EJUREN V. C 0 P

• Pages: 227-230

EJUFIEN V. C.O.P.



227

nesses. Neither the appellant nor his co-accused questioned the witnesses on

these points, though they had the opportunity of doing so.

Learned Counsel for the appellant was unable to tell us what any witness could

have said in the appellant's defence, or what witnesses gave evidence except Bala,

5



who could not be found. The appellant did not object when the trial court said that

defence witnesses were unnecessary, and did not ask to call any witness then. The

complaint that the appellant had been denied the right to call evidence was not

made until the case came to this Count, and was not made by the appellant him-

self.

10



In these circumstances, we thought that no failure of justice had been occa-

sioned, and for that reason we dismissed the appeal.

Appeal Dismissed.

15

EJUREN V. C.O.P.

20 CLARK EJUREN



APPELLANT

V

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE



RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. FSC 88/1961

FEDERAL SUPREME COURT.

25



BRETT,



AG. C.J.F.

HURLEY,



C.J.N.R.

BELLAMY,



AG. C.J., Lagos.

4th September, 1961.

30



Criminal Law - Appeal - Conflict of Evidence on Essential Fact - No finding

by Trial Court on that Fact - Appellate Court must draw conclusion on that

fact favourable to accused - Stealing - Consent.

ISSUES:

35



1. Whether on an appeal against conviction on a criminal charge the Supreme

Court can choose between two conflicting versions of an essential of fact and

make a finding where the trial court made no finding by the trial court.

2. Whether the Supreme Court is obliged to make a finding in favour of the

accused, where conflicting evidence has not been resolved.

40

FACTS:

The Appellant was the president of a "court" known as "Umukoko Court", which

comprised the president and eleven members. In February, 1960, as president,

the Appellant adjudicated in an "action brought against one of the prosecution wit-

nesses for the recovery of a £200 "bride price" paid by the Plaintiff on the Defend-

45



ant's sister. The Defendant refused to submit to the "jurisdiction" of the "Umukoko

Court" and maintained that any claim against him should be properly brought in

the Jesse Grade "C" Customary Court. The Appellant then ordered that the De-

fendant pay £15 "summons fee" to the Plaintiff. The Defendant also refused to

comply with that order, whereupon the Appellant ordered six men to seize and hurl

50



the Defendant into a bowl filled with starch water. In the process the Defendant

was brutally treated, to the extent that his sister, Eruana Onator, knelt before the

Appellant and sought mercy for her brother. She offered to pay £5 in part pay-

ment of the £15 demanded if her brother were released. This was done, and she

paid the £5 to the Appellant, who gave the Defendant two weeks within which to