COMPREHENSIVE INDEX TO ALL SUPREME COURT 2009 DECISIONS

ACTIONS - Administrators of estates - Legal capacity - A person can neither sue or be sued as an administrator of an estate of a deceased person - Until he is granted the letters of administration - And his name must be stated on the writ (H2) Administrators Abacha’s Estate v. Eke-Spiff (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 197; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1139) 97

 

ACTIONS - Agency - Liability of agents - Extent - Where principal is disclosed - An agent acting on behalf of a known & disclosed principal - Incurs no personal liability - Neither is he a necessary party to an action founded on the transaction with him (H2) Osigwe v. PSPLS Mgt. Consortium Ltd (2009) 1 KLR (pt. 262) 73; (2009) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1128) 378

 

ACTIONS - Basis of decision - Title - Proof - Though civil suits are decided on a balance of probabilities - A case for declaration of title - Must succeed on the strength of plaintiff’s case - Not on weakness of defence (H7) Osuji v. Ekeocha (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2033; (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1166) 81

 

ACTIONS - Cause of action - Nature of - Issue of cessation of appellants’ employment - Has no connotation of trade dispute - Court of Appeal was therefore wrong - To have held otherwise (H6) Oloruntoba-Oju v. Abdul-Raheem (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1673; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 83

 

ACTIONS - Cause of action - Survival - Upon death of plaintiff - Where several plaintiffs jointly sue - For benefits accruing severally to them - The suit survives to surviving plaintiffs - Upon the death of any of the plaintiffs (H2) Olufeagba v. Abdur-Raheem (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 274) 2667; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 384

 

ACTIONS - Civil Actions - Whether crime is in issue - How determined - Crime is in issue when commission of crime - Alleged in the pleadings - Is the basis of the claim or defence (H1) A.S.E.S.A. v. Ekwenem (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1803; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1158) 410

 

ACTIONS - Claims - Binding effect - A judge is bound by claims of the parties - He should not go beyond them - For doing so will be granting reliefs not claimed (H5) Amadi v. Chinda (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265) 819; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1148) 107

 

ACTIONS - Claims - Distribution of joint property - Order for - Propriety - Joint ownership was only canvassed by respondent as a defence - So court cannot predicate orders on it - In the absence of a counterclaim (H2) Osuji v. Ekeocha (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2033; (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1166) 81

 

ACTIONS - Claims - Made as alternatives - Effect - The law permits the court to consider only one of the claims - And base its damages on it - Arguments in respect of the other claim - Are of no moment (H4) G.K.F. Ltd v. NITEL (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1899; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1164) 344

 

ACTIONS - Claims - Nullification of revocation - Proof of title - Applicability - Though issue of title be incidental to claim - Plaintiff is not required to establish title - On the authority of Dzungwe case (H3) Ononuju v. A-G Anambra State (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1357; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1148) 182

 

ACTIONS - Company in liquidation - Capacity to sue - S. 417 of CAMA - The party to seek & obtain leave before instituting an action - Is not the company - But the party commencing action against the company (H2) Agro Allied Dev. Ent. Ltd v. MV Northern Reefer (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1167; (2009) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1155) 255

 

ACTIONS - Company in liquidation - Pre-action leave - Applicable Court - In view of definition of court in s. 650 of CAMA - The applicable court is Federal High Court and none other (H3) Agro Allied Dev. Ent. Ltd v. MV Northern Reefer (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1167; (2009) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1155) 255

 

ACTIONS - Counter claim - Dismissal of - Propriety - It was properly dismissed as there was no basis for granting it - In view of the evidence before the trial Court (H8) Jinadu v. Esurombi-Aro (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265) 883; (2009) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1145) 55

 

ACTIONS - Courts - Bills of lading - Notify party - Right of audience - He has no such right whether in contract or in negligence - Not even in an action for bailment (H7) Basinco Motors Ltd v. Woermann-Line (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1609; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 149

 

ACTIONS - Courts - Jurisdiction - Importance - It is fundamental to adjudication - A litigant must not only have genuine cause - But must also address it to the competent court - To get justice (H5) Oloruntoba-Oju v. Abdul-Raheem (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1673; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 83

 

ACTIONS - Crime - Allegation of in civil proceedings - Standard of proof required - The main claim being for compensation for loss - Crime not being directly in issue - Proof beyond reasonable doubt is inapplicable (H4) A.S.E.S.A. v. Ekwenem (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1803; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1158) 410

 

ACTIONS - Damages - Award - Basis - It is not awarded as a matter of course - Nor based on sentiment - It is based on legal evidence of probative value - Adduced for establishment of actionable wrong (H10) A.S.E.S.A. v. Ekwenem (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1803; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1158) 410

 

ACTIONS - Declaration of rights - Proof - Effect of admissions - The right will not be conferred simply upon the state of pleadings or admissions therein - Plaintiff must satisfy the court by evidence (H4) Dim v. Enemuo (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 266) 1117; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1149) 353

 

ACTIONS - Electi1on petitions - Electoral Act 2006, ss. 145 &146 - Intention of - It is to ensure that only petitions that on their faces - Disclose reasonable causes of action - Can go for trial (H5) Ojukwu v. Yar’adua (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 266) 1017; (2009) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1154) 50

 

ACTIONS - Estoppel - Res judicata - Effect of plea - Where the principles of res judicata applies to conclude plaintiff’s case - It is of no use for plaintiff to lead further evidence in the case - Defendant may move the court to dismiss the case peremptorily (H3) Jimoh v. Akande (2009) 1 KLR (pt. 262) 39; (2009) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1135) 549

 

ACTIONS - Estoppel - Res judicata - Ingredients - Sameness of issues - Though the issue of radical title over the land was not settled in Exhibit ‘A’ - There are legally binding pronouncements as to the parties’ rights over the land therein - Which rights are again questioned in this suit (H2) Dashi v. Satlong (2009) 1 KLR (pt. 262) 1; (2009) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1134) 281

 

ACTIONS - Estoppel - Res judicata - Ingredients - Sameness of parties - Trial court found that respondents and Irimaya Topsin - Are privies bound by the decision in Exhibit ‘A’ - The finding was endorsed by the two courts below - Appellants have not shown reason to hold otherwise (H3) Dashi v. Satlong (2009) 1 KLR (pt. 262) 1; (2009) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1134) 281

 

ACTIONS - Estoppel - Res judicata - Ingredients - Sameness of subject matter - Land which is the subject matter of dispute in Exhibit ‘A’ - Is same as the one herein - Notwithstanding the unproved assertion by appellants that the former is smaller (H1) Dashi v. Satlong (2009) 1 KLR (pt. 262) 1; (2009) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1134) 281

 

ACTIONS - Foreign companies - Capacity to sue & be sued - By the provisions of s. 60 (b) of CAMA a foreign company can sue & be sued - In its own name (H5) Agro Allied Dev. Ent. Ltd v. MV Northern Reefer (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1167; (2009) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1155) 255

 

ACTIONS - High Court of Plateau State - Actions - Applicable rules - The Court is empowered to follow only provisions of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules of Plateau State - So those are the applicable rules (H1) Abia St. Trans. Corp. v. Quorum Consortium Ltd (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 266) 973; (2009) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1145) 1

 

ACTIONS - Issue estoppel - Effect - It is an impediment which bars a person from re-litigating an issue - Which has been isolated and raised in a particular proceeding - In which it was finally determined (H1) Bamgbegbin v. Oriare (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 268) 1525; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1158) 370

 

ACTIONS - Issues - Status - Main and ancillary - There are deducible from pleadings - The principal or main issues and the ancillary issues (H3) A.S.E.S.A. v. Ekwenem (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1803; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1158) 410

 

ACTIONS - Jurisdiction - Actions for declaration - Federal Government - Proper court - Federal High Court is vested with power - To adjudicate on such actions - By s. 251 (1) of 1999 Constitution (H7) Oloruntoba-Oju v. Abdul-Raheem (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1673; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 83

 

ACTIONS - Jurisdiction - Courts - Determining factor - It is the claim of the plaintiff which determines the jurisdiction of a court - To entertain a suit - The Court of Appeal was therefore right to hold that trial court had jurisdiction (H1) Oduko v. Govt. of Ebonyi St. Nigeria (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265) 915; (2009) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1147) 439

 

ACTIONS - Jurisdictions - Filing fees - Failure to pay - Effect - It does not raise issue of jurisdiction - It is a mere irregularity which when not taken timeously or when acquiesced in - Becomes incapable of affecting the proceedings in any way (H1) Akpaji v. Udemba (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 263; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1138) 545

 

ACTIONS - Land law - Revocation - Statutes of revocation - Applicability of - Where there is fraudulent concealment of the fact of revocation - There is postponement of limitation period - As no prescription runs against a person who was hindered in bringing a court action (H6) Administrators Abacha’s Estate v. Eke-Spiff (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 197; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1139) 97

 

ACTIONS - Legal personality - Mistake in name - Effect - Respondents and Court were not misled as to the person sued - In view of the acronym added to that name - Court of Appeal wrongfully held that it was a non-juristic person (H5) Hope Democratic Party (HDP) v. INEC (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 623; (2009) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1143) 297

 

ACTIONS - Legal practitioners - Disciplinary Committee - Propriety of punishment - Infamous conduct - Though respondent did not use the word ‘infamous’ - It is clear it did find appellant liable for infamous conduct - Punishment was therefore proper (H5) Iteogu v. LPDC (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2383; (2009) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1171) 614

 

ACTIONS - Limitation period - Computation of time - Starting point - In view the letters by appellant and the promise of respondent - To return the items in due course - It cannot be said that time began to run from 1984 (H2) Henry Stephens Eng. Ltd. v. S. A. Yakubu Ltd. (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1267; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1149) 416

 

ACTIONS - Locus standi - Contracts - Requirements - Claim of plaintiff must, inter alia, reveal a justiciable cause of action - So where action is for breach of contract - There is need for privity of contract (H5) Basinco Motors Ltd v. Woermann-Line (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1609; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 149

 

ACTIONS - Orders of Court - Leave to sue - Variation - By a court of equal jurisdiction - Such order does not constitute a decision of a judge - That cannot be varied by a judge of equal jurisdiction - Therefore it was properly varied (H6) Shell Petroleum v. Edamkue (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2143; (2009) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1160) 1

 

ACTIONS - Parties - Appeals - Juristic personality - Death of co-parties - Effect - Where a sole party to an appeal dies - And is not substituted - The appeal ends - But this is not the case where there are surviving co-parties (H1) Olufeagba v. Abdur-Raheem (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 274) 2667; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 384

 

ACTIONS - Parties - Capacity - Effect - The 2nd respondent was sued in his personal capacity - Whereas the law says he should be sued in official capacity - Court of Appeal rightly struck out his name (H6) Hope Democratic Party (HDP) v. INEC (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 623; (2009) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1143) 297

 

ACTIONS - Parties - Defendants - Legal capacity - Onus of proof - As it is an essential to the competence of an action - The onus is on the plaintiff to prove the legal capacity of the defendant - When challenged (H3) Administrators Abacha’s Estate v. Eke-Spiff (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 197; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1139) 97

 

ACTIONS - Parties - Joinder - Validity of - The general rule is that both plaintiff & defendant should be juristic or natural persons - Existing or living at the time the action is instituted (H1) Administrators Abacha’s Estate v. Eke-Spiff (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 197; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1139) 97

 

ACTIONS - Parties - Legal capacity - Right to challenge - Applicability of waiver - Such a right is so fundamental that it is not only for the benefit of supposed party - But also inures to the benefit of the public - Therefore it cannot be waived (H4) Administrators Abacha’s Estate v. Eke-Spiff (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 197; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1139) 97

 

ACTIONS - Parties - Privity of contract - Applicability - What petitioner needs to sustain his complaint against appellant - Is not privity of contract but locus standi - Which he has established by proving sufficient interest (H1) Iteogu v. LPDC (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2383; (2009) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1171) 614

 

ACTIONS - Parties - Representative capacity - Objection by appellant - Propriety - Appellant lacked locus standi to question same - As he is not a member of those being represented - Only such a member can challenge the representation (H5) Shell Petroleum v. Edamkue (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2143; (2009) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1160) 1

 

ACTIONS - Plaintiff’s case - How ascertained - It is the entire pleadings of parties that are looked into - To determine plaintiff’s case - Paragraphs of pleadings cannot be relied on in isolation for this purpose (H2) A.S.E.S.A. v. Ekwenem (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1803; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1158) 410

 

ACTIONS - Pre-action notice - Right to - Applicability of waiver - Right to be served with such notice - Is not within the category of rights which cannot be waived - Though it affects jurisdiction of court (H1) Feed & Food Farms Ltd v. NNPC (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 268) 1561

 

ACTIONS - Proof - Document pleaded but not tendered - Effect - Once plaintiff puts sufficient evidence in support of his claim - It is not the law that all documents pleaded - Must be tendered in evidence (H4) Bamgbegbin v. Oriare (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 268) 1525; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1158) 370

 

ACTIONS - Reliefs - Claim in the alternative - Implications - An alternative award is not an additional award - It is one that can be made instead of another - Appellant’s claims at trial did not envisage this (H6) Osuji v. Ekeocha (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2033; (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1166) 81

 

ACTIONS - Reliefs - Grant - Relationship with claim - It is when a claim succeeds - That granting of reliefs go with the success - Trial court erred in granting reliefs - Where appellant failed to prove his claim (H3) Osuji v. Ekeocha (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2033; (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1166) 81

 

ACTIONS - Reliefs awarded - Challenge to - Propriety - Appellant never challenged award of N9.5 m to petitioner at the hearing - It is therefore too late for him to raise that issue at this stage (H4) Iteogu v. LPDC (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2383; (2009) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1171) 614

 

ACTIONS - Reliefs granted - Relation with findings - Though trial court properly evaluated - And made proper findings of fact - The relief granted thereafter did not flow from the findings (H9) Osuji v. Ekeocha (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2033; (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1166) 81

 

ACTIONS - Title - Identity of land - Need to establish it - Plaintiff must show exactly & precisely - A defined and identifiable area to which the claim relates - Else the claim must fail (H6) Ukaegbu v. Nwololo (2009) 1 KLR (pt. 262) 103; (2009) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1127) 194

