STATE V. ARDO (2025) 13 NWLR (Pt. 2002) 303
ON DUTY ON TRIAL COURT WHERE THERE ARE MORE THAN ONE ACCUSED PERSON
Where there are more than one accused person, the trial court should consider the evidence against each of the accused persons separately following this procedure;
(a) the court must identify the nature and quantum of evidence against each accused person;
(b) it must determine whether such evidence having regards to its source was legally receivable against each of the accused persons;
(c) it must determine whether or not evidence receivable are credible;
(d) it must determine whether the evidence was sufficient and of character that can be relied upon to justify the pronouncement of guilty verdict on the accused person.
[State v. Azeez (2008) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1108) 493 referred to]
(Pp. 324-325, paras. G-B)
IREGU V. STATE (2025) 13 NWLR (PT. 2002) 189
ON PRIMARY DUTY OF TRIAL COURT IN RESPECT OF EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE AND ASCRIPTION OF PROBATIVE VALUE TO EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL CASE
In a criminal trial, the evaluation of evidence and the ascription of probative value to such evidence is the primary function of the trial court.
(P. 249, para. B)
MUSA V. STATE (2025) 14 NWLR (PT. 2005) 207
ON POWER OF APPELLATE COURT TO FORMULATE OR RE-FORMULATE ISSUES FROM GROUNDS OF APPEAL
The appellate court has the discretion to re-formulate issues or formulate issues from the grounds of appeal to facilitate proper adjudication.
[Ishola v. Folorunso (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1210) 169; Kayode v. State (2016) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1511) 199; Shema v. F.R.N. (2018) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1624) 337; Ukpong v. State (2019) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1667) 1; Okonkwo v. Ezeaku (2020) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1718) 477 referred to.]
(P. 233, paras. B-C)
OPDC PROPERTIES LTD. V. THE PEOPLE OF LAGOS STATE (2025) 14 NWLR (PT. 2005) 277
ON DUTY ON COURT TO ENSURE THERE ARE SUFFICIENT MATERIALS BEFORE LEAVE IS GRANTED TO PREFER A CHARGE
The trial court has an onerous duty under the law to ensure that before leave is granted, there are sufficient materials before it to justify putting the accused person being sought to be tried.
In the case at hand, from the proof of evidence, there is every cogent reason that the prosecution has fulfilled the conditions placed thereupon by law.
(P. 307, paras. D–E)
OPDC PROPERTIES LTD. V. THE PEOPLE OF LAGOS STATE (2025) 14 NWLR (PT. 2005) 277
ON DUTY ON COURT IN INTERPRETING THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION
The court has an onerous duty always, when declaring and interpreting the provisions of the Constitution to bear in mind, that the Constitution itself is a mechanism under which laws are to be made by the legislature and not merely an Act which declares what the law is.
Thus, where the question is whether the Constitution used an expression in the wider or narrow sense, the court must always lean, where the justice of the case so demands, to the broader interpretation, unless (of course) there is something in the context or in the rest of the provisions of the Constitution to show that the narrower interpretation would best serve the object and intendment.
In the instant case, as aptly postulated here-to-fore, the provisions of section 211 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) are crystally clear, unambiguous, and unequivocal, thus must be accorded their plain ordinary grammatical meaning.
[Ifezue v. Mbadugha (1984) 1 SCNLR 427; A.-G., Ondo State v. A.-G., Fed. (2002) 9 NWLR (Pt. 772) 222; Rabiu v. State (1981) 2 NCLR 293 referred to.]
(Pp. 310–311, paras. G–C)
USMAN V. STATE (2025) 12 NWLR (PT. 2000) 261
ON DUTY OF TRIAL COURT IN RESPECT OF EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE AND ASCRIPTION OF PROBATIVE VALUE THERETO
The evaluation of the evidence at trial and ascribing probative value to each piece of evidence to determine the guilt of a defendant is the primary duty of the trial court.
[Mohammed v. State (2021) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1771) 123 referred to.]
(P. 297, paras. B-C