Principle Statement

Before ordering a retrial, the court must be satisfied: (a) the error or irregularity did not render the trial a nullity and the court cannot say no miscarriage occurred; (b) the evidence discloses a substantial case; (c) no oppression in a second trial; (d) the offence is not trivial; (e) refusing retrial would cause greater miscarriage than granting it.

Ratio Decidendi (Source)

Per Ejiwunmi, JSC, in The Chief of Air Staff & Ors v. Iyen (2005) NLC-123-217-2002(SC) at pp. 9–10; Paras D–A, citing Abodundu & Ors v. The Queen (1959) NSCC 56 at 60.

"We are of opinion that, before deciding to order a retrial, this court must be satisfied (a) that there has been an error in law (including the observance of the law of evidence) or an irregularity in procedure of such a character that on the one hand the trial was not rendered a nullity and on the other hand this court is unable to say that there has been no miscarriage of justice […] (b) that, leaving aside the error of irregularity, the evidence taken as a whole discloses a substantial case against the appellant; (c) that there are no such special circumstances as would render it oppressive to put the appellant on trial a second time; (d) that the offence or offences of which the appellant was convicted, or the consequences to the appellant or any other person of the conviction or acquittal of the appellant, are not merely trivial; and (e) that to refuse an order for a retrial would occasion a greater miscarriage of justice than to grant it."

Explanation / Scope

Five conditions must be met before ordering a retrial. The principle applies to criminal procedure.

Cases Applying This Principle