Criminal Procedure and Practice (1383)
HELD:
"In my respectful view, once it is shown that an accused person has a bonafide claim of right the required mens rea is negatived.
HELD:
"Now, Section 23 reads: "A person is not criminally responsible, as for an offence relating to property, for an act done or omitted to be done by him with respect to any property in the exercise of an honest claim of right and without intention to defraud."
HELD:
"The fact that a civil case was already in Court between the appellant and the complainant (P.W.4) in respect of the land in question does not make any difference in the present circumstances.
HELD:
"In raising, for the first time, the fresh issue of insanity under Ground one polymerised to such an elusive elasticity the Appellant's counsel had apparently misconceived the dictum of this Court in STATE v. JOHN (2013) 12 NWLR (pt. 1368) 337 at 355, and Section 22 of the Supreme Court Act.
HELD:
"The Appellant, represented at the trial by a Counsel, never once raised the defence of insanity.
HELD:
"Section 51 of the said Penal Code Law offers the statutory defence of insanity.
HELD:
"Section 51 of the said Penal Code Law offers the statutory defence of insanity.
HELD:
"The offence of conspiracy is the agreement of two or more persons to do an unlawful act or to do a lawful act by unlawful means.
HELD:
"It is trite law that the prosecution is duty bound to prove the following ingredients beyond reasonable doubt in order to secure a conviction for the offence of armed robbery:
