2014 in review

The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2014 annual report for this blog.

Here’s an excerpt:

The concert hall at the Sydney Opera House holds 2,700 people. This blog was viewed about 13,000 times in 2014. If it were a concert at Sydney Opera House, it would take about 5 sold-out performances for that many people to see it.

Click here to see the complete report.

Advertisements

DEATH SENTENCE: DEMEANING THE DIGNITY OF HUMAN LIFE?

DEATH SENTENCE: DEMEANING THE DIGNITY OF HUMAN LIFE

Delivered on the 25th day of July, 2014, in representation of T.O. Elias Clamber at the Maiden Inter-Chamber Interjectory Debate Contest, Faculty of Law, UI

Everybody desires to get to paradise; and even though we cannot get there without it, nobody wants to die. I mean even terrorists hesitate before committing suicide. Each and every one of us here is scared of death in one way or the other, either for ourselves or for others. The thought of it troubles us. The talk of it agitates us. And a glance at it greatly overwhelms us. So why does a defence of death, either by accident or by court judgment, not bother us?

Good day, legal brethren, the bench, ladies and gentlemen. Adebajo is my cognomen and I’m here at this notable event, hoisting T.O. Elias’s emblem. I’m to give my assent to the statement that death sentence demeans the dignity of human life.

Before I proceed, I’d like to tell us that death sentence, also known as capital punishment, is a judicial pronouncement that condemns a man to expiry, it plunges him into the ancestral realm without his consent … Human life, on the other hand, is that phenomenon without which none of us will be here, or there, except perhaps 6-feet-below our legs. It is a God-given gift that must never ever be intentionally tampered with.

But then, what premises underline this assertion of mine that saying the capital punishment does not demean the dignity of human life is a lie?

One, according to sub-section (1) section 33 of the 1999 Constitution, ‘no one shall be deprived intentionally of his life, save in the execution of the sentence of a court in respect of a criminal offence of which he has been found guilty’. The problem here is; how can we confidently tag someone as either guilty or not guilty?

As we all know, criminal culpability constitutes both actus reus and mens rea. Thus, even if we are able to say with certainty that a person used his hands to commit an offence, we can never be 100 percent sure that his mind is as guilty. And is it not true, the dictum of Sir William Blackstone that, ‘better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer’?

To buttress this point, I would like to allude to the case of Paul Hildwin who was dashed a death sentence. Thanks to DNA evidence, his innocence was discovered, early this month, after he had spent half of his life in detention.

In the same vein, persons have been killed for charges of rape, kidnap or murder, only for the real culprits to confess years later, or for the supposed victim to return alive.

We even have the case of Thomas and Meeks Griffin who were prosecuted for murder in 1915, because the police deemed them wealthy enough to secure an acquittal. They were summarily executed, only to be pardoned 94 years later [CNN article].

Ladies and gentlemen, even if persons who are executed are always truly guilty, we must realise that man is aga-tho-ca-co-logical, having proclivity towards both good and evil. This reality is aptly captured in the words of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, ‘there is no man so bad that he cannot be made good for something. No man should be put to death.’

A serial killer today can be a Reverend Pastor tomorrow, a prostitute today may be a nun tomorrow, and even, a ‘tsunamised’ student today may end up as a Vice Chancellor in the future. Therefore, we should not adopt a justice of vengeance; rather we should adopt that of rehabilitative deterrence.

We should all be like Dr Martin Luther King who said; ‘I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness, only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that.’

Furthermore, it is no coincidence that Norway tops the United Nations Human Development Index for 2013 and she has abolished capital punishment since 1905 [according to Amnesty International i.e.]. So also, we have Germany, Netherland, Sweden, New Zealand and many others. On the other side of the list are countries that permit death penalty and are with the lowest human development index. Places like Sudan, Yemen, Somalia and Nigeria.

Lastly, the death sentence is not only contra-bono-mores and it is contra-legem, it is useless as it has not been found to discourage the commission of crimes. From the Global Crime Index of 2014, we can see that 16 out of the 30 most crime-ridden countries in the world permit death penalty. That is 53.3%, more than half!

Wife of Dr King, Coretta Scott, once said, ‘an evil deed is not redeemed by an evil deed of retaliation, justice is never advanced in the taking of a human life. Morality is never upheld by a legalised murder.’ Death sentence is nothing but legalised murder, lawful mischievousness; legitimate madness.

My adversaries may come here to argue that death sentence reduces the congestion of prisons, that it is easier and less expensive than other punitive measures; that it is backed up by some scriptures … but then these assertions, if they are raised; are absolutely not true. Even if they are, are we willing to sacrifice justice, fairness and human dignity on the altar of convenience and dogmatism?

Fellow law students, ladies and gentlemen, I only have for us – one more sentence. Let us sentence death sentence to death, to an oblivion of no return, because it not only demeans the dignity of human life, it equally derides the quality and gravity of human strife.

I – rest my case.

LEGAL MAXIMS AND THEIR SHORT EXPLANATIONS


LEGAL
MAXIMS AND THEIR SHORT EXPLANATIONS

WRITTEN & COMPILED BY:ESSAYS NG


DOWNLOAD FREE E-BOOK HERE!


