OLADIMEJI V. THE QUEEN

• Pages: 90-93

90



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1964] N.S.C.C.

OLADIMEJI V. THE QUEEN

5

EZEKIEL AKINSOLA OLADIMEJI



APPELLANT

V

THE QUEEN



RESPONDENT



10

SUIT NO FSC 34

5

/

1

963

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

BRETT,



J.S.C.

TAYLOR,



J.S.C.

BAIRAMIAN,



J.S.C.

3rd April, 1964

Criminal Law - Murder - Sentence - Age of

offence - At titne of conviction - Investigation

to investigate age - Medical examination of

convicted person - At time of

of age - Commissioner appointed

convict with his consent.

15

20

Legislation - Constitution of the Federation, 1960, - s.21(7), or s.22(7) of that of

1063 - Federal Criminal Code, s.319(2) - W.R. Criminal Code, s.257(2) -

Criminal Procedure Ordinance, s.208, s.368(3) - Federal Supreme Court Act,

s.33(d) -



25

ISSUES:

I. Whether a trial Court hearing a criminal matter is empowered by law to make

inquiry into the age of a person before it.

2. For the purpose of sentencing a person convicted of murder, is it his age at



30

the time of the offence that is relevant, or his age at the time of conviction.

FACTS:

The appellant's father had said in evidence that the was about eighteen of age,

and the Judge convicted him of murder and sentenced him to death. The trial took

place about a year after the offence. On appeal it was argued that if the defend-



35

ant was a doubtful seventeen at the time of his offence, he could not have been

sentenced to death within the provisions of s.257(2) of the W.R. Criminal Code,

and s.368(3) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance. The Supreme Court against

the appellant's wishes, referred the question of his age for inquiry to a special com-

missioner with an order directing that evidence be taken from certain relatives and



40

from the prison doctor, but expressly stating that the doctor could only examine

the appellant with his consent or as provided by the Prisons Regulations. The doc-

tor conducted the examination with his consent. In the Supreme Court counsel

submitted that the appellant's consent was not given freely and with knowledge of

its possible consequences. The doctor testified that he was twenty-five.



45

HELD:

1.

The trial court is empowered by law to make due inquiry into the age of a person

before it; the question of his age is a question for the court, and there is no

burden of proof on either side.

2.

As there was no ground for holding that the appellant was unfairly led into



50

providing evidence against himself, the doctor's evidence would be accepted.