DOKA & ORS. V. THE STATE

• Pages: 308-313

308



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1967] N.S.C.C.

DOKA & ORS. V. THE STATE

5

ALHAJI BABA DOKA AND OTHERS



APPELLANTS

V

THE STATE



RESPONDENTS



10

SUIT NO SC 223/1967

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

BAIRAMIAN,J.S.C.

LEWIS,



J.S.C.

MADARIKAN,



J.S.C.



15

22nd December, 1967

Criminal Law - Northern Nigeria - Brigandage



Evidence - Deposition taken at preliminary inquiry' - Witness unavoidably absent



20

at High Court - Reception of deposition in evidence - Corroboration - not

required by law - Whether caution advisable if uncorroborated on a vital

point - Corroboration touching only on point not in dispute.



Legislation - Criminal Procedure Code (N.N.) s.239, Penal Code section 297 -



25

Criminal Justice Act, 1925 (England) section 13.

ISSUES:

1.

Whether the sworn deposition of a witness taken at a preliminary inquiry is



admissible in evidence of the facts stated therein where such a witness is



30

unavailable at the trial in the High Court.

2.

Where corroboration of evidence is not required by law, is caution advisable

where there is corroboration only on an undisputed point.

FACTS:



The appellants were convicted in the Northern High Court of brigandage in that



35

they were all travelling on the Kano-Port Harcourt train and that shortly before the

train stopped at In Station, they jointly held and robbed one B.N.

A preliminary inquiry was held at which B.N., the victim, gave the only evidence

of the actual act of brigandage. Another passenger on the train a police con-



stable, C.V. testified that B.N. made a complaint to him about the act and that when



40

he questioned the appellants they threatened him with knives.

He further stated that all except the first two accused jumped from the moving

train. Later, the second jumped and broke his leg and the first was arrested.

At the trial the appellants admitted travelling in the train but denied B.N.'s alle-



gation. B.N. and C.V, were unavailable to give evidence in the High Court due to



45

the state of the country at the time and their depositions were read under s.239(1)

of the Criminal Procedure Code which reads:-

"The evidence of a witness given on oath and duly recorded in writing in any

judicial proceedings under this Criminal Procedure Code may in the discretion



of the court be read and accepted as evidence in any subsequent proceedings



50

concerning the same cause or matter against the same accused or in a later

stage of the same proceedings, if the witness is dead or cannot be found or is

incapable of giving evidence or if his presence cannot be obtained without an

amount of delay, expense or inconvenience which the court considers unrea-