 

ACTIONS - Undefended list procedure - Fair hearing - Applicability of - The procedure recognises fair hearing by reserving to the defendant the right to file a notice to defend - It is a different matter where defendant fails to utilize the right (H8) Joel Okunrinboye Exp. Ltd v. Skye Bank Plc (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 477; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1138) 518

 

ACTIONS - Undefended list procedure - Notice of intention to defend - Time within which to file - It must be filed before the return date or the defendant would be out of time - Requiring leave of court to file it subsequently (H2) Joel Okunrinboye Exp. Ltd v. Skye Bank Plc (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 477; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1138) 518

 

ACTIONS - Undefended list procedure - Return date - Meaning of - It is the date fixed for hearing of the action - Except the defendant files a notice of intention to defend - With an affidavit disclosing his defence to the action (H1) Joel Okunrinboye Exp. Ltd v. Skye Bank Plc (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 477; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1138) 518

 

ACTIONS - Validity - Statute of Limitation - Plaintiff had until October 1992 to validly bring its suit - As the law provides for 6 Years from date of cause of action - Instant suit is therefore not statute barred (H3) Henry Stephens Eng. Ltd. v. S. A. Yakubu Ltd. (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1267; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1149) 416

 

ADJOURNMENTS - Grant of - Undefended list procedure - Court should consider applicant’s attitude in the course of the proceedings - As adjournments are not granted for the asking - Particularly under the undefended list where speed is the emphasis (H10) Joel Okunrinboye Exp. Ltd v. Skye Bank Plc (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 477; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1138) 518

 

ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES - Administrators - Duties - It is wrong in law for administrator of estate or anybody claiming through him - To assimilate that property to his own - Equity will not even permit that under any guise (H3) Ibrahim v. Osunde (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 341; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1137) 382

 

ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES - Administrators - Legal capacity - A person can neither sue or be sued as an administrator of an estate of a deceased person - Until he is granted the letters of administration - And his name must be stated on the writ (H2) Administrators Abacha’s Estate v. Eke-Spiff (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 197; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1139) 97

 

ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES - Administrators - Undue advantage - One cannot take advantage of his position as administrator - To facilitate the acquisition of the property by his son after his death - It is a wrong doing that will not be allowed (H4) Ibrahim v. Osunde (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 341; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1137) 382

 

ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES - Concur - Meaning - S. 2, Administration of Estate Law, Lagos State - Concurrence in the context is not synonymous with the word execution - It simply means agreement (H2) Ohiaeri v. Yussuf (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 455; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1137) 207

 

ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES - Multiple administrators - Execution of conveyance - One administrator can validly execute a conveyance - Provided it is done with the agreement of the other administrators (H3) Ohiaeri v. Yussuf (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 455; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1137) 207

 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Commissions of inquiry - Land ownership - Power to appoint - Governor of Plateau State has power to appoint such - If in his opinion - It would be for the public welfare - And it does not interfere with High Court’s constitutional jurisdiction (H4) Da Kabirikim v. Emefor (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1867; (2009) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1162) 602

 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Commissions of inquiry - Setting up - Powers of the Governor - The power to set up commission on “any other matter” for public welfare - As provided in the Plateau State Law - Is independent of preceding items (H3) Da Kabirikim v. Emefor (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1867; (2009) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1162) 602

 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Delegation of duty - Under the Public Officers (Special Provisions) Act - Propriety of - The appropriate authority may delegate to another person the duty to act on its behalf - It is enough that the action was done within the purview of the Act (H3) Kalango v. Gov. Bayelsa State (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 365; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1139) 17

 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Documents - Exhibit 17 - Execution by proper authority - It was made by D. G. on behalf of the Commissioner - Who is empowered to appoint and discipline civil servants - So it did emanate from constituted authority (H3) Abdullahi v. Mil. Admin. Kaduna State (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1767; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1165) 417

 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Elected officers - Status of - S. 137 (1)(g), 1999 Constitution - They are not civil or public servants within the provision of the section - On the principle of expressio unius (H6) Ojukwu v. Yar’adua (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 266) 1017; (2009) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1154) 50

 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Kaduna State Civil Service - Compulsory Retirement - Persons under 60 years - Propriety - Under s. 9 (2) of Pensions & Gratuities Law 1991 - The Commission may so retire persons - Who are above 45 years (H8) Abdullahi v. Mil. Admin. Kaduna State (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1767; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1165) 417

 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Kaduna State Civil Service - Retirement - Proper age - Under s. 9 (1) of Pensions and Gratuities Law - It is sixty years - As the use of the word ‘shall’ therein is mandatory (H5) Abdullahi v. Mil. Admin. Kaduna State (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1767; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1165) 417

 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Kaduna State Civil Service - Retirements - Applicability of Civil Service (Reorganisation) Act - It is inapplicable because it is an Act - As such it applies only to the Federal Civil Service (H6) Abdullahi v. Mil. Admin. Kaduna State (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1767; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1165) 417

 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Powers - Civil Service (Reorganisation) Act, s. 5 - Scope of - Though it empowers Ministries to appoint, dismiss and discipline persons - That power does not extend to retirement of persons (H7) Abdullahi v. Mil. Admin. Kaduna State (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1767; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1165) 417

 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Public servants - Notice of dismissal - Effect of non-conveyance - It is not the normal function of the Military Governor but that of the civil service commission - To convey such notice - Therefore it is of no moment that the instrument was not served on the appellant (H2) Kalango v. Gov. Bayelsa State (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 365; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1139) 17

 

ADMIRALTY - Bill of lading - Meaning - It is a writing signed on behalf of the owner of a ship - In which goods are embarked - Acknowledging receipt thereof - And undertaking to deliver them - Subject to conditions therein (H2) Basinco Motors Ltd v. Woermann-Line (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1609; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 149

 

ADMIRALTY - Bills of lading - Notify party - Meaning of - It is the party whose name and address appear in a bill - Who is to be notified of the arrival of the goods at the discharge port (H3) Basinco Motors Ltd v. Woermann-Line (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1609; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 149

 

ADMIRALTY - Carriage - Loss of goods - Liability of an agent - In view of the failure of the respondent - To produce evidence of warehousing the goods with NPA PLC - Trial judge was right to have invoked s. 16 (3) of the Act against him (H1) FMH v. Comet Shipping Agencies (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265) 859; (2009) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1145) 193

 

ADMIRALTY - Loss of goods - Apportionment of liability - S. 16 (1) (2) & (3) of Admiralty jurisdiction Act - The subsections provide for separate, specific & distinct situations - They do not need to be read together (H3) FMH v. Comet Shipping Agencies (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265) 859; (2009) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1145) 193

 

AFFIDAVITS - Courts - Reliance on affidavits - Not referred to by parties - Propriety - Where the contents appear damaging to a party’s case - Trial court should give him opportunity to react thereto - Before relying on it (H2) Oyewole v. Akande (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2119; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1163) 119

 

AFFIDAVITS - Withdrawal - Application to withdraw - Based on urgency - Need for affidavit of urgency - It should be filed to verify the facts of urgent nature of the matter - But appellant failed to do so (H8) Onwuka v. Ononuju (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1393; (2009) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1151) 174

 

AGENCY - Admiralty - Carriage - Loss of goods - Liability of an agent - In view of the failure of the respondent - To produce evidence of warehousing the goods with NPA PLC - Trial judge was right to have invoked s. 16 (3) of the Act against him (H1) FMH v. Comet Shipping Agencies (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265) 859; (2009) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1145) 193

 

AGENCY - Admiralty - Loss of goods - Apportionment of liability - S. 16 (1) (2) & (3) of Admiralty jurisdiction Act - The subsections provide for separate, specific & distinct situations - They do not need to be read together (H3) FMH v. Comet Shipping Agencies (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265) 859; (2009) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1145) 193

 

AGENCY - Delegation of duty - Under the Public Officers (Special Provisions) Act - Propriety of - The appropriate authority may delegate to another person the duty to act on its behalf - It is enough that the action was done within the purview of the Act (H3) Kalango v. Gov. Bayelsa State (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 365; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1139) 17

 

AGENCY - Federal government agency - Concept of - Any enterprise in which the federal government owns controlling shares or interest - Is part of the public service of the federation - Therefore it is an agency of the federal government (H2) Adekoye v. N.S.P.M.C. Ltd (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 233; (2009) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1134) 322

 

AGENCY - Liability of agents - Extent - Where principal is disclosed - An agent acting on behalf of a known & disclosed principal - Incurs no personal liability - Neither is he a necessary party to an action founded on the transaction with him (H2) Osigwe v. PSPLS Mgt. Consortium Ltd (2009) 1 KLR (pt. 262) 73; (2009) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1128) 378

 

AGREEMENTS - Land Law - Agreement to sale - Effect - Where there is such agreement pursuant to which the purchaser makes part payment - And is put in possession - He acquires equitable interest as high as a legal estate (H1) Ohiaeri v. Yussuf (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 455; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1137) 207

 

AGREEMENTS - Land law - Payment of consideration - Proof - Exhibit F being an agreement with a clause acknowledging receipt of consideration - And signed by all the parties - Court of Appeal was wrong to say there was no evidence of payment (H2) Egharevba v. Osagie (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 274) 2613; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 299

 

AGREEMENTS - Loan agreements - Agreed interest rate - Binding effect - From admissions of PW1 the parties agreed on 14% p.a. interest - Repayable as from January 1985 - Respondent is therefore entitled to charge the agreed interest rate (H7) Olalomi Industries Ltd v. N.I.D.B. Ltd (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2001; (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1167) 266

 

ALIBI - Rebuttal - Duty of prosecution - Once alibi is raised - Burden is on prosecution to investigate and rebut such evidence - Neither of which was done in this case (H4) Ani v. State (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 268) 1463; (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1168) 443

 

ALIBI - Defence of - Manner of raising - Propriety of - It must be raised at the earliest opportunity - When accused is confronted by the police - So that police may check it out (H2) Ebenehi v. State (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 575; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1138) 431

 

ALIBI - Disproof - Whether achieved - In view of the evidence before the trial court - The prosecution has been unable to fix the appellant at the scene of crime - So the alibi was not disproved (H2) Almu v. State (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265) 797; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1148) 31

 

ALIBI - Effect of - The fact that an accused raised an alibi by his evidence - Does not imply that the alibi must be accepted by the court (H4) Omotola v. State (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 683; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1139) 148

 

ALIBI - Evaluation of - The 1st appellant gave sufficient information in support of his alibi - Therefore the two courts below were in error in the peremptory manner - They dismissed the defence (H3) Omotola v. State (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 683; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1139) 148

 

ALIBI - Evidence of - Duty on party raising it - He has the burden of establishing the circumstances of the alibi - Appellant failed to so establish - So police had nothing to investigate (H1) Ndukwe v. State (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 413; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1139) 43

 

ALIBI - Investigation of - Duty of prosecution - Once an accused pleads alibi - Giving details of his whereabouts - The prosecution has the burden of investigating it - Failure to do so is an admission of the story of the accused (H1) Almu v. State (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265) 797; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1148) 31

 

APPEALS - Basis - Points not decided against appellant - An appeal presupposes the existence of a decision appealed against - There cannot be an appeal against what had not been decided - Against a party (H3) Olufeagba v. Abdur-Raheem (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 274) 2667; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 384

 

APPEALS - Briefs - Badly written - Duty of courts - Court should do its best to understand and resolve the issues arising therefrom on the merits - As courts are in favour of considering cases on merits rather than technicalities of law (H1) Anyaegwu v. Onuche (2009) 1 KLR (pt. 262) 1; (2009) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1129) 659

 

APPEALS - Briefs - Badly written - Duty of courts - Flaws in a brief notwithstanding - Appellate court has a duty to examine the arguments contained therein - And decide the case on its merits (H1) Ekpemupolo v. Edremoda (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 589; (2009) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1142) 166

 

APPEALS - Briefs - Extension of time to file reply brief - Failure to consider motion - Effect - Though Court of Appeal had a duty to consider the application - Failure to so do did not occasion any miscarriage of justice (H4) Mini Lodge Ltd v. Ngei (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 274) 2639; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 254

 

APPEALS - Briefs - Reply brief - Necessity - It is necessary when new issue of law or argument - In respondent’s brief - Not covered by appellant’s brief - Calls for a reply (H1) Osuji v. Ekeocha (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2033; (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1166) 81

 

APPEALS - Competence - Time within which to appeal - Where an appeal is interlocutory - As is the instant appeal - It ought to be brought within 14 days - Or it will be incompetent (H3) Gomez v. Cherubim & Seraphim Society (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1211; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1149) 223

 

APPEALS - Concurrent findings - Attitude of courts - Where such findings are patently wrong or perverse - An appellate court will interfere in the interest of justice (H5) Ibrahim v. Osunde (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 341; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1137) 382

 

APPEALS - Concurrent findings - Attitude of Supreme Court - It is not the duty of the court to interfere with concurrent findings - Unless compelling reasons justify such interference - Which is not the case here (H2) Fajemirokun v. Commercial Bank Nig. Ltd. (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 315; (2009) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1135) 588

 

APPEALS - Concurrent findings - Attitude of Supreme Court - Where such findings are borne out by evidence on record - They will not be disturbed by the court (H5) Akpaji v. Udemba (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 263; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1138) 545

 

APPEALS - Concurrent findings - Disturbance - Basis - They may only be disturbed where not supported by evidence - Or they were reached on application of wrong principles of law - Neither is the case herein (H1) Oshoboja v. Amida (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 272) 2275; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1172) 164

 

APPEALS - Concurrent findings - Interference - Basis - Appellate court will not interfere - Unless findings are shown to be perverse - Which is not the case herein (H3) Olagunju v. Adesoye (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265) 937; (2009) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1146) 225

 

APPEALS - Concurrent findings - Supported by evidence - Fate of -Such findings - As the customary tenancy status of 1st to 12th appellants - Will not be interfered with by appellate court (H3) Jinadu v. Esurombi-Aro (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265) 883; (2009) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1145) 55

 

APPEALS - Concurrent findings of fact - Interference with - Propriety - Where lower courts found that no case was made against 3 of the defendants - As perversity has not been shown in the finding - It will not be interfered with (H6) Bamgbegbin v. Oriare (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 268) 1525; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1158) 370

