LawPavilion Online


Back

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE EKITI STATE & ORS v. MRS. SOLA AREGBESOLA & ORS

(2019) LPELR-47520(CA)

In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

On Thursday, the 16th day of May, 2019

CA/EK/40/2017(R)


Before Their Lordships

UZO IFEYINWA NDUKWE-ANYANWU Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

FATIMA OMORO AKINBAMI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

PAUL OBI ELECHI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria


Between

1. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE EKITI STATE
2. THE DIVISIONAL POLICE OFFICER ILAWE EKITI
3. VICTOR -A POLICE OFFICER AT ILAWE
4. CATHERINE-A POLICE OFFICER AT ILAWE
5. SGT ABIOLA OMOTUNDE -A POLICE OFFICER AT ILAWE
6. SUNDAY OGUNTOYE- A POLICE OFFICER AT ILAWE - Appellant(s)

AND

1. MRS. SOLA AREGBESOLA
2. MRS. AJOKE ATERIGINA
3. MRS. AGNES AINA STONE
4. YEMISI FABUNMI
5. BUKOLA FABUNMI - Respondent(s)


Other Citations

; ;


Summary

INTRODUCTION:
This is a ruling on an application for leave to call further evidence on appeal.
FACTS:
By a Notice of Motion dated 2nd May, 2018 and filed 25th June, 2018, the 1st Respondent/Applicant seeks the following reliefs:
1. AN ORDER granting leave to the 1st Respondent/Applicant to call further evidence in this appeal by filing a further affidavit to exhibit the medical report of the General Hospital, Ilawe - Ekiti, Ekiti State.
2. AND for such further order or other orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances.

The application which was brought pursuant to Order 4 Rules 2 and Order 6 Rules 1 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2016 and under the inherent jurisdiction of the Honourable Court was supported by a 9 (nine) paragraph affidavit deposed to by Mrs. Sola Aregbesola, the 1st Respondent/Applicant and the annexures thereto.

The Appellants/Respondents relied on a 19 (Nineteen) paragraph counter-affidavit to oppose the application.

Following an Order of the Court, parties filed and exchanged their written addresses which on the hearing of the application they adopted and relied upon as their arguments for and against the Motion on Notice.

ISSUES:
The applicant formulated a sole issue for determination thus:
"Whether this Honourable Court ought to grant the Applicant's prayer to call further evidence."

The respondent formulated three issues for determination thus:
"1. Whether the 1st Respondent/Applicant had disclosed sufficient and reasonable grounds to warrant the grant of the Application.
2. Whether the 1st Respondent/Applicant who had joined issues with the Appellants by filling Respondent's Brief can subsequently succeed in her Application to call further evidence?
3. Whether a judgment creator under the Fundamental Right Enforcement Rules, who did not file a Respondent's Notice, can succeed in an Application to call fresh evidence? "

DECISION/HELD:
In conclusion, the Court refused the application.


Read Full Judgment