THE QUEEN V. EGUABOR .

• Pages: 186-190

186

NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1962] N.S.C.C.

The word "term" is defined in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary as "a limit

in space, duration, that which limits the extent of anything, a limit, extremity, bound-

ary, bound; a limit in time, a space of time, a definite point of time at which some-

thing is to be done." In my judgment a term of office used in the sense in which it

is used in s. 87(2)(a), bearing in mind the general language of that Law, means a

5

period of time which has definite bounds, a period the end or termination of which

is definite, and cannot mean anything so vague as "until further notice." That too

is the ordinary meaning ascribed to the word in the Shorter Oxford English Dic-

tionary, as I have already indicated above. The words "until further notice" add

nothing to the appointment of the respondent for the obvious reason that any ap-

10

pointment without any fixed time being stated is, by implication, until determined

by further notice.

In my view the appointment of the 1st respondent in failing to state his term of

office in a manner which shows defined limits, infringes s. 87(2)(a) of the Local

Government Law W.R. Cap. 68 and I would therefore hold the appointment of the

15

1st respondent by the 2nd respondent invalid and would allow the appeal with

costs to the appellant assessed at £24.

20

THE QUEEN V. EGUABOR.

THE QUEEN

RESPONDENT

25

V

IMADEBHOR EGUABOR

APPELLANT

SUIT NO. FSC 33/1962.

FEDERAL SUPREME COURT

BRETT,

F.J.

30

UNSWORTH,

F.J.

TAYLOR,

F.J.

30th April, 1962.

Constitutional Law - Fundamental Human Rights - Fair trial - Trial conducted in

35

language not understood by accused - omission to provide interpreter -

Constitution of the Federation section 21(5) (e) - Nigeria (Constitution)

Order-in-Council 1960, second schedule - miscarriage of justice.

Criminal Law - trial - statement - denial by accused - procedure as to whether

40

confession voluntary not appropriate - improper disclosure of instructions by

defence counsel and failure to cross-examine particular witness to prejudice of

defence - duty of court to explain effect to accused.

Legal Practitioners - Professional conduct - criminal defence - duty of counsel

45

not to disclose instructions without consent of client or former client - duty

to cross-examine witness who produce purported statement of accused alleging

facts not consistent with the defence put forward - counsel's right to ask

court to be released from representation of client.

50

ISSUES:

1. Where a trial is conducted in a language not understood by the accused, can

such accused be said to have received a fair hearing in the absence of an

interpreter?