 

APPEALS - Concurrent findings of fact - Interference with - Unless shown to be perverse - Which is not the case herein - The Supreme Court will not interfere therewith (H6) Oguntayo v. Adelaja (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1957; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1163) 150

 

APPEALS - Courts - Error - Effect on appeal - Notwithstanding the commitment of error by a lower court - An appeal may still be dismissed - Unless such error is substantial in that it has affected the merits of the case (H2) Akayepe v. Akayepe (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1183; (2009) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1152) 217

 

APPEALS - Courts - Mistakes - Effect on appeal - Mistake by court will not lead to nullification of proceedings - Or result in appeal being allowed - Unless it has occasioned miscarriage of justice (H8) Sule v. State (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1737; (2009) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1169) 33

 

APPEALS - Courts - Resolution of issues - After a finding of lack of jurisdiction - Propriety - Any court below the Supreme Court - Is in order to take the merits - After such finding - In case the finding is declared wrong on appeal (H6) Feed & Food Farms Ltd v. NNPC (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 268) 1561

 

APPEALS - Cross appeal - Order for rehearing it alone - Propriety - Dismissal of main appeal would render cross appeal nugatory - Justice demands that both appeals be reheard de novo - By Court of Appeal (H4) Uzuda v. Ebigah (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2189; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1163) 1

 

APPEALS - Cross-appeals - Points not appealed on - Where a respondent did not cross-appeal on a point - He cannot raise that point on appeal as of right (H4) Aderigbigbe v. Abidoye (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265)773; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1150) 592

 

APPEALS - Customary Courts of Appeal - Composition - Propriety - It should consist of not less than three judges - For anything done under the Constitution - Including determination of existing customary law - Else it is incompetent (H2) Shelim v. Gobang (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1719; (2009) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1156) 435

 

APPEALS - Damages - Reduction on appeal - Proper procedure - Appellate court should consider whether or not the amount awarded was so extremely high - As to make an entirely erroneous estimate - Before reducing it (H2) Usong v. Hanseatic Int. Ltd (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1425; (2009) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1153) 522

 

APPEALS - Decisions of court - Failure to appeal - Effect - Where a party fails to appeal against any decision - He is deemed to have accepted it - He is consequently bound by it (H3) Tomtec Ltd v. FHA (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2471; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 358

 

APPEALS - Dismissal - Basis of - In addition to dismissing the appeal for the Appellant’s noncompliance with the rules of brief writing - The Court of Appeal also dismissed the appeal on the merits (H3) Ekpemupolo v. Edremoda (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 589; (2009) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1142) 166

 

APPEALS - Dismissal - Fair hearing - Breach - Applicability - Dismissal of appeal on the ground that appellant’s brief did not accord with the rules - Is tantamount to a denial of fair hearing (H2) Ekpemupolo v. Edremoda (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 589; (2009) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1142) 166

 

APPEALS - Documents - Evaluation by appellate court - Propriety - Appellate High Court was right to have evaluated Exhibit A - For appellate court is in as good a position as trial court in evaluating documentary evidence (H6) Ogbe v. Asade (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2425; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1172) 106

 

APPEALS - Documents - Withdrawn at trial - Admissibility at Supreme Court - Since 1st respondent’s counsel did not press for its admission in trial court - It cannot be admitted at Supreme Court level (H5) Oguntayo v. Adelaja (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1957; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1163) 150

 

APPEALS - Evidence - Concurrent findings - Attitude of Supreme Court - It will not interfere with such findings - Where such is not shown to be perverse (H2) Sule v. State (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1737; (2009) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1169) 33

 

APPEALS - Evidence - Contradictions - Concurrent Findings - Where there is no material contradiction in the evidence of PWs 1 & 2 - Concurrent findings of lower courts to that effect were justified (H3) Ndukwe v. State (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 413; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1139) 43

 

APPEALS - Evidence - Evaluation - Appellate Courts - Position of - Though evaluation of evidence is for the trial court - Where it would not entail assessment of credibility of witnesses - Appellate court is in as vantage a position as trial court (H1) Mini Lodge Ltd v. Ngei (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 274) 2639; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 254

 

APPEALS - Evidence - Evaluation - By appellate court - Propriety of - Where trial court fails to properly evaluate the evidence before it - Appellate court may evaluate same to make proper findings (H6) Onyekwelu v. Elf Petroleum (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 501; (2009) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1133) 181

 

APPEALS - Evidence - Evaluation - Exhibits - Not before the court - Propriety of evaluation - A court must see the exhibits before taking any decision on them - Court of Appeal was therefore wrong to accept the finding on Exhibit A - Without seeing it (H6) Ekpemupolo v. Edremoda (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 589; (2009) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1142) 166

 

APPEALS - Evidence - Evaluation - Role of appellate court - Where trial court has failed in its duty of properly evaluating evidence - Resulting in perverse finding - Appellate court has to intervene by reevaluating the evidence (H2) Anyanwu v. Uzowuaka (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1829; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1159) 445

 

APPEALS - Evidence - Reevaluation - By Court of Appeal - Propriety - It is properly done - As issue (i) of appellants could not be resolved properly - Without evaluating evidence - Called by the parties at the trial (H5) Da Kabirikim v. Emefor (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1867; (2009) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1162) 602

 

APPEALS - Evidence - Reevaluation - By Court of Appeal - Propriety - As parties’ briefs centred on the evidence at trial - Court of Appeal could not have ignored this aspect of the argument - Without causing miscarriage of justice (H1) G.K.F. Ltd v. NITEL (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1899; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1164) 344

 

APPEALS - Evidence - Reevaluation - Correctness - For Court of Appeal to hold that complainant gave names of appellants - At the first report - Is not borne out from the record (H2) Ani v. State (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 268) 1463; (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1168) 443

 

APPEALS - Findings - Letter of retirement - Basis of - Pension Act - The circular referred to by the letter made reference to the Act - Court of Appeal was wrong therefore to hold that the letter did not refer to the Act (H1) Abdullahi v. Mil. Admin. Kaduna State (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1767; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1165) 417

 

APPEALS - Findings - Re-evaluation on appeal - Basis of - Where they are found to be perverse - It is the duty of appellate court - To re-evaluate same - As Court of Appeal did with the consequential orders (H8) Osuji v. Ekeocha (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2033; (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1166) 81

 

APPEALS - Findings - Relevancy - Exhibit 17 - It alleges that the retirement was on the basis of Pension Act - Which allegation is denied by respondents - So Court of Appeal was wrong to hold that it is irrelevant (H2) Abdullahi v. Mil. Admin. Kaduna State (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1767; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1165) 417

 

APPEALS - Findings of fact - Interference with - Duty of appellate court - It has a duty in the interest of justice - To disturb such findings - If they cannot be supported on printed evidence (H3) Oyewole v. Akande (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2119; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1163) 119

 

APPEALS - Findings of fact - Not supported by record - Fate of - As there was ample evidence in support of the rejection of the goods supplied by the appellant contrary to the finding of the trial court - Court of Appeal was right to have set aside the finding (H4) Onyekwelu v. Elf Petroleum (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 501; (2009) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1133) 181

 

APPEALS - Findings of facts - By trial judge - Attitude of appellate court - Is not to interfere therewith - Unless it is perverse & not supported by credible evidence (H8) Nwokorobia v. Nwogu (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1303; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1150) 553

 

APPEALS - Fresh issues on appeal - Propriety of - They cannot be raised without prior leave of court - Else submissions in regards to them go to no issue (H3) Onwuka v. Ononuju (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1393; (2009) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1151) 174

 

APPEALS - Fresh points on appeal - Meaning - It means an issue not canvassed and pronounced upon - At the lower court - Like the issue of validity of appointment of project manager - It can only be raised with leave (H1) Olalomi Industries Ltd v. N.I.D.B. Ltd (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2001; (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1167) 266

 

APPEALS - Grounds - Basis - Obiter dicta - An appeal cannot be brought against the obiter of a court - Except where such obiter is so linked with the ratio decidendi - To have radically influenced the ratio (H1) Balonwu v. Governor of Anambra State (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 274) 2569; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1172) 13

 

APPEALS - Grounds - Basis of complaints - Ratio or obiter - Though an appeal is usually against a ratio - The comment on fraud by Court of Appeal - Even if it is obiter - Is so linked with the ratio as to have influenced it (H2) Olalomi Industries Ltd v. N.I.D.B. Ltd (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2001; (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1167) 266

 

APPEALS - Grounds - Invalidity - Allegation of - Need for Clarity - Appellant’s submissions in these respects are clumsy - He seems to approbate and reprobate - As rightly found by the Court of Appeal (H1) Onwuka v. Ononuju (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1393; (2009) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1151) 174

 

APPEALS - Grounds - Nature - Determinants of - Is whether they reveal a misunderstanding or misapplication of the law by lower court - Or whether they question the evaluation of facts by it (H1) Ononuju v. A-G Anambra State (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1357; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1148) 182

 

APPEALS - Grounds - Nature - Whether of law or fact - Grounds 1, 2, 3, & 5 are grounds of law in that their nature excludes exercise of discretion - By the court - In answering the questions raised thereby (H2) Ononuju v. A-G Anambra State (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1357; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1148) 182

 

APPEALS - Grounds - Not based on decision of Court of Appeal - Can not be the basis of an appeal to the Supreme Court - As it does not deal directly with matters from the High Court (H1) Labour Party v. INEC (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 385; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1137) 315

 

APPEALS - Grounds - Propriety of - It is not a proper ground of appeal in criminal cases - To say that the verdict is against the weight of evidence (H4) Ebenehi v. State (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 575; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1138) 431

 

APPEALS - Grounds - Whether law or fact - Where a ground reveals a misapplication of the law - To facts already proved or admitted - It is a ground of law (H1) Ogundele v. Agiri (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 272) 2249; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 219

 

APPEALS - Grounds of appeal - Abandonment - By implication - Where no brief of argument has been filed in respect of an appeal - The appeal is deemed abandoned - And must be struck out (H1) Aderigbigbe v. Abidoye (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265)773; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1150) 592

 

APPEALS - Grounds of appeal - Additional grounds - Competence - Additional grounds all become naught - Though filed within time extended - Where there exists no valid appeal (H3) Aderigbigbe v. Abidoye (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265)773; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1150) 592

 

APPEALS - Grounds of appeal - Based on obiter - Sustainability - The remark by Court of Appeal on identity of land as a non-issue - Is an obiter dictum - So it cannot form the basis of a ground of appeal (H3) Ogbe v. Asade (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2425; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1172) 106

 

APPEALS - Grounds of appeal - Erroneously struck out - Effect - Where the issues determined eventually actually cover the ground erroneously struck out - The error has no effect on the decision ultimately given (H7) Joel Okunrinboye Exp. Ltd v. Skye Bank Plc (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 477; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1138) 518

 

APPEALS - Grounds of Appeal - Essence of - Is to acquaint respondent with the issue involved in the appeal - Once it serves that purpose - The ground cannot be defective (H2) Oloruntoba-Oju v. Abdul-Raheem (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1673; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 83

 

APPEALS - Grounds of appeal - Hierarchy of courts - Supreme Court - Where a ground of appeal is of law - Notwithstanding that particulars thereof centre on the activities of the High Court - The ground does not cease to be a complaint against the Court of Appeal decision (H2) Jimoh v. Akande (2009) 1 KLR (pt. 262) 39; (2009) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1135) 549

 

APPEALS - Grounds of Appeal - Particulars - Competence - Where a ground has incompetent particulars - The ground is defective - But this is not the case herein (H1) Oloruntoba-Oju v. Abdul-Raheem (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1673; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 83

 

APPEALS - Grounds of Appeal - Vagueness - Manners of - It may arise where what is stated is uncertain - Or complaint is not defined in relation to subject matter - Or particulars are irrelevant to the grounds (H3) Oloruntoba-Oju v. Abdul-Raheem (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1673; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 83

 

APPEALS - Initiation - Necessity for - Appeals are initiated by notices of appeal in which are stated valid grounds of appeal - Complaining against the decisions being appealed against (H4) Joel Okunrinboye Exp. Ltd v. Skye Bank Plc (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 477; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1138) 518

 

APPEALS - Interference - Evidence - Evaluation - Duty of trial Court - It has the primary duty not only to admit or reject evidence but also to ascribe probative value thereto - Appellate court will only interfere where trial court fails to do so - Or does so improperly - Which was not the case herein (H2) Anyaegwu v. Onuche (2009) 1 KLR (pt. 262) 1; (2009) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1129) 659

 

APPEALS - Issue - That is irrelevant to decision appealed against - Competence of - It is incompetent and liable to be struck out - As it is akin to an academic question (H5) Bamgbegbin v. Oriare (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 268) 1525; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1158) 370

 

APPEALS - Issues - Competence - Issue (i) of appellant is incompetent - Because it complains against judgment of High Court - As Supreme Court does not deal directly with complaints against High Courts (H1) Shell Petroleum v. Edamkue (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2143; (2009) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1160) 1

 

APPEALS - Issues - Formulation - By appellate court - Propriety - It is proper if such will serve the ends of justice - As in this case where Court of Appeal merely added some words - To state the obvious (H6) Da Kabirikim v. Emefor (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1867; (2009) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1162) 602

 

APPEALS - Issues - Incompetence - Effect of - Where an issue as formulated does not arise from the grounds of appeal - It is incompetent and liable to be struck out - Or discountenanced in the determination of the appeal (H1) Onyekwelu v. Elf Petroleum (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 501; (2009) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1133) 181

 

APPEALS - Issues - Nature of - Whether of law or fact - Where facts are not in dispute - But the complaint is on application of the law to undisputed facts - The ground is one of law (H1) Diamond Bank Ltd v. Partnership Investment Co. Ltd (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 272) 2221; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1172) 67

 

APPEALS - Issues - New issue raised without leave - Fate - Appellant’s issue (2) - On alleged failure to evaluate Exhibit K is a new issue - Having been raised without prior leave of court - It becomes a non issue and deserves to be struck out (H2) Oseni v. Bajulu (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2453; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1172) 164

 

APPEALS - Issues - Nonpayment of consideration for land - Propriety - Court of Appeal was in error in raising the issue - As a basis for allowing the appeal - Since there was no such issue before it (H1) Egharevba v. Osagie (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 274) 2613; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 299