 

ACCUSARE NEMO SE DEBET [NISI CORAM DEO]: NO ONE OUGHT TO ACCUSE HIMSELF [EXCEPT TO GOD].

  • Also called the ‘right against self-incrimination’.
  • Similar to ‘Nemo tenetur seipsum accusare’.
  • An accused is fully entitled to plead ‘not guilty’ whatever the facts may be.
  • A witness may refuse to answer questions on the ground that a reply might incriminate him.
  • A confession is not admissible unless it is made freely and voluntarily. It must not be induced through promise or threat.
  • See R v Lagos, Miranda v Arizona and Mapp v Ohio.

 

ACTA EXTERIORA INDICANT SECRETA INTERIORA: THE OUTWARD ACTS SHOW THE SECRET INTENTIONS.

  • This involves the ascertainment of someone’s subjective interest/purpose motivating his/her actions, by considering what the immediate, proximate and reasonably to be anticipated consequences of such actions are and to reason that the person intends to accomplish them.
  • Facta non verba’ – actions speak louder than voice.

 

ACTIO PERSONALIS MORITUR CUM PERSONA: ANY RIGHT OF ACTION DIES WITH THE PERSON.

  • It applies to actions in form of ‘ex delicto’. ‘Delict’ meaning wrong/injury done to someone.
  • It is a common law rule which states that ‘if an injury were done either to the person or to the property of another for which damages only could be recovered in satisfaction, the action died with the person to whom or by whom the wrong was done.
  • In case of injury to the person, if either party dies, no action can be supported either by or against the executors or other representatives.
  • Thus, going by this maxim, it would be better for a motorist to kill rather than merely injure a pedestrian who is unemployed, unmarried, childless and an orphan.
  • The relevance of this principle has been substantially removed by statutes which allow a deceased’s estate to pursue the litigation.
  • It does not apply to personal action founded on contract.
  • It now seems to be generally confined to ‘defamation’.
  • See Phillip v Homfray, Ayodele v Ore and Kareem v Wema Bank Ltd.

 

ACTORE NON PROBANTE, ABSOLVITUR REUS: AN ACTION NOT PROVED, ABSOLVES THE GUILTY.

  • When the plaintiff/prosecution does not prove his case, judgment is for the defendant/accused.
  • The same principle applies to an appellant if the judges are equally divided in their decisions.
  • See Famuroti v Agbeke and Awomuti v Salami.

 

ACTUS DEI NEMINI FACIT INJURIAM: AN ACT OF GOD CAUSES LEGAL INJURY TO NO ONE.

  • The law holds no man responsible for the act of God’ ~Herbert Broom.
  • The loss from an injury caused thereby must be borne by the victim.
  • It refers to an injury, inevitable as a result of an act of God, which no industry can avoid or policy prevent.
  • Supposing a storm causes Mr A’s car to land on, thereby damaging Mr B’s house, Mr B cannot claim damages from Mr A.
  • See Omotayo v Arbuckie Smith & Co. Ltd.

 

ACTUS NON FACIT REUM, NISI MENS SIT REA: AN ACT DOES NOT MAKE GUILT, UNLESS THE MIND BE GUILTY.

  • The intent and the act must both concur to constitute a crime.
  • Similar to Nemo cogitationis poenam patitur: No one shall be punished for his thoughts alone.
  • The existence of a criminal mind may be negated with the defences of: *Mistake *Accident *Compulsion *Consent *Claim of right.
  • A lunatic may however be found guilty of crime, but will not be executed and only kept in custody for lack of ‘real’ intent [i.e. mens rea].
  • See R v Nasamu, Sweet v Parsely and The State v Adelenwa.

 

AFFIDAVIT: HE SWORE.

  • Or ‘FOR HE HAS DECLARED UPON OATH’.
  • A written sworn statement of fact voluntarily made by an affiant or deponent under an oath/affirmation administered by an authorised person.
  • Witnessed by a solicitor or a commissioner of oaths.
  • It may not be admissible as evidence; must be backed up.
  • The content should be only within the knowledge of the affiant.
  • If discovered false, with the intent to deceive; may lead to a charge of perjury.

 

ARMA IN ARMATOS SUMERE JURA SINUNT: THE LAW PERMITS THE TAKING UP OF ARMS AGAINST THE ARMED.

  • The use of arms is only lawful if it is necessary as a form of self-defence, to prevent or repel the commission of a forcible entry or an atrocious crime.
  • See Nwuguru v The State, R v Igwe and The Queen v Jinobu.

 

AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM: HEAR THE OTHER SIDE.

  • First enacted in the Magna Carta, 1215.
  • Similar to ‘AUDITUR ET ALTERA PARS’.
  • No person shall be condemned, punished or have any property or legal right compromised by a law court without being heard.
  • It includes habeas corpus, right to receive notice of hearing and to be given an opportunity to be represented or heard.
  • It is a principle of fair-hearing; that both party shall respond to the evidence against them.
  • It is considered a principle of fundamental justice or equity.
  • The ancient Greek dramatists considered ‘hear both sides’ as part of ‘common wisdom’.
  • Today, legal systems differ on whether a person can be convicted in absentia.
  • Even God, it is said, allowed Adam to make his defence before passing judgment.
  • See King v Chancellor, Cooper v Wandsworth Board of Works, Fawehinmi v LPD committee per Kayode Eso JSC, R v Chancellor of Cambridge Univerisity, Adedeji v Public Service Commission, Akande v The state, adeigun v A.G. Oyo state and Udemah v Nig. Coal Corp.

