LEGAL PRINCIPLE: EVIDENCE LAW – Medical Reports – Admissibility of Post-Mortem Report When Doctor Is Unavailable
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
A medical officer in the service of a state for purposes of undertaking a post-mortem examination is a pathologist and his report is a certificate as envisaged in section 42(1)(a) of the Evidence Act (ibid). The certificate when tendered and admitted in evidence is regarded as sufficient evidence of the facts stated therein. As in the analogous case of Ehot v. The State (1993) 4 NWLR (Pt. 290) 644 wherein it was held as perfectly permissible for such a report to be tendered where the doctor who authored it was out of the country, the defence in the instant case never requested for Dr. Chinwa to present himself for cross-examination. The trial court was therefore bound to accept Dr. Chinwa's certificate as sufficient evidence of the facts therein stated.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Sylvester Umaru Onu, JSC, in State v. Ajie (2000) NLC-711999(SC) at p. 3; Paras A–C.
"A medical officer in the service of a state for purposes of undertaking a post-mortem examination is a pathologist and his report is a certificate as envisaged in section 42(1)(a) of the Evidence Act (ibid). The certificate when tendered and admitted in evidence is regarded as sufficient evidence of the facts stated therein. As in the analogous case of Ehot v. The State (1993) 4 NWLR (Pt. 290) 644 wherein it was held as perfectly permissible for such a report to be tendered where the doctor who authored it was out of the country, the defence in the instant case never requested for Dr. Chinwa to present himself for cross-examination. The trial court was therefore bound to accept Dr. Chinwa's certificate as sufficient evidence of the facts therein stated."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
A post-mortem report by a state pathologist is a certificate admissible under Section 42(1)(a) of the Evidence Act without calling the doctor, provided the defence does not request cross-examination. The certificate is sufficient evidence of facts stated. The doctor’s unavailability (e.g., out of the country) does not bar admissibility. If the defence fails to request the doctor’s attendance for cross-examination, the court must accept the certificate as sufficient evidence. This facilitates efficient trial while preserving the defence’s right to challenge through cross-examination if requested. The provision balances evidentiary convenience with fair hearing.