OSOBA V. THE QUEEN

• Pages: 128-130

128



OSOBA V. THE QUEEN.

In exercising so delicate a jurisdiction as that of removing trustees, their Lord-

ships do not venture to lay down any general rule beyong the very broad principle

above enunciated, that their main guide must be the welfare of the beneficiaries.

Probably it is no. possible to lay down any more definite rule in a matter so es-

sentially dependent on details of great nicety. But they proceed to look carefully

into the circumstances of the case.

Counsel also argued a number of other grounds of appeal which were large-

ly designed to show that the case was not properly before the Court below. In my

view there was no substance in these grounds of appeal.

For the above reasons I considered that the appeal should be dismissed with

costs assessed at twenty-five guineas.

Brett, F.J.

I concur.

Taylor, F.J.

I concur.

Appeal dismissed.

OSOBA V. THE QUEEN.

PATRICK J. OSOBA



APPLICANT

V

THE QUEEN



RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. FSC 141/1961

FEDERAL SUPREME COURT.

ADEMOLA,



C.J.F.

BRETT,



F.J.

TAYLOR,



F.J.

19th May, 1961.

Criminal Law - Practice - Motion for retrial subsequent to dismissed Appeal -

Grounds - No allegation of Fraud or misconduct.

Constitutional Law- Nigeria (Constitution) Order in Council, 1960, Second Schedule,

Constitution of the Federation, section 110.

Courts- Federal Supreme Court Ordinance, 1960 (No. 12 of 1960) section 26(2).

ISSUES:

1.

Whether the Supreme Court can order a retrial without



having allowed an

appeal or set aside a conviction.

2.

Whether the Supreme Court is entrusted by the Constitution with general

supervisory functions not bound by restrictions.

FACTS:

The applicant had been tried and convicted in the High Court of Lagos. On

appeal to the Supreme Court he applied to adduce further evidence, which appli-

cation was refused and the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. He later filed

this motion fcr a Retrial, grounded upon an affidavit in which he alleged that cer-

tain documentary evidence, of which his counsel was aware at the trial, was not

adduced in evidence; which documentary evidence tended strongly to show his

innocence of the offences charged; and that such failure to adduce the said evi-