₦airaland Forum

John Kadi and Michael Lads were lucky to be among the students admitted into the University of Ibadan in the year 2010. John was in the Agricultural Engineering Department while Michael was a medical student. They looked so much alike that other students hardly believe they were not identical twin or at least, brothers from the same mother. It was therefore not uncommon for students as well as lecturers to ask one whether he knew the other. Unsurprisingly, they became good friend and walked together on campus. Unfortunately, while Michael Lads was the studious and serious type, John Kadi turned out to be very wayward. Michael tried all his best possible to encourage John to stay focused so that his stay on campus won't be a waste but every advice of his fell on deaf ears.
On 7th of October, 2014, Michael Lads was selected alongside two other colleagues of his to represented University of Ibadan at the Doctors-in-Embryo International Competition in the United States of America. The Competition was slated for 23 October - 29 October, 2014 and Michael, his colleagues as well as the Supervising Lecturer left for the United States of America on the 21st day of October, 2014. At the end of the Competition, University of Ibadan came out victorious and their success was reported on the 30th day of October, 2016, in both international and national newspapers. The headline of one of the newspapers read "Unibadan Medical Students Set Record, wins International Medical Students Competition". The Internet was also flooded with their success story and when Michael's Secondary School colleague, Daniel Ayokunsi came across the news online, he exclaimed "Wow! This is fantastic. That boy that likes book. He's my friend ooo".
On the 10th of November, 2014, Michael was in the reading room when he noticed the noise in the hostel was becoming unbearable. He stepped out of the room to confirm what the issue was when he noticed it was some policemen attached to the Doherty Police Station that has stormed the hostel. "They're in search of a student that stole a lecturer's apple laptop on Monday, 27 October, 2014", a student whispered. Within a twinkle of an eye, one of the policemen shouted "Mr. Man! Hands up!! You are under arrest!!!" {Pointing at Michael}
Michael was taken to the Police Station where he was accused of stealing an apple laptop belonging to a lecturer at the Faculty of Engineering. He was asked to make a statement against his will and he was thereafter detained in the cell. He could not even talk or argue because he had not the slightest idea of what was happening. He was charged to court on Tuesday, the 11th day of November, 2017 and upon arraignment, he was asked whether he was guilty of the offence or not. He said, crying, "I'm not guilty, I was not there. I was not even in school". The Prosecutor shut him up that he could not be heard saying he was not there at that point and he was later sentenced to 9years imprisonment. He screamed in tears "My Pathology exammmmm...". Highly pathetic, right? Yes.
Points to Note:
1. Alibi is a defence open to anyone alleged to have committed a criminal offence.
2. Alibi means "elsewhere" i.e that the accused was somewhere other than where the prosecution says he as at the time of the commission of the offence making it impossible for him to have committed or participated in the commission of the offence with which he is charged.
3. For Alibi to avail an accused person, the follow elements must be satisfied:
(i) He must raise the defence promptly immediately he is arrested and told the allegation against him.
(ii) He must give a detailed particularization of his whereabout on the day the offence is said to have been committed and this must include not only the people in whose company he was but also what transpired between them.
(iii) The police must have had ample time to investigate the accused person's plea of alibi.
4. Where the accused person fails to satisfy this three elements, the defence of alibi will not avail him. For example, an accused person that raises the defence of alibi or says he was not there for the first time in court would not be allowed to plead the defence.
5. The accused person will not be punished for the failure of the police to investigate the defence of alibi so long as he has raised the defence promptly.
6. The accused person must prove that he was indeed elsewhere and the proof is on the balance of probability and not beyond reasonable doubt.
It shows that the reason why the defence of alibi could not avail Michael Lads was because he raised it for the first time in court. Had he raised it immediately he was accused of stealing, informing the police he was in the United States to represent the University at a competition, he was in company of two of his colleagues and his lecturers and they can also call the organizers of the competition to confirm, he would most likely have been discharged and acquitted.
MY LEGAL DIARY
Joseph Jagunmolu Ogunmodede
Follow on instagram: mylegaldiary

Lunagirl:
True.