COMMODUM EX INJURIA SUA, NEMO HABERE DEBET: OUT OF HIS OWN WRONG, NO ONE OUGHT TO HAVE ADVANTAGE.

  • Mostly applied in insurance cases whereby the assured inflicts injury on himself, spouse or property to make a fraudulent claim.
  • See Lek v Matthews and Cole v Accident Assurance Co. Ltd.

 

CORPUS DELICTI: BODY OF CRIME.

  • Plural: ‘Corpora delicti’.
  • A principle that a crime must have been proven to have occurred before a person can be convicted of committing that crime.
  • It is ‘the fact of a crime having been actually committed’ ~Black’s law dictionary.
  • Out-of-court confession of a defendant is insufficient as evidence.
  • An accused cannot be convicted solely upon an accomplice’s testimony.
  • If a person disappears and cannot be contacted, a ‘missing person’ case is initiated. A ‘body’ of evidentiary items must be obtained to establish that the missing individual has indeed been murdered.
  • Misinterpretation: in the case of British serial killer, John George Haigh, he destroyed the bodies of his victims with acid thinking that in the absence of a corpse, murder could not be proven.

 

DOMUS SUA CINQUE EST TUTISSIMUM REFUGIUM: A MAN’S HOUSE IS HIS SAFEST RETREAT.

  • The house of everyone is to him a castle/fortress for his safety, and defence against injury and violence.
  • A house” includes a rented house.
  • In R v Hussay, the tenant was justified to have shot his landlord who tried to forcibly eject him after a quit-notice.
  • See also The Queen v Eyo and R v Ebi.

 

 

 

 

EX PARTE: FOR ONE PARTY ONLY.

  • Or ‘OUTSIDE THE AWARENESS OF A PARTY.’
  • It refers to the proceedings where one of the parties has not received notice and, therefore is neither present nor represented.
  • It is not ex parte, if a notice is received but the person chose not to attend.
  • However, some jurisdictions expand it to mean any proceeding that goes undefended.
  • One of the parties applies to the court and is awarded without the knowledge of the other party who may be bound or affected by the proceeding/verdict.
  • Ex parte applications often seek‘court injunction’.
  • It gives room for injustice.
  • It is not common in the adversarial system.
  • Urgency often leads to it.
  • The party present in court must/is expected to present the case fairly.

EX TURPI CAUSE NON ORITUR ACTIO: OUT OF A BASE/DISGRACEFUL/ILLEGAL CAUSE, AN ACTION DOES NOT ARISE.

  • “No polluted hand shall touch the pure foundation of justice.”
  • “He who comes to equity, must come with clean hands” [a maxim of equity].
  • It means redress shall not be granted to persons involved in an illegal deal.
  • Illegality in an agreement renders it wholly void of legal effect.
  • See Canfailla v Chahin, Stevens v Gourley and Onyiuke v Okeke.

 

HABEAS CORPUS: MAY YOU HAVE THE BODY.

  • Habeas: 2nd person singular present subjunctive active of ‘habere’ – to have.

Corpus: accusative singular of ‘corpus’; plural is ‘corpora’.

  • Fully written as ‘habeas corpus ad subjiciendum.’
  • Also called ‘the great writ’.
  • It is a writ [legal action] that requires a person under arrest to be brought before a judge.
  • It ensures that a prisoner can be released from unlawful detention.
  • The remedy can be sought by the prisoner and anyone coming to his aid.
  • It is addressed to the prison custodian.
  • Others, aside the detainee, can write the petition because he might be held ‘incommunicado’.
  • It may be suspended due to a ‘national emergency’.
  • Types: *Habeas corpus ad deliberandum et recipiendum.

*Habeas corpus ad faciendum et recipiendum (or cum causa).

*Habeas corpus ad prosequendum.

*Habeas corpus ad respondedum.

*Habeas corpus ad testificandum.

 

INTER ARMA, LEGES SILENT: IN THE MIDST OF ARMS, THE LAW IS SILENT.

  • First written by Cicero in his oration; ‘Pro Milone’, as ‘Silent enim leges inter arma’.
  • “The laws will thusnot be silent in time of war, but they will speak with a somewhat different voice” ~ChiefJustice William Rehnquist.
  • “The clatter of arms drowns out the voice of the law” ~Henry David Thoreau.
  • It applies between different states, during civil disturbances or a coup d’état.

 

INTEREST REIPUBLICAE UT SIT FINIS LITIUM: IT CONCERNS THE STATE THAT THERE BE AN END TO LAWSUITS.