 

APPEALS - Issues - Number - Relation to grounds of appeal - Though one issue can be raised from one or more grounds - Two issues cannot be raised from a single ground (H1) Ogbe v. Asade (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2425; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1172) 106

 

APPEALS - Issues - Number of - They should not out number the grounds of appeal filed by the appellant - As they are supposed to be distilled therefrom - Else they may be bad in law (H1) Amodu v. Commandant Police College Maiduguri (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1791; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1163) 75

 

APPEALS - Issues - Raised and resolved suo motu - Effect - It amounts to a denial of fair hearing - Which occasioned miscarriage of justice to appellants - For Court of Appeal to have so raised and resolved the issue of admission (H1) Shasi v. Smith (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 272) 2295; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 330

 

APPEALS - Issues - Raised by respondent - Validity - Where appellant’s issues are incompetent - Issues by respondent properly arising from the grounds of appeal are valid issues - Notwithstanding the invalidity of appellant’s issues (H6) Joel Okunrinboye Exp. Ltd v. Skye Bank Plc (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 477; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1138) 518

 

APPEALS - Issues - Raised suo motu - Propriety of - There was proper pleading of special damages - This obviates the need to consider propriety or otherwise of suo motu raising of the issue - By Court of Appeal (H3) Amadi v. Chinda (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265) 819; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1148) 107

 

APPEALS - Issues - Relevance - Issue 1 of appellant - Is irrelevant to the appeal and liable to be discountenanced - As it is based on a misunderstanding of the findings - Of the Court of appeal - On the question of descent (H1) Oguntayo v. Adelaja (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1957; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1163) 150

 

APPEALS - Issues - Resolution of - By implication - With the resolution of the central issue - Of whether the land had been partitioned - By Court of Appeal in the way it did - It is not correct to say that issue three of appellant was not determined (H1) Akayepe v. Akayepe (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1183; (2009) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1152) 217

 

APPEALS - Issues - Resolution of - Contrary to the allegation of the appellant - Court of Appeal did answer question No. 2 - When it held that the order refers to the nullified general election - And that s. 32(7) of the Electoral Act does not apply (H2) Labour Party v. INEC (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 385; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1137) 315

 

APPEALS - Issues - Role of - Appeals are determined on issues arising from the grounds of appeal - But such issues need not be those formulated by the appellant - They may be those by the respondent or even by the court (H5) Joel Okunrinboye Exp. Ltd v. Skye Bank Plc (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 477; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1138) 518

 

APPEALS - Issues - Usefulness of - It is apparent from the pleadings of the parties - That identity of the land in dispute was a non-issue - As both parties knew the land (H5) Omiyale v. Macaulay (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 655; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1141) 597

 

APPEALS - Issues - Where irrelevant - Non-reference to it - Propriety - There is nothing wrong with it, considering that an appellate Court is entitled - To formulate its own issues - If it considers those of the parties irrelevant (H8) FMH v. Comet Shipping Agencies (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265) 859; (2009) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1145) 193

 

APPEALS - Judgment - Reversed on appeal - Effect on reliefs claimed - Where a judgment is reversed on appeal - Appellate court ought to make consequential orders - Granting any reliefs it considered to be supported by the evidence available (H3) Egharevba v. Osagie (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 274) 2613; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 299

 

APPEALS - Judgments - Concurring judgment - Legal status - It forms part of the leading judgment - And is meant to complement same - Both leading & concurring judgments crystallize into the judgment of an appellate court (H15) Oloruntoba-Oju v. Abdul-Raheem (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1673; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 83

 

APPEALS - Judgments - Findings - Verdict of no valid interest in appellants - Affirmation - Propriety - Trial court made the finding with ample support of evidence - Court of Appeal was therefore right to have affirmed same (H3) Mini Lodge Ltd v. Ngei (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 274) 2639; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 254

 

APPEALS - Judgments - Misconceived - Fate of - Where it is a product of a misconception of the case contained in the records - It is liable to be set aside (H6) FMH v. Comet Shipping Agencies (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265) 859; (2009) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1145) 193

 

APPEALS - Judgments - Separate days - Separate appeals - Same suit - As none of the appeals was in the form of cross-appeal - And no miscarriage of justice has been shown - The practice is proper in the circumstance (H8) Olalomi Industries Ltd v. N.I.D.B. Ltd (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2001; (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1167) 266

 

APPEALS - Judgments - Terms - Monetary awards - Ascertainment of - Contrary to appellant’s contention - The awards as adjusted by Court of Appeal - Is ascertainable (H9) Olalomi Industries Ltd v. N.I.D.B. Ltd (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2001; (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1167) 266

 

APPEALS - Judgments - Treatment of parties’ cases - Need to be evenhanded - Court of Appeal failed to treat the parties’ respective cases - With evenhandedness - As expected of appellate courts - Thereby shirking its statutory responsibility (H2) Uzuda v. Ebigah (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2189; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1163) 1

 

APPEALS - Judicial precedents - Distinguishing - Coram of Customary Courts of Appeal - Decision in Golok v. Diyalpwan based on s. 224 of 1979 Constitution - Remains intact - As it was made when the coram of the court was fluid (H4) Shelim v. Gobang (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1719; (2009) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1156) 435

 

APPEALS - Judicial precedents - Distinguishing - Different issues - Case of Dale power Systems Plc - The issues involved in that appeal are not the same as in this appeal (H3) Grosvenor Casinos Ltd. v. Halaoui (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1241; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1149) 309

 

APPEALS - Judicial precedents - Distinguishing - Jamgbadi case - It is distinguishable from this case - In that unlike in Jamgbadi the Court of Appeal failed to make any finding on appellant’s case - Both in the main appeal and the cross appeal (H1) Uzuda v. Ebigah (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2189; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1163) 1

 

APPEALS - Judicial precedents - Overruling - Conditions for - Judgment to be overruled must be shown to be erroneous in law - Or given per incuriam, or contrary to public policy - None of which is the position with Emelogu case (H3) Tanko v. State (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 541; (2009) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1131) 430

 

APPEALS - Jurisdiction - Appellate courts - Conclusions not supported by record - An appellate court is bound by the record - It has no jurisdiction to draw conclusions - Which are not supported by the record (H5) Olufeagba v. Abdur-Raheem (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 274) 2667; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 384

 

APPEALS - Jurisdiction - Of Customary Courts of Appeal - Issue of - Cognizance of before Court of Appeal - It is cognisable because jurisdiction is the life wire of any adjudication (H1) Shelim v. Gobang (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1719; (2009) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1156) 435

 

APPEALS - Jurisdiction - Source & implication - It can only be conferred by statute - So where the Constitution has donated a right of appeal - Without any condition - Court of Appeal can not lay such a condition (H3) Uwagba v. FRN (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1439; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1163) 91

 

APPEALS - Land law - Identity of land - As basis of challenge by appellant - Propriety - In view of no appeal against finding by trial court - That parties are ad-idem on identity of land - Appellant’s challenge on this point is misconceived (H2) Ogbe v. Asade (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2425; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1172) 106

 

APPEALS - Main & cross appeal - Issues - Sequence of resolution - Were there is a main appeal & a cross appeal - Issues in the main appeal are normally resolved first - Unless there is a jurisdictional issue raised in the cross appeal - In which case it takes precedence (H1) Adekoye v. N.S.P.M.C. Ltd (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 233; (2009) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1134) 322

 

APPEALS - Miscarriage of justice - Improper evaluation of evidence - Need to arrest - It will perpetuate injustice in our judicial processes - If appellate court does not interfere therein (H7) Arisons Ltd v. Mil. Gov. Ogun State (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 268) 1483; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1163) 26

 

APPEALS - New issue - Customary tenancy - Admission of existence - Issue of - The issue cannot now be raised by appellants - As it was neither raised nor canvassed - Before the lower courts (H2) Oshoboja v. Amida (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 272) 2275; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1172) 164

 

APPEALS - Notice of appeal - Validity - There is no longer a valid notice of appeal - Where all grounds therein are struck out as incompetent - As a bare notice of appeal is valueless & incompetent (H2) Aderigbigbe v. Abidoye (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265)773; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1150) 592

 

APPEALS - Omissions by trial court - Power to correct - Court of Appeal is in as good a position as trial court to do or refrain from doing - What trial court has erroneously done or refrained from (H1) Arisons Ltd v. Mil. Gov. Ogun State (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 268) 1483; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1163) 26

 

APPEALS - Orders of court - Retrial - Propriety - The order cannot be made in a situation where the appellant is exposed to prejudice - As in this case where the appellant has served a substantial part of his sentence (H2) Umaru v. State (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 743; (2009) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1142) 134

 

APPEALS - Parties - Juristic personality - Death of co-parties - Effect - Where a sole party to an appeal dies - And is not substituted - The appeal ends - But this is not the case where there are surviving co-parties (H1) Olufeagba v. Abdur-Raheem (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 274) 2667; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 384

 

APPEALS - Party’s case - Variation of on appeal - Propriety - It runs contrary to practice and procedure of our civil jurisprudence - Neither counsel nor litigant is permitted - To approbate and reprobate in the conduct of a case (H4) Osuji v. Ekeocha (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2033; (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1166) 81

 

APPEALS - Points not appealed - Binding effect - Such points whether of law or fact are deemed to have been conceded - By the party against whom it was decided - So they remain valid and binding on the parties (H4) Shell Petroleum v. Edamkue (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2143; (2009) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1160) 1

 

APPEALS - Preliminary objections - Manner of raising - It may be set out in the brief of argument - But applicant must also file a formal notice thereof - And move same - Or it will be deemed waived (H4) Onwuka v. Ononuju (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1393; (2009) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1151) 174

 

APPEALS - Record of proceedings - Where incomplete - Appellant’s duty - It is the duty of appellant’s counsel to obtain supplementary record - If important documents affecting his appeal were omitted -(H2) Amadi v. Chinda (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265) 819; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1148) 107

 

APPEALS - Records - Binding effect - The court is bound by the record - Which in this case does not bear out the claim of the appellant - That he raised and argued insufficient particulars of grounds - At the Court of Appeal (H2) Onwuka v. Ononuju (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1393; (2009) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1151) 174

 

APPEALS - Respondent’s notice - Resort to - Propriety - It is validly raised as applicant is not asking for reversal - Of findings of fact made against him (H8) Arisons Ltd v. Mil. Gov. Ogun State (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 268) 1483; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1163) 26

 

APPEALS - Retrial - Purpose - Appellate court orders a retrial - Where trial court made no finding of fact on conflicting evidence - On an issue the resolution of which is essential in the just determination of the case - Which is not the case herein (H8) Ukaegbu v. Nwololo (2009) 1 KLR (pt. 262) 103; (2009) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1127) 194

 

APPEALS - Right of - Applicability of Rules of Court - Decisions under Failed Banks Decree - Provisions of the Decree are special in nature - Therefore while exercising jurisdiction thereunder - Court of Appeal could not resort to rules of court (H2) Uwagba v. FRN (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1439; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1163) 91

 

APPEALS - Right of appeal - Requirement for leave - Supreme Court Rules, O. 2 r. 32 - As far as leave to appeal is concerned the power of the court to entertain it is as per s. 233 (3) of the Constitution - It cannot be altered by the rules of court (H1) Jimoh v. Akande (2009) 1 KLR (pt. 262) 39; (2009) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1135) 549

 

APPEALS - Right of appeal - Source & implication - It can only be conferred by statute - So where the Constitution has donated a right of appeal - Without any condition - Court of Appeal can not lay such a condition (H3) Uwagba v. FRN (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1439; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1163) 91

 

APPEALS - Stay of execution - Presumption of correctness of judgment - Which applies subject to rebuttal on appeal - Avails in this case - To prevent depriving a party from reaping his fruit of success (H4) NNPC v. Famfa Oil Ltd (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1647; (2009) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1156) 462

 

APPEALS - Stay of execution - Proof of special circumstances - Onus - It is on the party applying for stay pending appeal - To satisfy the court that in the peculiar circumstances - A refusal would be unjust (H3) NNPC v. Famfa Oil Ltd (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1647; (2009) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1156) 462

 

APPEALS - Striking out order - Made upon withdrawal of an application - Challenge procedure - It is the duty of appellant to have appealed against it - If he disagrees with the order - As the order is a decision by Court of Appeal (H1) Tomtec Ltd v. FHA (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2471; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 358

 

APPEALS - Terms of settlement - Rejection by court - Propriety - Court of Appeal was right in not accepting to enter it as its judgment - As it did not state clearly the rights created or abandoned - In respect of the subject matter (H4)Star Paper Mill Ltd v. Adetunji (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2173; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1159) 647

 

APPEALS - Trial court - Exercise of discretion - Interference - Duty of appellate court - It is incumbent on appellate court to show that the discretion - Has been exercised arbitrarily - And has occasioned miscarriage of justice (H3) Uzuda v. Ebigah (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2189; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1163) 1

 

APPEALS - Validity - Crime - Academic issues - Where appellant has served out his sentence - The appeal becomes academic - And courts do not deal with academic matters (H1) Amanchukwu v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 287; (2009) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1144) 475

 

ARBITRATION - Issue estoppel - Industrial Arbitration - Applicability - As neither the parties nor the subject matter in this case - Is the same as that in the industrial arbitration - Issue estoppel cannot apply (H9)

 

ARMED ROBBERY - Evidence - Conviction - Propriety of - Though the extrajudicial statement was expunged by the Court of Appeal - There is sufficient evidence on the records - To sustain the conviction of the appellant (H6) Tanko v. State (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 541; (2009) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1131) 430

 

ARMED ROBBERY - Identity of accused - Recognition - Need for early mention - Though PW1 explained why he did not mention names to villagers - But DW1 insists that he also failed to mention them when he first reported to police (H1) Ani v. State (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 268) 1463; (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1168) 443

 

ARMED ROBBERY - Investigations - Identification parade - Necessity of - It is not necessary in this case - Where PW7 knew the appellant before the incident (H4) Almu v. State (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265) 797; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1148) 31

 

