ISIBOR V. THE STATE

• Pages: 188-194

188



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1970] N.S.C.C.

Appeal allowed. Judgment of the

High Court set aside: action struck

out.

5

ISIBOR V. THE STATE

10

VINCENT ISIBOR

V

THE STATE

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

LEWIS,



J.S.C.

MADARIKAN,



J.S.C.

FATAI-WILLIAMS, J.S.C.

22nd May, 1970

APPELLANT

RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. SC 19

7

/

1

969

15

20

Criminal Law - Evidence - Judge refusing to allow deposition to be put in on

request of counsel from Bar without calling witness to formally tender it -

Whether proper - Evidence Act, s.198, 208. Dangerous driving - Motor vehicle

- Collision - Appellant driving out of a minor road into a major road despite



the sign - No evidence of speed - Whether trial Judge right in convicting



25

Appellant of dangerous driving - Road Traffic Act s.18( 1).

ISSUES:

1.

Whether the deposition of a witness who is being cross- examined as to his



previous statement can be tendered from the bar, without calling a witness to



30

formally tender it.

2.

Whether it is right for a trial Judge to convict an accused of dangerous driving,

where no evidence of speed was adduced before him.

FACTS:



This was a case of motor vehicle collision. The Judge found the accused not



35

guilty of manslaughter but guilty of dangerous driving contrary to s.18(1) of the

Road Traffic Act. The Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court on the grounds

that the trial Judge was in error for refusing to allow the deposition of a witness to

be put in on request of counsel from the Bar without calling a witness to formally



tender it. Another ground of appeal was that the Judge erred in law in convicting



40

the Appellant of dangerous driving when the findings of fact made by him did not

support such a conviction.

HELD:

1.

Once by virtue or s.198 of 208 of the Evidence Act it is sought to put in a



deposition of the witness who is being cross-examined as to his previous



45

statement then i' can be done by producing the original or a certified true copy

which would then come within the provisions of s.96(1)(e) and s.96(2)(c) of the

Evidence Act when read in conjunction with s.113 of the Act. In this case the

Judge was wrong to refuse to admit the deposition of the witness which was



duly signed by him and otherwise complied with the requirements of the



50

Evidence Act without being tendered through a witness.

2.

If the trial Judge had evidence on which he could rely and there was such

evidence, that the collision took place at the junction of the two roads and that

the Appellant, whether driving fast or not, drove continuously out from the minor