  • Or ‘IT IS FOR THE GENERAL WELFARE THAT A PERIOD BE PUT TO LITIGATION’.
  • In effect, the law does not encourage prolonged litigation.
  • The wealthy might cause nuisance to the poor if litigation is not restricted.
  • Hence, the court expects the parties to come prepared and present their points of differences as whole and not in bits.
  • See Ijale v Leventis Co. Ltd and Agu v Ikwibe.

 

JUDEX NON REDDIT PLUS QUAM QUOD POTENS IPSE REQUIRIT: A JUDGE DOES NOT GIVE MORE THAN THAT WHICH THE PLAINTIFF ASKS.

  • If a plaintiff claims the sum of ₦10 as debt from the defendant, the judge cannot grant more even if evidence reveals it’s actually ₦15.
  • See Khawam v Elias and Horizon Ltd v Wasurum.

 

JUDICIS EST IUS DICERE, NON DARE: THE JUDGE DECLARES (EXISTING) LAW, AND DOES NOT MAKE NEW ONES.

  • Under our constitution, the court can only interpret legislations: See Section 4 of CFRN.
  • See Abioye v Yakubu.

 

LEX DILATIONES SEMPER EXHORRET: THE LAW ALWAYS ABHORS DELAYS.

  • ‘Justice delayed is justice denied’ ~William Gladstone.
  • See Usikaro v Itsekiri [Land Trustee.]

 

LEX NON COGIT IMPOSSIBILIA: THE LAW DOES NOT COMPEL THE DOING OF IMPOSSIBILITIES.

  • The law which is founded on good sense and reasoning cannot possibly direct that impossible things be done.
  • See: ‘nemo tenetur ad impossible

 

MANDAMUS: WE ORDER.

  • A judicial remedy or an order from a superior court to a subordinate court, corporation or public authority to do or not to do some specific act which that body is obliged under law to do or refrain from doing.
  • Types: *Alternative *Peremptory *Continuing.
  • Example: In December 2009, Falana, in a suit against the Attorney General, issued for a writ of mandamus compelling Yar’adua to transmit a written declaration to the Senate President and speaker of House of Representatives empowering Jonathan as Acting President [in line with Section 145 of CFRN].

 

NEMO DAT QUOD HABET: NO ONE GIVES WHAT HE DOES NOT HAVE.

  • Sometimes called the ‘nemo dat’ rule.
  • It states that the purchase of a possession from someone who has no ownership right to it also denies the purchaser any ownership right to it also denies the purchaser any ownership title.
  • A person who is not the legitimate owner of an item cannot despatch it to another person.
  • Often stays valid even if the purchaser is not aware.
  • There are exceptions, though, which aim to give a degree of protection to bona fide purchasers as well as original owners.
  • Section 27, Sale of Goods Act: anybody purchasing something without the consent of the legitimate owner only attains the same rights to the item as the dishonest seller.
  • Section 26(1): a buyer from a non-owner obtains no better title than the seller.
  • Exceptions: *Mercantile agent *Sale by joint-owners *voidable contract *Sale by an unpaid seller *Termination of offer *Quasi-contract.

 

NEMO DEBET BIS VIXARI PRO UNA ET ENDEM LITIUM: NO ONE OUGHT TO BE TWICE VEXED (SUED) FOR ONE AND THE SAME CAUSE.

  • Similar to‘NEMO BIS PUNITUR PRO UNO (EODEM) DELICTO’ – No one should be twice punished for one wrong.
  • Similar to the principle of Res judicata; in civil matters.
  • It states that nobody should be twice sued or prosecuted upon one and the same set of facts, if there has been a final decision of a competent court.
  • However, an abortive or premature trial can be retried [see Windson v R].
  • In Connelly v DPP, the defendant tricked the judge by sending a dozen bottles of champagne with the compliment of the plaintiff, hence winning the case. If realised, the case could be re-tried on the ground of a mistrial.

 

NEMO DEBET ESSE JUDIX IN PROPRIA CAUSA: NOBODY OUGHT TO BE A JUDGE IN HIS OWN CAUSE.

  • This is a principle of natural law.
  • Popularly known as the rule against ‘bias’ i.e. anything which tends a person to decide a case other than on the basis of evidence.
  • It is based on the premise that it is against human psychology to decide a case against himself.
  • It accords with the dictum of Lord Hewart C.J. in R v Sussex; ‘Justice should not only be done, but also manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.’
  • A biased decision is a nullity and is ‘coram non judice’.
  • May also be expressed as: *Nemo judex idoneus in propria causa est *Nemo judexin parte sua *Nemo judex in causa sua *In propria causa nemo judex.
  • The maxim crystallised in United Breweries Co. v Bath in which the Lord Chancellor (a shareholder in the company) decided in favour of the canal company.
  • In Wright v Crump [1790], the Mayor of Hereford, England; claimed title to a local house, arranged with a friend to lease it to him and then the friend brought a legal action for the ejectment of the occupants – Lord Mayor himself found for the claimant. Occupants appealed to the court of King’s Bench and the Mayor was sentenced to a term of imprisonment.
  • Exception [doctrine of necessity]: bias would not disqualify an officer if no other person is competent to act in his place e.g. Speaker of a house in impeachment proceedings.

