PHARMACISTS BOARD OF NIGERIA V. ADEGBESOTE

• Pages: 1246-1256

1246



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1986] 2 N.S.C.C.

PHARMACISTS BOARD OF NIGERIA V.

ADEGBESOTE

5

PHARMACISTS BOARD OF NIGERIA



APPELLANT

V



10

FRANKLIN ADEGBESOTE



RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. SC 68/1986

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

OBASEKI,

ESO,

NNAMANI,

UWAIS,

BELGORE,

28th November,

1986

J.S.C.

J.S.C.

J.S.C.

J.S.C.

J.S.C.

15

20

Evidence - Disciplinary Proceedings against a Pharmacist - Applicability of Law

of Evidence - Rule 4 of Pharmacists (Disciplinary Committee and Assessors)

Rules 1975 - Hearsay Evidence - Inadmissibility of proof - Standard of proof

in Disciplinary proceedings against a Pharmacist - Proof - Suspicion - Whether

proof - Prison and Pharmacy Law - Certificate that pharmaceutical premises

is unregistered - Whether there



is prescribed form for such certificate:

Deviation front prescribed form - Whether deviation makes document invalid

- Disciplinary proceedings against a Pharmacist - Whether quasi - Criminal in

nature - Registration of premises where chemist curries on business - S.22,

Poisons and Pharmacy Act Cap. 152 Laws of the Federation.

Practice and Procedure - Disciplinary proceedings against a Pharmacist - Duty of

prosecution to call vital witness.

ISSUES:

1.

Where a pharmacist is brought before the Pharmacists Disciplinary Committee

on an allegation of running unregistered pharmaceutical shop contrary to

S.22(1) of the Poisons and Pharmacy Act, is the matter civil or criminal.

2.

What is the standard of proof required in such disciplinary proceedings?

3.

Whether suspicion can on its own amount to evidence of guilt.

FACTS:

The respondent, a pharmacist registered in Nigeria, was brought before the

Pharmacists Disciplinary Committee on an accusation of professional wrongdoing

of infamous conduct. The Committee had earlier on received a report from the

Pharmacists Investigation Panel which conducted a preliminary investigation into

the alleged infamous conduct that the respondent displayed a photocopy of his

annual licence at a shop named Figa Pharmaceutical Chemists in Shomolu, Lagos.

The Committee found him guilty of infam9us conduct, reprimanded him and asked

him to pay N1,000.00 as the cost of the proceedings of the Committee. The re-

spondent's defence was that he never displayed the photocopy of his licence as

alleged. In reply to a query issued by the Pharmacists Board, he denied the ac-

cusation and contended that he once negotiated to acquire the shop and that it

was then he inadvertently left the photocopy. The Investigating Panel alleged that

25

30

35

40

45

50