UMAR V. BAYERO UNIVERSITY, KANO

• Pages: 306-313

306



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1988] 2 N.S.C.C.

UMAR V. BAYERO UNIVERSITY, KANO

5

ILIYASU UMAR



APPELLANT

V

BAYERO UNIVERSITY, KANO



RESPONDENT



10

SUIT NO. SC 85/1986

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

NNAMANI,

UWAIS,

KAWU,

BELGORE,

AGBAJE,

8th July, 1988

J.S.C.

J.S.C.

J.S.C.

J.S.C.

J.S.C.

15

2C

Evidence - Tendering of documents - Photograph - Inconclusiveness of - Visit to locus in

quo - Proper time to exercise discretion - Evidential value of.

Civil Procedure - Pleadings - Matters not canvassed by parties - Admissibility of - Effect.

Appeals - Non resolution of vital issues - Proper order - Retrials.

ISSUES:

1.

What is the duty of an appellate court, where the vital issues in a case are left

unappraised by the trial court.

2.

Whether all matters of fact can be resolved by observing the demeanour of

witnesses.

3.

What is the primary duty of a trial court.

FACTS:

The appellant as plaintiff, instituted an action against the respondent, claiming

422,382.00 for damage done to the appellant's house, which he let to the defend-

ant. The appellant contended that the defendant's flat and the flat on top of it was

burnt down by the negligence of defendant or his servants or agents, and as such,

the defendant was vicariously liable to pay special and general damages for the de-

struction caused by the fire outbreak on the two flats. Pleadings were filed and ex-

changed. It was common ground between the two parties that the two flats were

gutted by fire. The defendant however maintained that the fire was caused by de-

fective electrical wiring of the house.

As part of his evidence, the plaintiff tendered a photograph of the room from

which the fire started, and it showed a kerosine stove. He also called two witnesses

who claimed to have seen how the fire started. They testified that the fire started

from the kerosine stove. The learned trial Judge, did not visit the

locus-in-quo,

but

believed the evidence of the witnesses. He gave judgment for the plaintiff and

awarded damages. The defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal, who reviewed

the whole evidence before the trial court, and held that the photographs were incon-

clusive, as they were taken 10 months after the fire incident and in the absence of

the defendant. They therefore set aside the judgment of the trial court and dismissed

the plaintiff's claim in it's entirety.

25

3(

a

4

L