DENLOYE V. M. & D P D C

• Pages: 260-268

260



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES [1968] N.S.C.C.

Having set aside the order for costs it is unnecessary for us to deal with the

cross-appeal by the State against the award of 15 guineas costs against the State.

The cross-appeal is therefore struck out.

Appeal allowed: Order of High

Court set aside: Application for



5

extention of time dismissed.

DENLOVE V. M. &

D.P.D.C.



10

DR. E.O.A. DENLOYE



APPELLANT

V



15

MEDICAL AND DENTAL PRACTITIONERS



RESPONDENTS

DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE

SUIT NO. SC 91/1968

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

ADEMOLA.



C.J.N.



20

COKER,



J.S.0

MADARIKAN,



J.S.C.

22nd November, 1968.

Administrative Law - Tribunal of Enquiry - Medical Practitioner - Misconduct



25

- Appellant not informed of the nature of evidence against him - Whether

a denial of justice occasioned - Where professional conduct of practitioner

amounts to a crime - Matter for the court to deal with - If found guilty

and if offence comes within type of cases referred to in S.13(1)(b), then

Tribunal may proceed to deal with him under the Act - Case closed and



30

judgment being considered - Whether too late to allow further evidence to

be given.

ISSUES:

1.

Does the failure of a tribunal of enquiry to inform a person charged before it



35

of the nature of the evidence against him, amount to a denial of justice.

2.

Can a professional body's disciplinary tribunal deal with or try a professional

misconduct which amounts to a crime.

3.

In a case in which a person's guilt is in issue, is it too late to allow further

evidence to be given after the case has been closed and judgment is being



40

considered.

FACTS:

The appellant, a medical practitioner, was working under the Ministry of Health,

Western Nigeria. He was charged before the Medical and Dental Practitioners

Disciplinary Tribunal on five counts of infamous conduct in a professional respect.



45

S.12 of the Medical and Dental Practitioners Act, 1963 provides that complaints

against a medical practitioner should be investigated by the Medical and Dental

Practitioners Investigating Panel, so as to determine whether or not a

prima facie

case exists to go before the Tribunal. The Investigating Panel first met at Ikenne

on 7th August, 1967 and received evidence from several persons, neither the ap-



50

pellant nor his counsel was invited to be present. It was not until 11th October,

1967 that he was summoned to appear before the Investigating Panel. The Chair-

man of the Panel refused to produce the evidence taken prior to the date, despite

the appellant's counsel repeated requests for it. It was not until the 1st December,