 

NOLLE PROSEQUI: UNWILLING TO PURSUE.

  • Or ‘DO NOT PROSECUTE’.
  • It is most often used in criminal cases.
  • It is called ‘voluntary dismissal’ in civil cases.
  • Similar to it is ‘declination of prosecution’.
  • Its opposite is ‘involuntary dismissal’.
  • It is the prosecutor’s decision to voluntarily discontinue criminal charges either before trial or fore a verdict is rendered.
  • Judges seldom challenge such declarations.
  • It is not a guaranteefor the impossibility of a later re-indictment and nor is it a protection against ‘double jeopardy’ as the merits of the case were not adjudicated.
  • Reasons: *Weak or insufficient evidence.

     *Doubt as to the guilt of the defendant.

*Death of the accused.

 

 

 

 

PAR IN PAREM, NO HABET IMPERIUM: AN EQUAL POSSESSES NO POWER OVER AN EQUAL.

  • Also called the ‘doctrine of immunity from suit’.
  • This is a precept that a state cannot be sued in the courts of a foreign state, along-standing rule of customary international law identified with the personalimmunity of a foreign sovereign from suit.
  • It also applies to private individuals acting in their official capacity or representing their state e.g. USA v Guinto.
  • But when the public official does act contrary to law and injurious to the plaintiff, he is made accountable e.g. Shauf v Court of Appeals.

 

PLUS VALET UNUS OCCULATUS TESTIS, QUAM AURITI DECEM: ONE EYE WITNESS IS STRONGER THAN TEN HEARSAYS.

  • Based on the principle that, at all times, justice must be manifestly seen to have been done.
  • In law, ‘hearsay evidence’ is the opposite of ‘direct evidence’.
  • Also, any evidence given in the absence of an accused is not admissible against him.
  • See R v Samuels and Onwocha v The state.

 

PRO BONO PUBLICO: FOR THE GOOD OF THE PUBLIC.

  • Done or undertaken for public good without any payment or compensation.
  • Necessitas publica major est quam privata: public necessity has priority over a private need.

 

QUI NON IMPROBAT, APPROBAT: HE WHO DOES NOT DISAPPROVE, APPROVES.

  • Hence, a person in authority may be punished for covering a very serious crime known to him/her.
  • In English law, ‘MISPRISION’ is an offence which is to conceal a treason/felony.
  • See R v Aberg.

 

QUI PARCIT NOCENTIBUS INNOCENTES PUNIT: HE WHO SPARES THE GUILTY, PUNISHES THE INNOCENT.

  • For instance, the letting off of a rapist amounts to an ironical/literary punishment of the victim for her agony, violation of dignity and molestation.
  • However, the sentence of ‘cautioned and discharged’ is deemed a conviction and cannot be equated with sparing the guilty.

 

QUI PECAT EMBRIUS, LUAT SOBRIUS: HE WHO SINS WHEN DRUNK SHALL BE PUNISHED WHEN SOBER.

  • …even if a person drunk himself to the state of ‘dementia effectum’ (self-imposed madness), he will be punished for the crime after his sober moment; in common law i.e. before 1920 [introduction of the concept of mens rea].
  • The present legal position is that voluntary drunkenness which deprives a person of necessary mens rea cannot ground a criminal conviction.
  • If intent is coupled with violent passion, guilt is established as he is presumed to intend the natural consequence of the act.

 

QUICQUID PLANTATUR SOLO, SOLO CEDIT: WHATEVER IS AFFIXED TO THE SOIL, BECOMES PART OF IT.

  • In Onuwaje v Ogbeide, the plaintiff warned the defendant not to enter his land warning that it is his. The defendant went ahead to erecta building on the real estate; and then the plaintiff claimed title to it.
  • See also Atanda v Ajani and Tewogbade v Adeolu.

 

RES JUDICATA: MATTER ALREADY ADJUDGED.

  • Also called ‘claim preclusion’.
  • It is a legal doctrine meant to bar continued litigation between the same parties.
  • It may refer to a case which cannot be appealed because there has been a final judgment.
  • It cannot be raised whether in the same court or another.
  • Aims at preventing injustice and a waste of resources.
  • It prevents contradictory judgments and multiple recoveries of damages.
  • Requirements: *Identity in the thing at suit.

     *Identity of the cause at suit.

*Identity of the parties to the action.

*Identity in the designation of the parties involved.

*Whether the judgment was final.

*Whether the parties were given fair-hearing.

  • It includes two related concepts: *claim preclusion *issue preclusion or collateral                                                                                                               estoppel.
  • It may be ignored if there is a deficiency in due process in the adjudged case.
  • See Agu v Ikewide, Iyayi v Eyiegbe and Odjevwaje v Echanokpe.

 

SUB POENA: UNDER PUNISHMENT.

  • A writ by a government agency (court) compelling testimony by a witness or production of evidence under a penalty for failure.
  • The English term, ‘witness summons’ is used in England and Wales.
  • John Waltham, Bishop of Salisbury, createdthe writ.
  • Subpoenas are usually issued by the clerk of the court in the presiding judge’s name.
  • Types: *Subpoena ad testificandum: orders a person to testify before court or     face punishment, in person or by phone.