To all the men out there struggling to create an identity, know that we, the women in your life appreciate you.

We see you, we know the pressure on you. Most importantly, we have your back all the way.

Especially to my father, brothers and my future husband, I see you and I will be true all the way there.

#hustlersmindset

Like seriously? OMG! Lunagirl just made my night...this is also sweet. I love you But ermmm...I just hope this is coming from your heart?

On the 2nd of June, 2016, Mr. George was employed as a driver at Sister Morin Motors Ltd, a transport company owned by Madam Omorinsola Olowe. He is very hardworking a man and Madam Olowe is greatly impressed by this attribute of his. However, his only flaw appears to be his occasional reckless driving and negligence.
On the 30th of December, 2016, Lionel Iwobi who had just returned from Dubai on a business trip boarded a cab owned by Sister Morin Motors Ltd from Abuja Airport to his booked hotel at Wuse. The cab was driven by Mr. George who had just been transferred to Abuja.
Upon getting to the hostel, Lionel Iwobi was offloading his luggage only to discovered his diamond wristwatch was missing. "I bought that wristwatch £50,000 and you must produce it otherwise you will pay heavily for the loss", Lionel Iwobi threatened. "I'm so sorry Sir, it was not intentional. Someone must have taken it when I went to ease myself and I forgot to lock the Car", Mr George pleaded. Within a twinkle of an eye, Lionel Iwobi called his lawyer to inform him of his loss as well as his intention to sue the driver.
Lionel Iwobi has now instituted an action against Sister Morin Motors Ltd and Madam Olowe has been wondering why her company was sued for the negligence of Mr. George.
Points to Note:
1. In Law, an employer will be liable for any tort committed while an employer is performing their duties. This is the Law of "vicarious liability".
2. For the purpose of clarity, the law of vicarious liability is that a master will be liable for the wrong committed by his servant in the course of the servant's employment, irrespective of whether the master authorized or ratified the activity complained of, and even though he may have expressly forbidden it.
3. You're surprised? The Law is not based on the fault of the employer but rather on considerations of social policy. Come to think of it, the employer is in the best position to pay compensation than the employee.
4. For an employer to be vicariously liable, three elements must be proved as follows:
(i) There is the existence of employer/employee relationship
(ii) The wrong was committed by the servant
(iii) The wrong was committed within the course of the servant's employment.
4. On the first element, the master is liable for only the wrong of his servant but not that of an independent contractor.
5. The distinction between a servant and an independent contractor is this: For a servant, a master can order what is to be done as well as how it is to be done. On the other hand, in respect of an independent contractor, he can only order what is to be done. For instance, your clerk in the office is an employee while the carpenter that is just invited occasionally to repair the furniture is an independent contractor.
6. In respect of the second element, the employer cannot be vicariously liable for the tort of his servant unless it has been proven that the servant actually committed the wrong.
7. As regards the third element, for the employer to be vicariously liable, the servant must have committed the wrong in the course of his employment. In other words, an employer will not be held liable for the tortious act of a servant who was on a frolic of his own. For example, the Nigerian Police Force cannot be vicariously liable for the tort of a policeman who physically assaults his neighbour because the latter refused to greet him.

The following facts are clear from the case:
(i) Mr. George is an employee of Sister Morin Motors Ltd which is owned by Madam Olowe.
(ii) His negligence in forgetting to lock the Car led to the loss of the wristwatch.
(iii) The loss of the wristwatch occurred during the course of his employment as a driver of the company.
Therefore, Sister Morin Motors Ltd is vicariously for the negligence of Mr. George.
NB: This is not a call for employees to be lackadaisical in the course of their duty because the employer will be vicariously liable.
Mr. George will also pay severely for the loss. Apart from the heavy financial burden on him, a criminal action alleging that he stole the wristwatch may be brought against him.
MY LEGAL DIARY
Joseph Jagunmolu Ogunmodede

kolado:
Educative post.

Thanks Bro.

MuskElon:
This is really educative.

Good job OP.

Thanks a bunch...