after a formal order is drawn up the Supreme Court may in its inherent

jurisdiction or under the 'slip rule' vary a judgment or order which correctly

represents the court's decision.

45



2. Whether the Supreme Court may vary the operative and substantive part of its

judgment so as to substitute a different form.

3. Whether the Supreme Court's inherent jurisdiction to amend an order that has

already been drawn up is unlimited.

FACTS:

50



The defendants in their notice of appeal sought, as part of their relief, judgment

in their favour in their counter-claim for a declaration of title to the land in dispute,

which counter-claim had been dismissed by the High Court. The Supreme Court

in its judgment set aside the High Court judgment in so far as it granted the plain-

tiff a declaration of title and observed in passing that the counter-claim was not