only when there are two conflicting versions of an essential fact. When there is
only one version of an essential fact and that version is not patently and
obviously improbable, a trial Court is not left with any option than to believe that
which has not been controverted or contradicted in any way". Per Oputa, JSC.
(Pp. 8-9, Paras. F-A) - read in context
3
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE - CONVICTION: Importance of
determining the age of the accused before conviction
"...where the age of the accused person is material for the purpose of conviction
or relevant in the determination of the nature of the sentence, and evidence of
such age is not conclusive the trial Court is obliged to make due inquiry as to the
age of that person by taking evidence of such age. It does not lie in the trial
Judge to ignore uncontradicted evidence of age of the accused before him by
relying on his own perception without supporting evidence before him. Whereas
the trial Judge is required to determine the age of the appellant where this is
relevant, the court is required to come to its determination on the evidence
before it". Per Karibi-Whyte, JSC. (P. 19, Paras. A-D) - read in context
4
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE - AGE OF THE ACCUSED: Whether the
trial Judge can call a medical witness to testify to the age of the accused where
he feels the accused put his age rather low
"If the trial Judge felt that the Appellant put his age rather low, he was at liberty
to adjourn the case and call a medical witness to testify to the age of the
Appellant as was done in Oladimeji (E.A.) v. R (1964) 1 All N.L.R. 131. Then he
will be comparing the evidence of the Appellant as to his age with the evidence of
the doctor. He will be perfectly within his right to do this." Per Oputa, JSC. (P. 10,
paras. A-D) - read in context
5
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE - AGE OF THE ACCUSED: Whether court
can make an inquiry as to age where a person is before the court and it appears
to the court that such person is an infant, or a child, or a young person, or an
adult
"Where a person is before any court and it appears to the court that such person
is an infant, or a child, or a young person, or an adult, the court may make due
inquiry as to the age of that person and for that purpose may take such evidence
as may be forthcoming at the time, or at the time to which the inquiry may be
adjourned but an order or judgment of the court shall not be invalidated by any
subsequent proof that the age of that person has not been correctly stated to the
court, and the age presumed or declared by the court to be the age of that
person shall for the purposes of this Act be deemed to be the true age of that
person. The presumption or declaration of age made under this section applies
only for the purposes of this Act, that is in relation to orders made under section
204 or 206, to sentences passed under section 385 and to the finding that the
jurisdiction of the court is or is not excluded under section 413. Since the inquiry
is made by the court, there is no true burden of proof on either party." Per
Karibi-Whyte, JSC (P. 18, paras. B-G) - read in context