ARMED ROBBERY - Jurisdiction - Courts - Not only does a State High Court have jurisdiction to try it - Officials of State Ministry of Justice are also qualified to prosecute robbery in any State High Court (H2) Tanko v. State (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 541; (2009) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1131) 430

 

ARMED ROBBERY - Legislative powers - Robbery - Both the Federal and the State Government can legislate thereon - By virtue of s. 14 (2) (b) of the 1999 Constitution (H1) Tanko v. State (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 541; (2009) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1131) 430

 

ARMED ROBBERY - Meaning - Ingredients - It simply means stealing plus violence - Used or threatened - From the evidence on record - These were established (H7) Tanko v. State (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 541; (2009) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1131) 430

 

ARMED ROBBERY - Proof - Circumstantial evidence - Sufficiency of - Evidence of PW 2 sufficiently linked 2nd appellant - As being in the armed robbery gang (H3) Ebenehi v. State (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 575; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1138) 431

 

ARMED ROBBERY - Sentence of death - Mode of execution - It is not for the trial court to prescribe mode - Under the Robbery & Firearms Act - But where it does - It does not vitiate the proceedings (H5) Tanko v. State (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 541; (2009) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1131) 430

 

BAILMENT - Action for breach - Presumption of fault - The loss of or damage to goods in bailee’s possession - Places the onus of proof on the bailee - To show that it occurred without his fault (H5) FMH v. Comet Shipping Agencies (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265) 859; (2009) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1145) 193

 

BAILMENT - Courts - Bills of lading - Notify party - Right of audience - He has no such right whether in contract or in negligence - Not even in an action for bailment (H7) Basinco Motors Ltd v. Woermann-Line (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1609; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 149

 

BANKING - Banker’s draft - Negligence of appellant - Propriety of finding - In view of the evidence on record - Particularly the instructions from 1st respondent as per Exhibit C - The finding is proper as borne out from the records (H3) Diamond Bank Ltd v. Partnership Investment Co. Ltd (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 272) 2221; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1172) 67

 

BANKING - Crime - Trials in absentia - Failed Banks Decree - Propriety - S. 27 of the Decree clearly permits such proceedings - To the extent of executing orders arising therefrom (H5) Uwagba v. FRN (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1439; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1163) 91

 

BANKING - Judicial precedents - Bank draft - Made subject to confirmation - Propriety - As bank manager gave an implied undertaking - To comply to PW1’s instruction - The facts of UBA Ltd V. Ibhafidon is not applicable to this case (H4) Diamond Bank Ltd v. Partnership Investment Co. Ltd (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 272) 2221; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1172) 67

 

BILLS OF LADING - Courts - Contracts - Notify party - Right of audience - He has no such right whether in contract or in negligence - Not even in an action for bailment (H7) Basinco Motors Ltd v. Woermann-Line (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1609; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 149

 

BILLS OF LADING - Meaning - It is a writing signed on behalf of the owner of a ship - In which goods are embarked - Acknowledging receipt thereof - And undertaking to deliver them - Subject to conditions therein (H2) Basinco Motors Ltd v. Woermann-Line (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1609; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 149

 

BILLS OF LADING - Notify party - Meaning of - It is the party whose name and address appear in a bill - Who is to be notified of the arrival of the goods at the discharge port (H3) Basinco Motors Ltd v. Woermann-Line (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1609; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 149

 

CARRIAGE OF GOODS - Admiralty - Loss of goods - Apportionment of liability - S. 16 (1) (2) & (3) of Admiralty jurisdiction Act - The subsections provide for separate, specific & distinct situations - They do not need to be read together (H3) FMH v. Comet Shipping Agencies (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265) 859; (2009) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1145) 193

 

CARRIAGE OF GOODS - Admiralty - Loss of goods - Liability of an agent - In view of the failure of the respondent - To produce evidence of warehousing the goods with NPA PLC - Trial judge was right to have invoked s. 16 (3) of the Act against him (H1) FMH v. Comet Shipping Agencies (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265) 859; (2009) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1145) 193

 

CARRIAGE OF GOODS - Bill of lading - Meaning - It is a writing signed on behalf of the owner of a ship - In which goods are embarked - Acknowledging receipt thereof - And undertaking to deliver them - Subject to conditions therein (H2) Basinco Motors Ltd v. Woermann-Line (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1609; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 149

 

CARRIAGE OF GOODS - Bills of lading - Notify party - Meaning of - It is the party whose name and address appear in a bill - Who is to be notified of the arrival of the goods at the discharge port (H3) Basinco Motors Ltd v. Woermann-Line (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1609; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 149

 

CARRIAGE OF GOODS - Contracts - Creation of - The trial judge was right to have held that a combination of the Debit note - Issued by the respondent to the appellant - And the receipt voucher - Created a contract between the parties (H4) FMH v. Comet Shipping Agencies (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265) 859; (2009) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1145) 193

 

CHARGES - Admissions - Exhibit ‘B’ - Self defence - Applicability - Exhibit B is an admission by appellant - That he did the act for which he was charged - So also his plea of self-defence (H3) Sule v. State (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1737; (2009) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1169) 33

 

CHARGES - Arraignment - English language - Propriety - There is nothing on record suggesting that appellant did not understand the charge - When read & explained to him (H2) Olabode v. State (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1337; (2009) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1152) 254

 

COMPANY LAW - Company in liquidation - Capacity to sue - S. 417 of CAMA - The party to seek & obtain leave before instituting an action - Is not the company - But the party commencing action against the company (H2) Agro Allied Dev. Ent. Ltd v. MV Northern Reefer (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1167; (2009) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1155) 255

 

COMPANY LAW - Company in liquidation - Pre-action leave - Applicable Court - In view of definition of court in s. 650 of CAMA - The applicable court is Federal High Court and none other (H3) Agro Allied Dev. Ent. Ltd v. MV Northern Reefer (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1167; (2009) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1155) 255

 

COMPANY LAW - Evidence - Admissibility - Deed of debenture - Without Governor’s consent - Debenture charged over floating assets does not create any charge on land - So it does not require Governor’s consent for validity - It is therefore admissible without it (H6) Olalomi Industries Ltd v. N.I.D.B. Ltd (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2001; (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1167) 266

 

COMPANY LAW - Evidence - Proof of company membership - Production of register - Onus - Though the register is in the custody of the company - The onus is on appellant to call the company as witness - To tender the relevant portions thereof (H4) Orji v. Dorji Textiles Mills (Nig) Ltd (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 274) 2723; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 467

 

COMPANY LAW - Evidence - Status as company member - Onus of proof - Is on appellant to prove her status - As a member and director of the company - In order to obtain judgment (H1) Orji v. Dorji Textiles Mills (Nig) Ltd (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 274) 2723; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 467

 

COMPANY LAW - Federal government agency - Concept of - Any enterprise in which the federal government owns controlling shares or interest - Is part of the public service of the federation - Therefore it is an agency of the federal government (H2) Adekoye v. N.S.P.M.C. Ltd (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 233; (2009) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1134) 322

 

COMPANY LAW - Foreign companies - Capacity to sue & be sued - By the provisions of s. 60 (b) of CAMA a foreign company can sue & be sued - In its own name (H5) Agro Allied Dev. Ent. Ltd v. MV Northern Reefer (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1167; (2009) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1155) 255

 

COMPANY LAW - Foreign companies - Provisions of CAMA - Applicability - In view of the definition of company in s. 264 thereof - The provisions of CAMA do not regulate the affairs of foreign companies (H4) Agro Allied Dev. Ent. Ltd v. MV Northern Reefer (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1167; (2009) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1155) 255

 

COMPANY LAW - Investments - Illegality of - Trustee Investments Act, s. 2 - Purpose of - It is meant to safeguard investments against abuse of power - Not to make them illegal for ignoring the Provisions thereof (H3) Fasel Services Limited v. NPA (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265) 843; (2009) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1146) 400

 

COMPANY LAW - Memorandum and articles - Alteration - Powers of company - A company has power to alter its memorandum and articles - Once it does so validly - The altered document becomes lifeless in law (H2) Orji v. Dorji Textiles Mills (Nig) Ltd (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 274) 2723; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 467

 

COMPANY LAW - Proof - Company membership - Effect of original memorandum - The document no longer has effect - In the light of the evidence that appellant’s name was removed as a member - By the shareholders (H3) Orji v. Dorji Textiles Mills (Nig) Ltd (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 274) 2723; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 467

 

COMPANY LAW - Securities & Investment - Investment & Securities Act - Duty on promoters’ agents - Respondents are mere registration agents in the PSPLS scheme - And the statute does not impose any duty on such agents in the exercise of their function as such (H1) Osigwe v. PSPLS Mgt. Consortium Ltd (2009) 1 KLR (pt. 262) 73; (2009) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1128) 378

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Appeals - Right of appeal - Requirement for leave - Supreme Court Rules, O. 2 r. 32 - As far as leave to appeal is concerned the power of the court to entertain it is as per s. 233 (3) of the Constitution - It cannot be altered by the rules of court (H1) Jimoh v. Akande (2009) 1 KLR (pt. 262) 39; (2009) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1135) 549

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Appeals - Right of appeal - Source & implication - It can only be conferred by statute - So where the Constitution has donated a right of appeal - Without any condition - Court of Appeal can not lay such a condition (H3) Uwagba v. FRN (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1439; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1163) 91

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Commissions of inquiry - Land ownership - Power to appoint - Governor of Plateau State has power to appoint such - If in his opinion - It would be for the public welfare - And it does not interfere with High Court’s constitutional jurisdiction (H4) Da Kabirikim v. Emefor (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1867; (2009) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1162) 602

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Customary Courts of Appeal - Composition - Propriety - It should consist of not less than three judges - For anything done under the Constitution - Including determination of existing customary law - Else it is incompetent (H2) Shelim v. Gobang (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1719; (2009) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1156) 435

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Elected officers - Status of - S. 137 (1)(g), 1999 Constitution - They are not civil or public servants within the provision of the section - On the principle of expressio unius (H6) Ojukwu v. Yar’adua (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 266) 1017; (2009) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1154) 50

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Fair hearing - Principles - Effect on issue of locus standi - Locus standi is a threshold issue - Fair hearing is concerned with adjudication - Unless there is locus standi - Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate (H8) Basinco Motors Ltd v. Woermann-Line (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1609; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 149

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Federal government agency - Concept of - Any enterprise in which the federal government owns controlling shares or interest - Is part of the public service of the federation - Therefore it is an agency of the federal government (H2) Adekoye v. N.S.P.M.C. Ltd (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 233; (2009) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1134) 322

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Fundamental rights - Fair hearing - Breach - When the trial judge proceeded to hear the evidence of the appellant - In the absence of his counsel - He breached his right to fair hearing (H1) Umaru v. State (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 743; (2009) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1142) 134

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Interpretation - Principles of - There should be a liberal approach - An earlier section should not be interpreted - To make a later section moribund (H3) Shelim v. Gobang (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1719; (2009) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1156) 435

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Judgments - 3 months Limitation - From final addresses - Computation - Time begins to run from the date of last address of counsel - In this case from 1st of December 1992 - Not 22nd of May 1992 (H2) Savannah Bank v. Starite Ind. Corp. (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 523; (2009) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1144) 491

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Judgments - Validity - Time of delivery - Non-Compliance with the time limit of 3 months after final addresses - Will not invalidate judgment - Unless it occasions a miscarriage of justice (H1) Savannah Bank v. Starite Ind. Corp. (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 523; (2009) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1144) 491

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Judicial precedents - Distinguishing - Coram of Customary Courts of Appeal - Decision in Golok v. Diyalpwan based on s. 224 of 1979 Constitution - Remains intact - As it was made when the coram of the court was fluid (H4) Shelim v. Gobang (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1719; (2009) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1156) 435

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Jurisdiction - Actions for declaration - Federal Government - Proper court - Federal High Court is vested with power - To adjudicate on such actions - By s. 251 (1) of 1999 Constitution (H7) Oloruntoba-Oju v. Abdul-Raheem (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1673; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 83

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Legislative powers - Robbery - Both the Federal and the State Government can legislate thereon - By virtue of s. 14 (2) (b) of the 1999 Constitution (H1) Tanko v. State (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 541; (2009) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1131) 430

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Reference of questions - Court of Appeal - Powers - The court to which the question goes - Is limited to deciding the question referred - The referring court must decide the substance of the case (H8) Labour Party v. INEC (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 385; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1137) 315

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - State House of Assembly - First sitting of - Governor’s proclamation of - Validity - Effect of his removal by tribunal - Since he was a serving governor at time of proclamation - It is valid - It is immaterial that his election is subsequently nullified (H2) Balonwu v. Governor of Anambra State (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 274) 2569; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1172) 13

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - State House of Assembly - How dissolved - S. 105 of 1999 Constitution - Whether or not there had been proclamations for the holdings of its first session - A House stands dissolved at expiration of four years from its first sitting (H3) Balonwu v. Governor of Anambra State (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 274) 2569; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1172) 13

 

CONTRACTS - Actions - Privity of contract - Applicability - What petitioner needs to sustain his complaint against appellant - Is not privity of contract but locus standi - Which he has established by proving sufficient interest (H1) Iteogu v. LPDC (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2383; (2009) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1171) 614

 

CONTRACTS - Bailment - Action for breach - Presumption of fault - The loss of or damage to goods in bailee’s possession - Places the onus of proof on the bailee - To show that it occurred without his fault (H5) FMH v. Comet Shipping Agencies (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265) 859; (2009) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1145) 193

 

CONTRACTS - Breach - Resultant injury - Proof - Weekly loss of profit was not proved - As appellant did not provide previous sales figure - To aid Court in making deduction - Nor was the expense on prepaid phone cards proved (H2) G.K.F. Ltd v. NITEL (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1899; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1164) 344

 

CONTRACTS - Breach - Sale of goods - Rejection of supplied goods - Both the terms of contract and provisions of sale of goods law - Empower a buyer to reject goods for nonconformity with specifications - Respondent was therefore not in breach (H5) Onyekwelu v. Elf Petroleum (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 501; (2009) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1133) 181

 

CONTRACTS - Construction - Redundant machinery - As basis for damages - It requires evidence of facts such as inquiries for their hire - Depreciation & maintenance - Appellant failed to prove any of these facts (H3) Arisons Ltd v. Mil. Gov. Ogun State (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 268) 1483; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1163) 26

