OKOKO & ANOR V. THE STATE

• Pages: 287-292

OKOKO & ANOR V. THE STATE



287

what was disapproved of in Thomas Sorunke v. The King [19461 A.G. 316, in which

case the Privy Council held that the refusal to issue processes to compel the at-

tendance of witnesses for an accused person unless he was prepared to disclose

to the Court his reasons for wishing to call the various witnesses resulted in a

5



grave miscarriage of justice. In that case the point that arose for determination

was the propriety or otherwise of imposing such conditions upon the accused be-

fore he could be allowed to have processes issued for compelling the attendance

of his witnesses. That was not the case here. We cannot subscribe to the view

that a Court of trial should adjourn the hearing at the instance of any party (be it

10



the accused or the prosecution) when it is manifest that the application for such

adjournment was made only for the purpose of delaying the proceedings, and a

fortiori,

when, as in this case, it was being made after a total inadvertence to the

directions of a Court, a compliance with which would probably have obviated the

necessity for any such application. In the case of

Thomas Sorunke v. The King

15



(supra), the Privy Council expressed the view that it is not within the province of

the trial Judge in determining whether or not he should allow witnesses to be sum-

moned on behalf of the accused to take into consideration the probability of the

witnesses being able to give material evidence, though their Lordships added that:

20



''In any case the Court can always protect itself by issuing process, but if con-

vinced that the lateness of the application is not due to genuine mistake or jus-

tified reason it can refuse to adjourn the trial".

We have already expressed our views that in the circumstances of the present

25



case, no miscarriage of justice had been occasioned by the refusal of the trial

Judge to adjourn the hearing of the case. This ground of appeal must also fail.

Both grounds of appeal therefore fail and this appeal is accordingly dismissed

and the conviction and sentence of the appellant are hereby affirmed.

Appeal dismissed.

30

OKOKO & ANOR V. THE STATE

35

1.

IBONG UDO OKOKO Alias MBIAIVI

2.

SUNDAY NATHANIEL AKPAN



APPELLANTS

V

40

THE

STATE



RESPONDENTS

SUIT NO. SC 475/1964

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

BAIRAMIAN,



J.S.C.

ONYEAMA,



J.S.0

45



COKER,



J.S.C.

23rd December, 1964.

Criminal Law - Onus of proof on prosecution - No evidence from defendants on

matters peculiarly within their knowledge - Court must not speculate but

50



decide on the evidence.

ISSUES:

1.

Whether the onus of proving matters peculiarly within a defendant's knowledge

lies on the prosecution in a criminal case.