*Subpoena doces tecum: orders a person to bring physical evidence before the court or face punishment.

 

VOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA: THAT TO WHICH A MAN CONSENTS CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AN INJURY.

  • Expressly or impliedly assenting to an act makes it not to be actionable as a tort.
  • In another sense, no one can enforce a legal right which he has voluntarily waived/abandoned.
  • That party must have known of his legal rights and either by express language or sufficient overt act, tells the other party that he is not insisting on it (or them).
  • See Herd v Weardale Co. and Odua’s investment Co. Ltd v Talabi.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OTHERS!

CONSTITUTIO RESPICIT FUTURA ET NON PRAETERITA:.

CONSUETUDO EST OPTIMA LEGUM INTERPRES:.

DAMNUM SINE INJURIA ESSE POTEST:.

FRAUS EST CELARE FRAUDEM:.

FRAUS ET JUS NUMQUAM COHABITANT:.

IN CRIMINALIBUS, PROBATIONES DEBENT ESSE LUCE CLARIORES:.

JUSTITIAE DILATIO EST QUAEDAM NEGATIO:.

LEGES AB OMNIBUS, INTELLEGI DEBENT:.

LEGES EXPONERE, NON FERRE, DEBET JUDEX:.

LEX INJUSTA NON EST LEX:.

LEX NON SCRIPTA: NON-WRITTEN LAW.

LEX NON VALET EXTRA TERRITIORIUM:.

LEX SCRIPTA: WRITTEN LAW.

MORBUS EST IMPEDIMENTUM IN LEGE:.

NEMO EST HAERES VIVENTIS:.

NULLUM CRIMEN SINE POENA:.

NULLUM PONA SINE LEGE:.

NULLUM SIMILE EST IDEM: NOTHING SIMILAR IS THE SAME.

QUID AB INITIO NON VALET, IN TRACTU TEMPORIS, NON CONVALESCIT:.

VIM VI REPELLERE LICET: IT IS ALLOWED TO REPEL FORCE WITH FORCE.


DOWNLOAD FREE E-BOOK HERE!


INTRODUCING ‘ESSAYS NG™’

image

INTRODUCING ESSAYS NG™

Ahoy friend,

This is to acquaint you with the much recent online-emergence of Essays NG (accessible via http://www.essaysng.com).

Our vision is to serve as a leading cyber-library for providing academic essays, cutting across all collegiate departments, to students, scholars and researchers generally, in order to ease the task of online researching.

We, therefore, crave your indulgence to contribute to and promote our humble course by VISITING our pages, SHARING us with others and SUBMITTING ARTICLES to be published on our online archive; which can be done through E-mail (admin@essaysng.com), Facebook (www.facebook.com/essaysngr), Whatsapp (2348177006861) and BBM (7AE4A898).

Submitting articles will not only help to preserve your intellectual property and immune them from ever-restive computer viruses, it will increase your online presence; and most importantly, you will be helping sundry others in their academic endeavours.

Thank you for your time, and we hope to hear from you soon! 🙂
٠٠٠
#Get_Onboard #Get_Published #Essays_NG

SYNOPSIS OF ‘OEDIPUS THE KING’

image

A SYNOPSIS OF ‘OEDIPUS THE KING’

The story begins with a dialogue between Oedipus, the king of Thebes, and the priest, as they discuss the evil predicament that has befallen their land; blights on their harvest and grazing flocks. Oedipus informs the priest of having sent his consort brother, Menoeceus’s son, Creon, to inquire from the Pythian Phoebus at his Delphic shrine, how the state might be saved.

Before long, Creon arrives bringing news from the gods. He says what they demand is the punishment, either by death or banishment, of the murderer of the past King, Laius son of Labdacus. Oedipus, who is new to the land, and keen to bring to light this criminal who is the cause of their woes, asks him details of the murder.

In another scene, Oedipus lays a curse on the killer, prohibits all Thebans from associating with him and encourages those who have knowledge of him to announce it.

The chorus/elders advise Oedipus to summon Teiresias, the blind seer, to give his opinion on the issue. But Oedipus had already sent Creon, in a much earlier time, to bring him to the palace.
Eventually, Teiresias, the widely renowned seer arrives at the palace. He is very unwilling to speak on the Laius and his murderer, the issue for which he was summoned; he in fact requests that he be allowed to take his leave. However, Oedipus accuses him of being the murderer. Hearing this, Teiresias made a counter-accusation by daring to say Oedipus himself was the man who killed Laius. After the exchange of invectives, Oedipus claims that Teiresias must have conspired with Creon to blemish and overthrow him. After hearing this, Teiresias prophesies that Oedipus will be exiled from Thebes and have his eyes no more after he discovers his true lineage.

Creon comes out to deny the king’s allegations, asking what is he to gain from bidding to overthrow him. He would rather not inherit the position at such a trying time, because all he desires, fame and fortune, are already his; the crown is just a burden.
Nevertheless, Oedipus threatens him with death, after he, Creon, suggested banishment.