 

CONTRACTS - Courts - Bills of lading - Notify party - Right of audience - He has no such right whether in contract or in negligence - Not even in an action for bailment (H7) Basinco Motors Ltd v. Woermann-Line (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1609; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 149

 

CONTRACTS - Creation of - Carriage of goods - The trial judge was right to have held that a combination of the Debit note - Issued by the respondent to the appellant - And the receipt voucher - Created a contract between the parties (H4) FMH v. Comet Shipping Agencies (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265) 859; (2009) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1145) 193

 

CONTRACTS - Damages - Proof - Concession - Effect - Concession by counsel is relevant only where the law allows it - Respondent’s counsel’s concession can not make claim for damages recoverable - Without proof (H3) G.K.F. Ltd v. NITEL (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1899; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1164) 344

 

CONTRACTS - Employment contracts - Nature of - How determined - Question of whether it is governed by statute or not - Depends on construction of the contract or the relevant statute (H11) Oloruntoba-Oju v. Abdul-Raheem (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1673; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 83

 

CONTRACTS - Enforceability - Illegality ex-facie - Attitude of courts - Whether such Illegality is pleaded or not - The court would not close its eyes against it - It has a duty to refuse to enforce the contract (H1) Fasel Services Limited v. NPA (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265) 843; (2009) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1146) 400

 

CONTRACTS - Illegality - Purport of - Where a Statute declares a contract not only void - But also imposes a penalty for violation - The contract is illegal ab initio (H2) Fasel Services Limited v. NPA (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265) 843; (2009) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1146) 400

 

CONTRACTS - Land Law - Agreement to sale - Effect - Where there is such agreement pursuant to which the purchaser makes part payment - And is put in possession - He acquires equitable interest as high as a legal estate (H1) Ohiaeri v. Yussuf (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 455; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1137) 207

 

CONTRACTS - Loan agreements - Agreed interest rate - Binding effect - From admissions of PW1 the parties agreed on 14% p.a. interest - Repayable as from January 1985 - Respondent is therefore entitled to charge the agreed interest rate (H7) Olalomi Industries Ltd v. N.I.D.B. Ltd (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2001; (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1167) 266

 

CONTRACTS - Locus standi - Requirements - Claim of plaintiff must, inter alia, reveal a justiciable cause of action - So where action is for breach of contract - There is need for privity of contract (H5) Basinco Motors Ltd v. Woermann-Line (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1609; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 149

 

CONTRACTS - Privity of contract - Purport of - It portrays that generally a contract affects the parties thereto - And cannot be enforced by or against a person - Who is not a party to it (H6) Basinco Motors Ltd v. Woermann-Line (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1609; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 149

 

CONTRACTS - Specific performance - Sale of land contract - Such contract attracts greater justification for a decree of specific performance - As the land may have a peculiar value (H6) Ohiaeri v. Yussuf (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 455; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1137) 207

 

CONTRACTS - Statutory provisions - Waiver - Applicability - Statutory provisions cannot be waived - As no one is permitted to contract out or waive - A rule of public policy (H6) Olufeagba v. Abdur-Raheem (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 274) 2667; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 384

 

CONVEYANCING - Administration of estates - Multiple administrators - Execution of conveyance - One administrator can validly execute a conveyance - Provided it is done with the agreement of the other administrators (H3) Ohiaeri v. Yussuf (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 455; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1137) 207

 

CONVICTION - Armed robbery - Propriety of - Though the extrajudicial statement was expunged by the Court of Appeal - There is sufficient evidence on the records - To sustain the conviction of the appellant (H6) Tanko v. State (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 541; (2009) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1131) 430

 

CONVICTION - Conspiracy - Conviction of one person alone - Propriety - Conviction of one suggests the guilt of the others - As it takes two to conspire - But each case must be considered on its own facts (H7) Sule v. State (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1737; (2009) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1169) 33

 

CONVICTION - Conviction of co-accused - And discharge of one - Propriety - Though where evidence is same against two accused persons - In all material respect - Discharge for one should be discharge for both - Evidence herein is not the same (H1) Bolanle v. State (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 272) 2211; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1172) 1

 

CONVICTION - Propriety - Murder - A person need not to be convicted of conspiracy to murder - Before he is convicted of murder - Though he is charged with both offences (H9) Omotola v. State (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 683; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1139) 148

 

CONVICTION - Sufficiency of evidence - Court can convict on evidence of one credible witness - Unless where the law requires corroboration (H1) Sule v. State (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1737; (2009) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1169) 33

 

CORROBORATION - Conviction - Sufficiency of evidence - Court can convict on evidence of one credible witness - Unless where the law requires corroboration (H1) Sule v. State (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1737; (2009) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1169) 33

 

CORROBORATION - Dieing declaration - Proof - Sufficiency of - Though evidence of PW2 cannot pass for dying declaration - Exhibits B, B1, C & F richly corroborate the testimonies of PW1 & PW2 (H4) Olabode v. State (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1337; (2009) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1152) 254

 

COURT PROCESSES - Abuse - Similar subsequent motion - While the first is pending - As the first was withdrawn before the second was moved - There is no abuse under the circumstance (H4) Tomtec Ltd v. FHA (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2471; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 358

 

COURT PROCESSES - Claims - On which filing fees are not paid - Proper order to make - If the default is that of the plaintiff & there is no appropriate remedial action - Or application to regularize the anomaly - The claim should be struck out (H2) Akpaji v. Udemba (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 263; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1138) 545

 

COURT PROCESSES - Filing - Requirements - It should be presented to the court’s registry for assessment - The notice of intention to defend was not so presented - Therefore it was not filed before the High Court of Plateau State (H2) Abia St. Trans. Corp. v. Quorum Consortium Ltd (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 266) 973; (2009) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1145) 1

 

COURT PROCESSES - Filing fees - Failure to pay - Effect - It does not raise issue of jurisdiction - It is a mere irregularity which when not taken timeously or when acquiesced in - Becomes incapable of affecting the proceedings in any way (H1) Akpaji v. Udemba (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 263; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1138) 545

 

COURT PROCESSES - Filing fees - Under assessment - Liability for - A litigant or his counsel is not to be held liable - For the failure of the registrar to correctly or properly assess filing fees (H3) Akpaji v. Udemba (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 263; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1138) 545

 

COURT PROCESSES - Statement of claim - Amendment - Whether effective - The original statement of claim is the extant statement of claim - As the proposed amendment - Which counsel said was deemed properly filed - Was in fact not filed (H1) Amadi v. Chinda (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265) 819; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1148) 107

 

COURT PROCESSES - Taken contrary to the law - Effect - It is a nullity - For which the affected party is at liberty to set aside ex debito justitiae (H6) Onwuka v. Ononuju (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1393; (2009) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1151) 174

 

COURTS - Abuse of processes - Similar subsequent motion - While the first is pending - As the first was withdrawn before the second was moved - There is no abuse under the circumstance (H4) Tomtec Ltd v. FHA (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2471; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 358

 

COURTS - Actions - Claims - Binding effect - A judge is bound by claims of the parties - He should not go beyond them - For doing so will be granting reliefs not claimed (H5) Amadi v. Chinda (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265) 819; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1148) 107

 

COURTS - Actions - Reliefs granted - Relation with findings - Though trial court properly evaluated - And made proper findings of fact - The relief granted thereafter did not flow from the findings (H9) Osuji v. Ekeocha (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2033; (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1166) 81

 

COURTS - Adjournments - Grant of - Relevant considerations - Court should consider applicant’s attitude in the course of the proceedings - As adjournments are not granted for the asking - Particularly under the undefended list where speed is the emphasis (H10) Joel Okunrinboye Exp. Ltd v. Skye Bank Plc (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 477; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1138) 518

 

COURTS - Affidavits - Reliance on affidavits - Not referred to by parties - Propriety - Where the contents appear damaging to a party’s case - Trial court should give him opportunity to react thereto - Before relying on it (H2) Oyewole v. Akande (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2119; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1163) 119

 

COURTS - Appeal courts - Omissions by trial court - Power to correct - Court of Appeal is in as good a position as trial court to do or refrain from doing - What trial court has erroneously done or refrained from (H1) Arisons Ltd v. Mil. Gov. Ogun State (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 268) 1483; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1163) 26

 

COURTS - Appeals - Briefs - Badly written - Duty of courts - Court should do its best to understand and resolve the issues arising therefrom on the merits - As courts are in favour of considering cases on merits rather than technicalities of law (H1) Anyaegwu v. Onuche (2009) 1 KLR (pt. 262) 1; (2009) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1129) 659

 

COURTS - Appeals - Concurrent findings - Supported by evidence - Fate of -Such findings - As the customary tenancy status of 1st to 12th appellants - Will not be interfered with by appellate court (H3) Jinadu v. Esurombi-Aro (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265) 883; (2009) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1145) 55

 

COURTS - Appeals - Documents - Evaluation by appellate court - Propriety - Appellate High Court was right to have evaluated Exhibit A - For appellate court is in as good a position as trial court in evaluating documentary evidence (H6) Ogbe v. Asade (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2425; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1172) 106

 

COURTS - Appeals - Findings - Letter of retirement - Basis of - Pension Act - The circular referred to by the letter made reference to the Act - Court of Appeal was wrong therefore to hold that the letter did not refer to the Act (H1) Abdullahi v. Mil. Admin. Kaduna State (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1767; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1165) 417

 

COURTS - Appeals - Findings - Relevancy - Exhibit 17 - It alleges that the retirement was on the basis of Pension Act - Which allegation is denied by respondents - So Court of Appeal was wrong to hold that it is irrelevant (H2) Abdullahi v. Mil. Admin. Kaduna State (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1767; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1165) 417

 

COURTS - Appeals - Findings of fact - Not supported by record - Fate of - As there was ample evidence in support of the rejection of the goods supplied by the appellant contrary to the finding of the trial court - Court of Appeal was right to have set aside the finding (H4) Onyekwelu v. Elf Petroleum (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 501; (2009) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1133) 181

 

COURTS - Appeals - Grounds of appeal - Hierarchy of courts - Supreme Court - Where a ground of appeal is of law - Notwithstanding that particulars thereof centre on the activities of the High Court - The ground does not cease to be a complaint against the Court of Appeal decision (H2) Jimoh v. Akande (2009) 1 KLR (pt. 262) 39; (2009) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1135) 549

 

COURTS - Appeals - Issues - Nonpayment of consideration for land - Propriety - Court of Appeal was in error in raising the issue - As a basis for allowing the appeal - Since there was no such issue before it (H1) Egharevba v. Osagie (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 274) 2613; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 299

 

COURTS - Appeals - Issues - Raised suo motu - Propriety of - There was proper pleading of special damages - This obviates the need to consider propriety or otherwise of suo motu raising of the issue - By Court of Appeal (H3) Amadi v. Chinda (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265) 819; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1148) 107

 

COURTS - Appeals - Issues - Resolution of - Contrary to the allegation of the appellant - Court of Appeal did answer question No. 2 - When it held that the order refers to the nullified general election - And that s. 32(7) of the Electoral Act does not apply (H2) Labour Party v. INEC (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 385; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1137) 315

 

COURTS - Appeals - Right of - Applicability of Rules of Court - Decisions under Failed Banks Decree - Provisions of the Decree are special in nature - Therefore while exercising jurisdiction thereunder - Court of Appeal could not resort to rules of court (H2) Uwagba v. FRN (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1439; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1163) 91

 

COURTS - Appeals - Right of appeal - Source & implication - It can only be conferred by statute - So where the Constitution has donated a right of appeal - Without any condition - Court of Appeal can not lay such a condition (H3) Uwagba v. FRN (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1439; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1163) 91

 

COURTS - Appeals - Trial court - Exercise of discretion - Interference - Duty of appellate court - It is incumbent on appellate court to show that the discretion - Has been exercised arbitrarily - And has occasioned miscarriage of justice (H3) Uzuda v. Ebigah (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2189; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1163) 1

 

COURTS - Appeals - Validity - Crime - Academic issues - Where appellant has served out his sentence - The appeal becomes academic - And courts do not deal with academic matters (H1) Amanchukwu v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 287; (2009) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1144) 475

 

COURTS - Appellate court - Evaluation of evidence - Propriety of - Where trial court fails to properly evaluate the evidence before it - Appellate court may evaluate same to make proper findings (H6) Onyekwelu v. Elf Petroleum (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 501; (2009) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1133) 181

 

COURTS - Armed robbery - Sentence of death - Mode of execution - It is not for the trial court to prescribe mode - Under the Robbery & Firearms Act - But where it does - It does not vitiate the proceedings (H5) Tanko v. State (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 541; (2009) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1131) 430

 

COURTS - Arraignment - Validity - S. 215 C.P.A. - Though strict compliance is required - In absence of anything to the contrary - Trial judge must be given benefit of doubt - That he ensured compliance (H1) Olabode v. State (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1337; (2009) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1152) 254

 

COURTS - Bills of lading - Notify party - Right of audience - He has no such right whether in contract or in negligence - Not even in an action for bailment (H7) Basinco Motors Ltd v. Woermann-Line (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1609; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 149

 

COURTS - Claims for - Made as alternatives - Effect - The law permits the court to consider only one of the claims - And base its damages on it - Arguments in respect of the other claim - Are of no moment (H4) G.K.F. Ltd v. NITEL (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1899; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1164) 344

 

COURTS - Company in liquidation - Pre-action leave - Applicable Court - In view of definition of court in s. 650 of CAMA - The applicable court is Federal High Court and none other (H3) Agro Allied Dev. Ent. Ltd v. MV Northern Reefer (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1167; (2009) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1155) 255

 

COURTS - Constitution - Defects in - Effect - It renders the proceedings before the court a nullity - Such defect being extrinsic to the adjudication (H1) Our Line Ltd v. S.C.C. Ltd (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2083; (2009) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1170) 382

 

COURTS - Contracts - Enforceability - Illegality ex-facie - Attitude of courts - Whether such Illegality is pleaded or not - The court would not close its eyes against it - It has a duty to refuse to enforce the contract (H1) Fasel Services Limited v. NPA (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265) 843; (2009) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1146) 400

 

