Center For Legal Learning

ABDULLAHI & ORS v. ADETUTU
(2019) LPELR-47384(SC)

EVIDENCE - ADMISSIBILITY OF UNREGISTERED REGISTRABLE INSTRUMENT - Whether an unregistered registrable instrument is admissible to prove title to land
"What is more, the said Exhibit D8 was a registrable instrument by virtue of the provision of Section 15 of the Instruments Registration Law of Lagos State, as amended. However, by the non-registration thereof, Exhibit D8 has been rendered rather inadmissible... [Italics supplied for emphasis] From their pleadings and oral evidence, it is not in doubt that the said exhibit, [that is, Exhibit D8], was pleaded and sought to be tendered in evidence for the purpose of proving or establishing title to the land or interest in the land in dispute. The lower Courts were, therefore, right in their positions that it was inadmissible by virtue of its non-registration, being a registrable instrument, Akintola v. Solano (supra); Registered Trustees of Muslim Mission Hospital Committee v. Adeagbo (supra), Oredola Okeya Trading Co. v. Attorney General, Kwara State (supra); Co-operative Bank Ltd v. Lawal (supra); Etajata v. Ologbo (supra); Gbinijie v. Odji (supra); Umoffia v Ndem (supra)."

Standard of Proof in Criminal Cases.

Life is like a proof. It has to be….woo, I really don’t know. It is a proof. Nevertheless, I know that proofs are important in both civil and criminal cases.

To determine the guilt of the accused or secure a conviction in a criminal case, there has to be proof beyond reasonable doubt. This has been given statutory provision in Section 135 of the Evidence Act.

In criminal cases, the legal burden is entirely on the Prosecution to prove the guilt of the Defendant. This resonates with the landmark principle of law that who asserts must prove. As such, if an individual is being accused of committing a crime, the prosecution has the onus of adducing clear and credible evidence showing the culpability of the accused to the alleged offence.

It is pertinent to state that this legal burden does not shift if the prosecution must secure conviction. This is because, there is the presumption of innocence in favour of the Defendant, by virtue of Section 36(5) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), as he has no responsibility in law to prove his innocence.

What then is Proof beyond Reasonable Doubt? The Supreme Court, in a plethora of cases, defined the principle to mean the standard which the prosecution must meet in order to successfully find the accused guilty of a crime. For instance, if an accused is charged with a homicide (murder), the prosecution must prove that:
(a) the deceased is dead;
(b) that the death was caused by the accused;
(c) that the accused intended to either kill the victim or grievously harm. him. See Idemudia v State @2001 FWLR (PT.55) 549 at 564, Akpan v State (2001) FWLR (Pt.56) 735; Madu Vs. State (2012) 15 NWLR (Pt.1324) 405 etc. If these vital ingredients are proven by clear and compelling evidence to the satisfaction of the Court, then the persecution has successfully proved the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Contrary, when there is any doubt in the course of proving any ingredient of the offence; the doubt will be resolved in favour of the Defendant which will lead to his exculpation as that will mean that the prosecution has not proved his case beyond reasonable doubt.

Furthermore, there are very few things in this world that we know with absolute certainty, and in criminal cases, the law does not require proof that overcomes every possible doubt. In fact, there cannot probably be any proof that can be beyond all doubts or shadow of doubt. For as long as we are on this side of life, we are limited to grasp the total truth of what transpired in a matter. As such, it will be wilting to prove a criminal case beyond any shadow of a doubt. The Courts frown on proving a case beyond all doubt or shadow of doubt because it is practically impossible. Fabiyi (JSC) (as he then was) stated in the case under review that ‘Proof beyond reasonable doubt should not be stretched beyond a reasonable limit. Otherwise, it will cleave.’

In conclusion, presenting evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt is one of the important features of criminal trials. The burden which is stationary placed on the Prosecution doesn’t mean the case should be proved beyond all shadow of doubts. Rather, the prosecution must successfully establish every ingredient for the offence charged. Once this is achieved, then such a case has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. Failure to establish all ingredients of a crime will lead to the accused being exculpated.

*A Federal High Court in Abuja on Thursday rejected a suit that sought to compel President Muhammadu Buhari to instruct security agencies in the country to enforce the Benue State’s Open Grazing Prohibition and Ranching Law passed in 2017. Justice Ijeoma Ojukwu, in a judgment read during a virtual court proceeding, said her court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the suit brought by the plaintiff and proceeded to strike it out.

*Mohammed V. AGF (2021) 3 NWLR (Pt.1764), 397*

Appellant was convicted in 2011 by the triial court and sentenced to 3 years imprisonment.

After serving her term, she, through her lawyer, appealed her conviction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed her conviction/sentencing.

She appealed to the Supreme Court which faulted the decisions of the lower and the trial courts in terms of her sentencing.

The apex Court sentenced her to 10 years imprisonment.

Who's to blame? Lawyer or Litiigant?

*UNDERSTAND WHAT IS PROBATE IN LEGAL TERMS.*

The word *probate* in Legal terms means; the process by which the assets of deceased person's is gathered in and dispersed to the rightful *heirs* where there is no *WILL,* or the beneficiaries if there is a Trust or will.

*Probate* law and legal definition: probate is a general term for the entire process of administration of *estate* of dead persons, including those without wills, with court.

The distinction between *probate* and *non probate.*

probate is where some assets are distributed to *heirs* by the court {probate assets} while *non probate* assets are some assets *bypass* the court process and go directly to the beneficiaries (I.e non probate assets).

*This is the type we are going to use to acelerate the process... In our case at hand*.

Why family or beneficiaries would avoid probate??
The two main reasons to avoid probate are the *time* and *money* it can take to complete. Remember that probate is a court process, and along with the various proceedings and hearings. Simply gathering assets and paying off debts of an estate can take months or even years after a letter of administration has been obtain.

What is considered *non probate property*
Non probate assets are those assets with a beneficiary designation or held as joint tenants with right of *survivorship.*
Non probate assets also include assets held in the name of a Trust or with a Trust named as the beneficiary. These assets will pass directly to the named beneficiaries.