Jocasta enters and pleads with her husband, Oedipus, to believe Creon for his oath’s sake, for her sake and for the sake of the elders (chorus). She went ahead to enquire about the cause of the rift.
After hearing the claim of the seer, she told him that it could not be true as it was formally predicted that Laius would be killed by his son at a spot where three roads meet. But obviously, he was murdered by highway robbers, as reported by the survivor of the attack. Oedipus was shocked on hearing this fact, so he asked where exactly the incident happened. Jocasta said Phocis, where roads from Daulis and Delphi meet. He asks further, trembling that perhaps the seer might be proven right, what the built of Laius was and how many attendants he had with him.

Oedipus then immediately demands that the Serf, who survived, be brought before him for questioning. He thereafter narrates the cause of his fear to Jocasta, how a drunkard once told him that he is not the true son of his seer (Polybus; and Merope, his mother), how he visited Delphi and Apollo told him of a prophesy that he would kill his father and sleep with his mother, how he ran away and killed some men when he got to the three-branching road. But there is hope of him not being the killer if the Serf confirms that indeed it was an army of robbers that killed Laius and not a lone wayfarer.

Shortly afterwards, a messenger comes from Corinth bringing news of Polybus’s (Oedipus guardian) death, and the search for a new king. This gladdens Oedipus because it seems that the prophecies were false after all, as his father died not through his hands. Nevertheless, he mentions his fear of returning to Corinth because Merope, his mother, still lives and he does not want the second part of the prophecy to materialise.

The messenger offers to rid him of this fear by disclosing that Polybus and Merope are not his real parents, adding that it was he who gave him to Polybus, after another shepherd who is from Laius’s palace hands him over to him. This other shepherd turns out to be the same as the witness of Laius’s death.

Oedipus, against the wish of Jocasta, wants to get to the root of the matter. He wants to discover his true lineage. Hence, he asks, more emphatically, that the shepherd be brought for questioning.

In next to no time, the long-awaited shepherd who is expected to shed more light on the conundrum finally arrives. He was very reluctant to give straight answers to Oedipus’s questions, he even rebuked the Corinthian messenger for saying Oedipus is the accursed child he gave to him years back. However, he soon admitted it, after Oedipus threatened him with death. He also admitted that Jocasta, his mother, gave him to her so that he may get rid of him.

Oedipus was devastated, that, after cursing himself, he immediately left the scene. Not long after his exit, a second messenger came in with the terrible news of Jocasta’s death. She was said to have committed suicide through hanging. And then Oedipus himself inflicted injury on himself, he used the golden brooches on Jocasta’s robe to smite his eyeballs, thereby blinding himself.

Oedipus, came out, a wretched scene he was. He asked that Creon exile him from the land into the desert so that no eye may behold him and Thebes may be freed from his curse. But Creon refused, firstly deciding to consult the gods, and then instructing Oedipus to leave by himself, if he must.

Such was the fate of Oedipus of Thebes, the son of Laius. And such was the evil calling and cunning desire of the gods. To kill his father, lay with his mother, and spend the rest of his miserable life groping in darkness and humiliation.

ASUU STRIKE: A BLESSING OR A CURSE?

image

ASUU STRIKE: A BLESSING OR A CURSE?

An entry for Roulette III, 2014.

It all seemed like a dream when my ENG 112 lecturer announced on the afternoon of July 1st that the class will not be holding. This unanticipated development was not because he was having another commitment or because the day had, without warning, turned out to be a public holiday. It was due to nothing save that the ‘almighty’ Academic Staff Union of Universities had decreed that activities be discontinued in about 70 federal and state universities all over Nigeria, affecting nothing less than 1.5 million Nigerian scholars.

For 4080 hours, between the days of Monday, July 1st and Tuesday, December 17th, students of most Nigerian universities were forcefully exiled to their mothers’ homes, all because of what has now been termed an ‘annual festival’.

In the words of William Arthur Ward, ‘change, like sunshine, can be a friend or a foe, a blessing or a curse, a dawn or a dusk.’ Thus, a change, a digression from normalcy, as far-reaching as the recent 6-month ASUU strike must have fallen under one of the said categories. So which is it?
I hold the view of the enlightened majority, the view that appears to look beyond the newspaper headlines and government propaganda. I believe, and strongly so, that the regretful saga, in the form of the recent ASUU strike, is more a curse than a blessing. In fact, it seems more and more, from occurrences over the years, to be a generational scourge, which we may never free ourselves from if the necessary sacrifice is not made.

While the strike lasted, it is generally known that most students were academically inactive. I myself, and many others, found it difficult to study or even engage in other lucrative ventures. This was so because of the incertitude that surrounded the whole event. Many thought, ‘what if I subscribed to a driving/computer school today, and the strike is suspended the next day?’ Or ‘what if I study myself to death now and the strike’s end is not even close?’ In essence, while our counterparts in private universities and foreign institutions were busy making good use of their time, increasing in erudition and adding great feats to their records daily; we were very busy in our fathers’ homes, watching one season film or the other.

