oniguguru.com

    Hi everyone! I only wished to make this post as a guide, a sort of warning while asking cross examination questions in court. More often than not, lawyers are always willing to pick out a lying witness. Afterall, it is part of the duty of counsel to discredit a witness, especially one that's telling lies. In carrying out this duty however, the lawyer has to be smart and avoid getting in trouble. Questions that tend to give credence to the case of the other party ought not be asked at all. It may sound a bit elementary, but I just came across one. I've been reviewing this judgment for a few hours now, trying to untie something in it. So I came across the question a defence lawyer asked an eyewitness to the crime as follows: "was the 3rd Defendant armed or not when he came looking for the deceased"? Now, the question the 'smart' lawyer asked may seem innocuous, but it ended up ruining the whole case built up by the defendant. In that case, the Defendant

COMPACT MANIFOLD & ENERGY SERVICES LTD v. PAZAN SERVICES NIG. LTD (2019) LPELR-49221(SC) Principle PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - HEARING NOTICE - Whether hearing notice can be served by electronic means "May I dwell on the issue of hearing notice that was allegedly not served on the appellant as amounting to denial of fair hearing. It is however the mode of service that is being challenged by the appellant's learned counsel in this appeal to have denied him fair hearing. Failure to give notice of proceedings to the opposing party in a case where service of process is required is a fundamental omission which renders such proceedings void. This is so because the Court would have no jurisdiction to entertain it. Hearing notice is a document or information that emanates from the registry of a Court, giving legal notification to parties in a suit the dates on which the suit would be heard. Once a party or his counsel is served hearing notice they are both deemed to

 The position of the law has always been that he who asserts must prove. The usual SAINT GOBAIN PAM S. A. v. INTERNATIONAL CONSULTANTS INCORPORATED (2015) LPELR-24663(CA) Principle JURISDICTION - TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION - Duty on a defendant who contends the territorial jurisdiction of a Court in an action founded on contract "A defendant who contends that the forum of the trial Court is not convenient for the determination of the issue raised on the writ of Summons must show: (a) That the defendant does not reside in or carry out business within the geographical area of the Court: (b) That the cause of action did not arise within the geographical area of the Court and; (c) That the contract is not to be performed within the geographical area of the Court. The onus is on the defendant to establish all these; Arjay Limited v. Airline Management Support Ltd (supra)." Per ONYEKACHI AJA OTISI, JCA (Pp 60 - 60 Paras A - C)