SALAMI V. THE STATE

• Pages: 271-278

SALAMI V. THE STATE



271

The court's duty is always to make such construction that will suppress the mis-

chief and advance the remedy and this will only arise if there is latent ambiguity in

the words used in the statutory provision; otherwise, the first and most elementary

5



rule of construction, that is, the literal rule will apply. "If the words used are in them-

selves precise and unambiguous, then no more can be necessary than to expound

those words in their natural and ordinary meaning" - per Lord Tindal C.J. in

Sussex

Peerage Case

(1844) 11 C1 and FIN 85. The wording of Rule 31(a)(i) is in my view

so clear that it leaves no room for' any ambiguity to read any other meaning into it

10



other than what has been plainly expressed therein. The members of the Bar ex-

cluded from appearance in court are those who are in salaried employment or serv-

ing on the board of Directors of a limited liability company and as such receiving

fees. The mere fact that a legal practitioner is serving as a Director in a limited lia-

bility company without proof that he is a recipient of fees as such is not enough to

15



disqualify him from appearing in court for that company.

Where the words of a statute are in themselves precise and unambiguous, then

no more can be necessary than to expound them in their natural and ordinary sense

- See

Jamal Steel Structures Ltd. v. African Continential Bank Ltd.

(1973) 1 All N.L.R.

(Pt.2) 208 and

Income Tax Commissioners v. Pemse

(1891) A.C. 534 particularly at

20 543.

It is for these and the fuller reasons given by my learned brother, Agbaje, J.S.C.,

in his "Reasons for Judgment" that I too dismissed the appeal of 6th June, 1988.

Appeal dismissed

25

SALAMI V. THE STATE

30

IDOWU SALAMI



APPELLANT

V

THE

STATE



RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. SC 158/1987

35

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

OBASEKI,



J.S.C.

UWAIS,



J.S.C.

BELGORE,



J.S.C.

AGBAJE,



J.S.C.

40





WALT,



J.S.C.

7th July, 1988

Criminal Law and Procedure - Armed Robbery - Defence of alibi - Duty of Prosecution to

disprove defence - Duty of police to investigate - Statements to police by witnesses -

Contradictions with evidence in court - Effect - Appeals - Concurrent findings of fact by

two lower courts - Attitude of Supreme Court.

Evidence - Doctrine of recent possession - Stolen property - Section 148(a) Evidence Act

1945 - Application - Effect.

ISSUES:

1.

Whether an appellate court can interfere with two concurrent findings of fact, by

lower courts.

2.

What is the duty of the police where an accused person raises a defence of alibi.

45

50