COURTS - Conviction - Sufficiency of evidence - Court can convict on evidence of one credible witness - Unless where the law requires corroboration (H1) Sule v. State (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1737; (2009) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1169) 33

 

COURTS - Crime - Trials in absentia - Failed Banks Decree - Propriety - S. 27 of the Decree clearly permits such proceedings - To the extent of executing orders arising therefrom (H5) Uwagba v. FRN (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1439; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1163) 91

 

COURTS - Customary Courts of Appeal - Composition - Propriety - It should consist of not less than three judges - For anything done under the Constitution - Including determination of existing customary law - Else it is incompetent (H2) Shelim v. Gobang (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1719; (2009) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1156) 435

 

COURTS - Damages - General damages - Quantum of - Determinant factors - A court should confine itself to the facts of the case - And the circumstances leading to the injury suffered - Trial court considered irrelevant matters (H1) Usong v. Hanseatic Int. Ltd (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1425; (2009) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1153) 522

 

COURTS - Decisions - Challenge through objection - Propriety - It is wrong to challenge decision of a court - Under the guise of preliminary objection - Since a court becomes functus officio - When it hands down a decision (H2) Tomtec Ltd v. FHA (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2471; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 358

 

COURTS - Decisions - Conspiracy - Discharge and acquittal - Propriety - Decision of trial judge acquitting and discharging other accused persons - Is perverse - Having regard to the circumstances of this case (H6) Sule v. State (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1737; (2009) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1169) 33

 

COURTS - Decisions - Failure to appeal - Effect - Where a party fails to appeal against any decision - He is deemed to have accepted it - He is consequently bound by it (H3) Tomtec Ltd v. FHA (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2471; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 358

 

COURTS - Decisions of - Found to be nullity - Power to set aside - Courts of record have inherent jurisdiction - To set aside their decisions - Found to be nullity - As rightly done by Court of Appeal (H6) Tomtec Ltd v. FHA (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2471; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 358

 

COURTS - Declaration of title - Proof - Effect of admission - Plaintiff has onus of proving title to satisfaction of the court - It is erroneous to grant a declaration of title - Based on admission in opponent’s pleadings (H2) Shasi v. Smith (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 272) 2295; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 330

 

COURTS - Deductions - Contracts - Breach - Resultant injury - Proof - Weekly loss of profit was not proved - As appellant did not provide previous sales figure - To aid Court in making deduction - Nor was the expense on prepaid phone cards proved (H2) G.K.F. Ltd v. NITEL (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1899; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1164) 344

 

COURTS - Discretion - Criminal procedure - Sentencing - Judicial discretion - Where the prescribed sentence is death only - It is not within the competence of a trial judge to reduce the death sentence - To a term of years (H4) Tanko v. State (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 541; (2009) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1131) 430

 

COURTS - Distribution of joint property - Order for - Propriety - Joint ownership was only canvassed by respondent as a defence - So court cannot predicate orders on it - In the absence of a counterclaim (H2) Osuji v. Ekeocha (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2033; (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1166) 81

 

COURTS - Documents - Withdrawn upon objection - Action by court - In view of the withdrawal - Without replying to the objection - Trial court was wrong to have marked it rejected (H2) Oguntayo v. Adelaja (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1957; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1163) 150

 

COURTS - Duty - Title - Certificate of occupancy - Evidential value - If on the state of the law a certificate of occupancy lacked evidential value - To prove title being claimed - The Court has a duty to say so (H7) Omiyale v. Macaulay (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 655; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1141) 597

 

COURTS - Error - Effect on appeal - Notwithstanding the commitment of error by a lower court - An appeal may still be dismissed - Unless such error is substantial in that it has affected the merits of the case (H2) Akayepe v. Akayepe (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1183; (2009) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1152) 217

 

COURTS - Error - Reliefs - Grant - Relationship with claim - It is when a claim succeeds - That granting of reliefs go with the success - Trial court erred in granting reliefs - Where appellant failed to prove his claim (H3) Osuji v. Ekeocha (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2033; (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1166) 81

 

COURTS - Estoppel - Res judicata - Effect of plea - Where the principles of res judicata applies to conclude plaintiff’s case - It is of no use for plaintiff to lead further evidence in the case - Defendant may move the court to dismiss the case peremptorily (H3) Jimoh v. Akande (2009) 1 KLR (pt. 262) 39; (2009) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1135) 549

 

COURTS - Evidence - Alibi - Effect of - The fact that an accused raised an alibi by his evidence - Does not imply that the alibi must be accepted by the court (H4) Omotola v. State (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 683; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1139) 148

 

COURTS - Evidence - Assessment - Documentary evidence - Effect on oral evidence - Where there is oral and documentary evidence - Documentary evidence should be used as a hanger from which to assess oral evidence (H2) Jinadu v. Esurombi-Aro (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265) 883; (2009) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1145) 55

 

COURTS - Evidence - Burden of proof - Beyond reasonable doubt - Discharge - If trial court is left with no doubt - That the offence was committed by the accused person - The burden is discharged (H2) Bolanle v. State (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 272) 2211; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1172) 1

 

COURTS - Evidence - Documents - Yet to be tendered - Findings thereon - Propriety - Those findings are premature - And ought not to have been made at this stage of the proceedings (H2) Oduko v. Govt. of Ebonyi St. Nigeria (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265) 915; (2009) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1147) 439

 

COURTS - Evidence - Evaluation - Appellate Courts - Position of - Though evaluation of evidence is for the trial court - Where it would not entail assessment of credibility of witnesses - Appellate court is in as vantage a position as trial court (H1) Mini Lodge Ltd v. Ngei (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 274) 2639; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 254

 

COURTS - Evidence - Evaluation - Duty of trial Court - It has the primary duty not only to admit or reject evidence but also to ascribe probative value thereto - Appellate court will only interfere where trial court fails to do so - Or does so improperly - Which was not the case herein (H2) Anyaegwu v. Onuche (2009) 1 KLR (pt. 262) 1; (2009) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1129) 659

 

COURTS - Evidence - Evaluation - Exhibits - Not before the court - Propriety of evaluation - A court must see the exhibits before taking any decision on them - Court of Appeal was therefore wrong to accept the finding on Exhibit A - Without seeing it (H6) Ekpemupolo v. Edremoda (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 589; (2009) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1142) 166

 

COURTS - Evidence - Evaluation - Purport - It should entail assessment of evidence of both parties - By placing same on that imaginary scale - To determine the party in whose favour the balance tilts (H6) Anyanwu v. Uzowuaka (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1829; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1159) 445

 

COURTS - Evidence - Evaluation - Role of appellate court - Where trial court has failed in its duty of properly evaluating evidence - Resulting in perverse finding - Appellate court has to intervene by reevaluating the evidence (H2) Anyanwu v. Uzowuaka (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1829; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1159) 445

 

COURTS - Evidence - Evaluation - Role of trial court - Evaluation is preeminently the business of trial court - Appeal court will not lightly interfere with same - Unless for compelling reason (H2) Musa v. State (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1929; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1165) 467

 

COURTS - Evidence - Evaluation - Role of trial court - It has the primary function of evaluating evidence - And evaluation is not the same thing as summary of the evidence - Presented by parties (H1) Anyanwu v. Uzowuaka (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1829; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1159) 445

 

COURTS - Evidence - Inconsistency rule - Application of - If appellant retracts Exhibit ‘B’ by giving inconsistent testimony at trial - Such testimony is to be treated as unreliable - While Exhibit ‘B’ is not regarded as evidence on which the court can act (H5) Sule v. State (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1737; (2009) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1169) 33

 

COURTS - Evidence - Locus in quo - Visit to - Purpose - Inspection of locus is only necessary - Where a judge has a clear doubt that he felt arose from the evidence - For the purpose of confirming what is already on the record with the actual physical inspection (H7) Ukaegbu v. Nwololo (2009) 1 KLR (pt. 262) 103; (2009) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1127) 194

 

COURTS - Evidence - Proof - Uncontroverted evidence - Unchallenged evidence of PW5 is sufficient proof of ownership - In the plaintiff - Therefore the trial court ought to have acted upon it (H1) Ibrahim v. Osunde (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 341; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1137) 382

 

COURTS - Evidence - Reevaluation - By Court of Appeal - Propriety - It is properly done - As issue (i) of appellants could not be resolved properly - Without evaluating evidence - Called by the parties at the trial (H5) Da Kabirikim v. Emefor (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1867; (2009) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1162) 602

 

COURTS - Evidence - Reevaluation - By Court of Appeal - Propriety - As parties’ briefs centred on the evidence at trial - Court of Appeal could not have ignored this aspect of the argument - Without causing miscarriage of justice (H1) G.K.F. Ltd v. NITEL (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1899; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1164) 344

 

COURTS - Evidence - Signature - Genuineness of - Where in dispute - Court has power to compare the disputed one with an undisputed version - The alleged owner of the signature need not swear to any affidavit to deny it (H5) Tomtec Ltd v. FHA (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2471; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 358

 

COURTS - Evidence - Uncontroverted evidence - Reliance by court - Propriety - Court is entitled to rely thereon - In such situation there is nothing to weigh on the imaginary scale - And onus is discharged on minimum proof (H7) Shell Petroleum v. Edamkue (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2143; (2009) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1160) 1

 

COURTS - Fair hearing - Opportunity to be heard - Which the law is designed to give - Where a defendant decides not to utilize that opportunity - He cannot turn around to blame the court - As fair hearing should also avail plaintiff (H9) Joel Okunrinboye Exp. Ltd v. Skye Bank Plc (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 477; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1138) 518

 

COURTS - Federal High Court - Exclusive jurisdiction - Applicability - A question of payment of pension to public servants under the Pensions Act - Is an issue within the administration of the relevant Federal government enterprise - So it is within the exclusive jurisdiction of Federal High Court (H3) Adekoye v. N.S.P.M.C. Ltd (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 233; (2009) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1134) 322

 

COURTS - Filing fees - Under assessment - Liability for - A litigant or his counsel is not to be held liable - For the failure of the registrar to correctly or properly assess filing fees (H3) Akpaji v. Udemba (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 263; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1138) 545

 

COURTS - Finding by trial court - False misrepresentation - Correctness - Respondents produced proceedings of 14/7/37 as final judgment - Instead of those of 5/10/38 - The finding was therefore correct (H2) Ogundele v. Agiri (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 272) 2249; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 219

 

COURTS - Findings - Family land - Partitioning of - Proof - In view of the fact that both sections of Akayepe family took part in taking the loan for the building - And in letting out the shops - The finding that the land is not partitioned is justified (H5) Akayepe v. Akayepe (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1183; (2009) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1152) 217

 

COURTS - Findings - Re-evaluation on appeal - Basis of - Where they are found to be perverse - It is the duty of appellate court - To re-evaluate same - As Court of Appeal did with the consequential orders (H8) Osuji v. Ekeocha (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2033; (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1166) 81

 

COURTS - Findings of fact - Liability of appellant - Propriety of finding - In view of the evidence on record - Particularly the instructions from 1st respondent as per Exhibit C - The finding is proper as borne out from the records (H3) Diamond Bank Ltd v. Partnership Investment Co. Ltd (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 272) 2221; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1172) 67

 

COURTS - Findings of fact - Misdirection - Applicability - Court of Appeal misdirected itself when it held that PW1 recognized appellants’ voices - Evidence before the High Court was that he recognized them with light from bush lantern (H3) Ani v. State (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 268) 1463; (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1168) 443

 

COURTS - Hearing - Proceedings during vacation - Propriety of - 0. 26 r. 9 (2) High Court Rules of Anambra State - Issue of want of jurisdiction cannot be a ground - For hearing application for discontinuance during vacation (H5) Onwuka v. Ononuju (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1393; (2009) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1151) 174

 

COURTS - High Court of Plateau State - Actions - Applicable rules - The Court is empowered to follow only provisions of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules of Plateau State - So those are the applicable rules (H1) Abia St. Trans. Corp. v. Quorum Consortium Ltd (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 266) 973; (2009) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1145) 1

 

COURTS - Holdings - Title - Proof - Sufficiency of - Appellant sufficiently proved his case before trial court - Court of Appeal was therefore wrong - To hold that he is not the holder of statutory right of occupancy over the land (H6) Amadi v. Chinda (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265) 819; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1148) 107

 

COURTS - Issues - Formulation - By appellate court - Propriety - It is proper if such will serve the ends of justice - As in this case where Court of Appeal merely added some words - To state the obvious (H6) Da Kabirikim v. Emefor (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1867; (2009) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1162) 602

 

COURTS - Issues - Raised but not resolved - Propriety of - Except the Supreme Court, all Courts generally have the duty - To resolve all issues put before them (H7) FMH v. Comet Shipping Agencies (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265) 859; (2009) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1145) 193

 

COURTS - Issues - Where irrelevant - Non-reference to it - Propriety - There is nothing wrong with it, considering that an appellate Court is entitled - To formulate its own issues - If it considers those of the parties irrelevant (H8) FMH v. Comet Shipping Agencies (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265) 859; (2009) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1145) 193

 

COURTS - Judgments - Basis - Extraneous matters - Court of Appeal based its judgment on issues not raised by parties - Without affording them opportunity to address it on them - As such it is based on extraneous matters (H3) Ogundele v. Agiri (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 272) 2249; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 219

 

COURTS - Judgments - Binding effect - It remains valid and binding on parties - Until set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction - So qualification of appellant was not in issue as at 20/2/07 (H3) Udeh v. Okoli (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 723; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1141) 571

 

COURTS - Judgments - Concurring judgment - Legal status - It forms part of the leading judgment - And is meant to complement same - Both leading & concurring judgments crystallize into the judgment of an appellate court (H15) Oloruntoba-Oju v. Abdul-Raheem (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1673; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 83

 

COURTS - Judgments - Delivery - 3 months Limitation - From final addresses - Computation - Time begins to run from the date of last address of counsel - In this case from 1st of December 1992 - Not 22nd of May 1992 (H2) Savannah Bank v. Starite Ind. Corp. (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 523; (2009) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1144) 491

 

COURTS - Judgments - Findings - Verdict of no valid interest in appellants - Affirmation - Propriety - Trial court made the finding with ample support of evidence - Court of Appeal was therefore right to have affirmed same (H3) Mini Lodge Ltd v. Ngei (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 274) 2639; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 254