Also, I am aware of the fact that, solely because of the strike action, several students lost the opportunity to further their studies abroad with all expenses catered for. This loss ran into millions and millions of naira. Opportunities they say come but once. I wonder if after getting their demands attended to, the union plans to undo this colossal damage by sponsoring the affected students.

Aside from this, we also have cases of students, finalists in particular, adding a year to their academic calendar all because of the insensitivity of our ‘parents’ in government and those in the zenith of the ivory tower.

Instances abound of law students who, after spending a whopping 5 years (or more) in school, hoping to start fending for themselves soon, were disallowed from going to law school at the right time.

In addendum to these is that the accursed strike also saw the death of many giants, prominent of whom is Professor Festus Iyayi, a past president of ASUU, who died while making efforts to see that the strike ends favourably. Also, I personally know of students who passed away while trying to make ends meet during the course of the strike, most being in their final year. It is simply unimaginable, the agony their parents must have passed through on hearing the news of their children’s demise.

After all these shortcomings, akin to applying salt to injury, the much awaited positive upshots of the strike are yet to be seen. Our lecture theatres still lack adequate ventilation; our halls of residence are still, in a way, overcrowded; our lecturers still use lecture notes composed in the 70s to teach us; we are still mandated to pay exorbitant amounts as school levies; and to top it all, our universities are yet to start experiencing an infrastructural turnaround.

No doubt, the federal government is blameworthy for not putting their all-in-all into the nation’s education system, and ASUU is justified by speaking against this injustice. However, the manner in which their dissatisfaction is exhibited goes a million mile in determining whether they get compensation or crucifixion, whether the students will be contented or frustrated and whether the whole exercise is a blessing or the opposite. Quite unfortunately, the union was so autocratic, the government, so unyielding, and the strike so unconscionable, rendering the whole event a huge let-down.

After all is said and done, the incontrovertible truth and irrefutable fact is that the 200 billion naira claimed to have been handed over for the development of universities can never equate with the long hours wasted in inactivity, it will never be utilised to mitigate the damage caused from lost scholarship awards, and most important of all, it can never restore the many lives that have been lost consequent to the strike action. It is therefore visible to the blind, audible to the deaf, and in fact, smelly to the anosmic that the recent ASUU strike is nothing but a downright misfortune.

THE LAST DOSE?

REVISED!

ROVING THOUGHTS

STRIKENOMORE.

 1…7…0, 1…7…0, what is it again?

I try and try, but all ends in vain

1…7…0, 1…7…0, I can’t seem to remember

Those six little figures… my poor matric number!

 

I am the unfortunate Nigerian student

Hardworking, ambitious, always compliant

I am the bone-eating son of a butcher

Who none cares for a second to look after

 

While busy sipping from the Pierian Spring

The fountain went dry, an event unforeseen

The unions cut short our bid to know

Even ‘IFA’ oracle insisted we must go

Confused and dejected, we packed our bags

Thinking that the next day, we’ll be back

But days turned to weeks, weeks to months

We waited and waited, all came to naught

 

At first, to the union, we showed sympathy

But then, the issue became just too lengthy

No more were some on the fence

To all, the…

View original post 334 more words

ABOMINATION!

image

ABOMINATION!

Mother Nature, do wake up!
Your subjects, against you, are rebelling
I say it is high time you spoke up
Damn the west, answer my calling

I see things, most strange and sad
My eyes have become weary,
Men and beasts have switched sides
Oh! My poor, frail heart is heavy

Cast judgment, Mother Nature!
Truly, nobody is not blameworthy 
Not the ‘brilliant’ Professors in academia
Not the ‘custodians’ of God’s Holy dwelling

Some make bold to say ‘nude is better’
‘In fact, we need clothes no longer’
‘If you want to show your aplomb’
‘Damn shame, march as you were born’

I say, if nudity were a true emblem,
Of concrete confidence and acute acumen
It only follows, that rats and monkeys
Are more refined than haughty humanity

I see things, most strange and gloomy
Things I wish I never did see
Those thought as most chaste in the city
Wear sparse clothes tighter than the skin

How low we have come to stoop
How high we have reached in guilt
Ah! Man has left his alluring half
And doth make love to his equal kind

Such evil, such taboo, such abomination!
Enough to wipe out the Pacific Ocean
So great, mountains crumble in shame
Birds heard and lost their voice amazed

Even swine and brutes are not as silly
To stray from Mother Nature’s decree
Then proclaim to the world that is healthy
A right to be mad, to be free from sanity

Day by day, worse and worse
How I fear for the unborn successors
If this day can like this be
I wonder what the morrow will bring

IN A LAND…

image

In A Land…

Where The People Do Not Trust Their Government.
And The Government Does Not Care About The 99 Percent.

Where The Elders Are Pessimistic Of The Juvenile.
And The Youths Are Weary Of The Senile.

Where Religious Institutions Are Bedevilled With Things Immoral.
And Schools Turn Out Many A Rascal.

Where Bad News Meet Our Eyes Every Single Day.
And Poor Lives Are Lost In The Most Preposterous Ways.

…I Find Myself Asking, Where Does Our Hope Lie ? 😦

[Just stumbled across this piece while going through my note. I’ve written it several months back. Hope you benefitted from it?]