 

COURTS - Judgments - Findings of fact - When made - Observations during summary of evidence - Are not findings of fact made during evaluation - In this case evaluation started from page 195 - What came before are mere observations (H2) Mini Lodge Ltd v. Ngei (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 274) 2639; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 254

 

COURTS - Judgments - Form - Preface of facts - Propriety - It is a good approach to preface consideration of issues - With exposition of background facts leading to the dispute (H1) Omotola v. State (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 683; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1139) 148

 

COURTS - Judgments - Issues - Errors - Effect - Though Court of Appeal erroneously stated that the issues outnumbered grounds of appeal filed - It nevertheless considered all the issues in its judgment (H1) Iroagbara v. Ufomadu (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1283; (2009) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1153) 587

 

COURTS - Judgments - Misconceived - Fate of - Where it is a product of a misconception of the case contained in the records - It is liable to be set aside (H6) FMH v. Comet Shipping Agencies (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265) 859; (2009) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1145) 193

 

COURTS - Judgments - Mistakes - Power of court to amend - Extent - There is inherent jurisdiction vested in courts or tribunals to amend their rulings - To take care of accidental slips - Exercise of this power does not depend on application being in writing (H3) Osigwe v. PSPLS Mgt. Consortium Ltd (2009) 1 KLR (pt. 262) 73; (2009) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1128) 378

 

COURTS - Judgments - Res judicata - Applicability - It does not apply as the earlier judgment did not make a decisive pronouncement - On validity of order making the presence of appellant mandatory on hearing date (H1) Uwagba v. FRN (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1439; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1163) 91

 

COURTS - Judgments - Stay of execution - Exercise of discretion by courts - Proper Manner - It must take into account competing rights of parties to justice - Else it has not been judicially & judiciously exercised (H2) NNPC v. Famfa Oil Ltd (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1647; (2009) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1156) 462

 

COURTS - Judgments - Styles - Propriety - There is no universal style - Each judge has his own style and each case often calls for its own approach - The important thing is that the element of good judgment are incorporated (H2) Omotola v. State (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 683; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1139) 148

 

COURTS - Judgments - Validity - Time of delivery - Non-Compliance with the time limit of 3 months after final addresses - Will not invalidate judgment - Unless it occasions a miscarriage of justice (H1) Savannah Bank v. Starite Ind. Corp. (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 523; (2009) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1144) 491

 

COURTS - Judicial notice - Election petitions - Parties - Competency - Mistake in the writing of the name notwithstanding - The facts show that the appellant intended to sue INEC - The Court ought to have judicially noticed this name (H3) Hope Democratic Party (HDP) v. INEC (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 623; (2009) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1143) 297

 

COURTS - Judicial officers - Appointment date - And swearing-in date - There is a distinction between the former and the latter - The former is the date of elevation - The latter marks assumption of office (H2) Our Line Ltd v. S.C.C. Ltd (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2083; (2009) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1170) 382

 

COURTS - Judicial precedents - Foreign laws & cases - Effect of - They are only persuasive in the interpretation of our constitution & statutes - They can not be relied on - To hold that decisions of our courts - Based on our statutes - Are not good laws (H1) Basinco Motors Ltd v. Woermann-Line (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1609; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 149

 

COURTS - Jurisdiction - Actions for declaration - Federal Government - Proper court - Federal High Court is vested with power - To adjudicate on such actions - By s. 251 (1) of 1999 Constitution (H7) Oloruntoba-Oju v. Abdul-Raheem (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1673; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 83

 

COURTS - Jurisdiction - Appellate courts - Conclusions not supported by record - An appellate court is bound by the record - It has no jurisdiction to draw conclusions - Which are not supported by the record (H5) Olufeagba v. Abdur-Raheem (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 274) 2667; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 384

 

COURTS - Jurisdiction - Armed robbery - Not only does a State High Court have jurisdiction to try it - Officials of State Ministry of Justice are also qualified to prosecute robbery in any State High Court (H2) Tanko v. State (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 541; (2009) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1131) 430

 

COURTS - Jurisdiction - Determining factor - It is the claim of the plaintiff which determines the jurisdiction of a court - To entertain a suit - The Court of Appeal was therefore right to hold that trial court had jurisdiction (H1) Oduko v. Govt. of Ebonyi St. Nigeria (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265) 915; (2009) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1147) 439

 

COURTS - Jurisdiction - Elevation of judges - Effect - It deprives the judge of jurisdiction to continue with matters - Pending before him prior to the elevation (H3) Our Line Ltd v. S.C.C. Ltd (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2083; (2009) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1170) 382

 

COURTS - Jurisdiction - Importance - It is fundamental to adjudication - A litigant must not only have genuine cause - But must also address it to the competent court - To get justice (H5) Oloruntoba-Oju v. Abdul-Raheem (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1673; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 83

 

COURTS - Jurisdiction - Juristic personality - Death of co-parties - Effect - Where a sole party to an appeal dies - And is not substituted - The appeal ends - But this is not the case where there are surviving co-parties (H1) Olufeagba v. Abdur-Raheem (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 274) 2667; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 384

 

COURTS - Jurisdiction - Matters affecting - Categorization - For purpose of waiver - They should be categorized into those affecting the public and those affecting the parties - The former cannot in law be waived - But the latter can be waived (H2) Feed & Food Farms Ltd v. NNPC (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 268) 1561

 

COURTS - Jurisdiction - Ouster provisions - Public Officers (Special Provisions) Act - Scope - It ousts the jurisdiction of the court from adjudicating on a suit - Filed by a dismissed public officer - So far as dismissal was purported to have been done under the Act (H1) Kalango v. Gov. Bayelsa State (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 365; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1139) 17

 

COURTS - Justice - Interest of - Technicalities - Though rules of court should be complied with by parties - It is in the interest of justice that technicalities must be shunned - And claims determined on merit (H4) Oloruntoba-Oju v. Abdul-Raheem (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1673; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 83

 

COURTS - Land law - Reliefs - Sharing order by court - Effect - Its effect is the partitioning or allotment of the property - Since both partition or allotment is strictly a family affair - The court cannot do so by stroke of pen (H12) Osuji v. Ekeocha (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2033; (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1166) 81

 

COURTS - Land law - Title - Proof - Rule in Kojo v. Bonsie - Where there is a conflict of traditional history - With both sides appearing honest in their story - Court should decide by testing the probability of each story - On the basis of experience and wisdom (H4) Ukaegbu v. Nwololo (2009) 1 KLR (pt. 262) 103; (2009) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1127) 194

 

COURTS - Legal personality - Mistake in name - Effect - Respondents and Court were not misled as to the person sued - In view of the acronym added to that name - Court of Appeal wrongfully held that it was a non-juristic person (H5) Hope Democratic Party (HDP) v. INEC (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 623; (2009) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1143) 297

 

COURTS - Locus standi - Effect on jurisdiction - It is a forerunner to jurisdiction - Where plaintiff lacks locus standi - Court will decline jurisdiction (H4) Basinco Motors Ltd v. Woermann-Line (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1609; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 149

 

COURTS - Mistakes - Effect on appeal - Mistake by court will not lead to nullification of proceedings - Or result in appeal being allowed - Unless it has occasioned miscarriage of justice (H8) Sule v. State (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1737; (2009) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1169) 33

 

COURTS - National Industrial Court - Jurisdiction - Scope - Did not include jurisdiction to make declaration - And to order injunction - Under the Trade Dispute Act 1976 (H8) Oloruntoba-Oju v. Abdul-Raheem (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1673; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 83

 

COURTS - Order - Nature of - Court of Appeal’s order for further hearing - It is an interlocutory order - As it did not determine the suit finally (H2) Gomez v. Cherubim & Seraphim Society (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1211; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1149) 223

 

COURTS - Order for retrial - Purpose - Appellate court orders a retrial - Where trial court made no finding of fact on conflicting evidence - On an issue the resolution of which is essential in the just determination of the case - Which is not the case herein (H8) Ukaegbu v. Nwololo (2009) 1 KLR (pt. 262) 103; (2009) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1127) 194

 

COURTS - Order not claimed - Making of - Proper steps - Court must hear the view of the parties - Before making such order - Since somebody’s right must be affected - He should not be denied the right to be heard (H10) Osuji v. Ekeocha (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2033; (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1166) 81

 

COURTS - Orders - Binding effect - Even where it is perverse, a court order must be obeyed - Until it is set aside by a competent court - It is therefore of no moment whether the Court of Appeal was right in making the order (H6) Labour Party v. INEC (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 385; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1137) 315

 

COURTS - Orders - Nature of - Whether interlocutory or final - Applicable test - The test varies in accordance with the court that gave the order - Whether it is court of trial or appellate court (H1) Gomez v. Cherubim & Seraphim Society (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1211; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1149) 223

 

COURTS - Orders of Court - Leave to sue - Variation - By a court of equal jurisdiction - Such order does not constitute a decision of a judge - That cannot be varied by a judge of equal jurisdiction - Therefore it was properly varied (H6) Shell Petroleum v. Edamkue (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2143; (2009) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1160) 1

 

COURTS - Parties - Capacity - Effect - The 2nd respondent was sued in his personal capacity - Whereas the law says he should be sued in official capacity - Court of Appeal rightly struck out his name (H6) Hope Democratic Party (HDP) v. INEC (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 623; (2009) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1143) 297

 

COURTS - Parties - Disputes - Amicable resolution - Attitude of court - It is one of the cardinal principles of our judicial system - To allow parties to amicably resolve disputes between them (H1) Star Paper Mill Ltd v. Adetunji (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2173; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1159) 647

 

COURTS - Pleadings - Motion to strike out - Determination of - What to consider - The Court must restrict itself to facts in the particular pleading - Without recourse to the opponent’s pleading - As rightly done by Court of Appeal (H2) Ojukwu v. Yar’adua (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 266) 1017; (2009) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1154) 50

 

COURTS - Practice & procedure - Undefended list procedure - Intention to defend - Filed out of time without leave - Effect of - It is invalid and should be discountenanced by court - Towards maintaining speedy hearing of liquidated suits (H3) Joel Okunrinboye Exp. Ltd v. Skye Bank Plc (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 477; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1138) 518

 

COURTS - Processes - Taken contrary to the law - Effect - It is a nullity - For which the affected party is at liberty to set aside ex debito justitiae (H6) Onwuka v. Ononuju (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1393; (2009) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1151) 174

 

COURTS - Proof - Uncontroverted evidence - Attitude of court - As the only facts before trial court were as deposed by respondent - That the transaction took place in Jos - Trial court was right to have assumed jurisdiction (H4) Abia St. Trans. Corp. v. Quorum Consortium Ltd (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 266) 973; (2009) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1145) 1

 

COURTS - Reference of questions - Court of Appeal - Powers - The court to which the question goes - Is limited to deciding the question referred - The referring court must decide the substance of the case (H8) Labour Party v. INEC (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 385; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1137) 315

 

COURTS - Representative capacity - Judgment in - Propriety - Once pleadings and evidence show that a case is fought in that capacity - Court can enter judgment in that capacity - Even if an amendment to reflect the capacity - Has neither been sought nor obtained (H2) Shell Petroleum v. Edamkue (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2143; (2009) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1160) 1

 

COURTS - Resolution of issues - After a finding of lack of jurisdiction - Propriety - Any court below the Supreme Court - Is in order to take the merits - After such finding - In case the finding is declared wrong on appeal (H6) Feed & Food Farms Ltd v. NNPC (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 268) 1561

 

COURTS - Statutes - Construction - Primary concern - Is the ascertainment of intention of legislature - So where the language is clear & explicit - The words of a statute must not be overruled by judges (H1) Agro Allied Dev. Ent. Ltd v. MV Northern Reefer (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1167; (2009) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1155) 255

 

COURTS - Stay of execution - Grant of - Determinant factors - Courts should not grant stay unless there are special circumstances - Like likelihood of subject matter of proceedings being destroyed (H1) NNPC v. Famfa Oil Ltd (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1647; (2009) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1156) 462

 

COURTS - Terms of settlement - Adoption - Whether automatic - Courts have discretion as to whether or not - To adopt terms of settlement as their judgments - Particularly where such terms are vague (H3) Star Paper Mill Ltd v. Adetunji (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2173; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1159) 647

 

COURTS - Terms of settlement - Rejection by court - Propriety - Court of Appeal was right in not accepting to enter it as its judgment - As it did not state clearly the rights created or abandoned - In respect of the subject matter (H4)Star Paper Mill Ltd v. Adetunji (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2173; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1159) 647

 

COURTS - Undefended list procedure - Notice of intention to defend - Time within which to file - It must be filed before the return date or the defendant would be out of time - Requiring leave of court to file it subsequently (H2) Joel Okunrinboye Exp. Ltd v. Skye Bank Plc (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 477; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1138) 518

 

COURTS - Witnesses - Minors - Prior examination by court - In view of available evidence - This is not a case in which trial court needed to conduct prior examination - As to the intelligence of the witness (H7) Omotola v. State (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 683; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1139) 148

 

CRIME - Allegation of in civil proceedings - Standard of proof required - The main claim being for compensation for loss - Crime not being directly in issue - Proof beyond reasonable doubt is inapplicable (H4) A.S.E.S.A. v. Ekwenem (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1803; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1158) 410

 

CRIME - Issue of - Civil Actions - Whether crime is in issue - How determined - Crime is in issue when commission of crime - Alleged in the pleadings - Is the basis of the claim or defence (H1) A.S.E.S.A. v. Ekwenem (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1803; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1158) 410

 

CRIME - Special damages - Involving allegation of crime - Standard of proof - Applicable standard is proof beyond reasonable doubt - Having failed to so prove it - Claim for special damages was rightly refused (H10) Anyanwu v. Uzowuaka (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1829; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1159) 445

 

CRIMINAL LAW - Armed robbery - Meaning - Ingredients - It simply means stealing plus violence - Used or threatened - From the evidence on record - These were established (H7) Tanko v. State (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 541; (2009) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1131) 430

 

CRIMINAL LAW - Culpable homicide - Punishable with death - Ingredients - It must be proved that a person’s death - Was caused by accused - With prior intention of causing death (H1) Musa v. State (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1929; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1165) 467

 

CRIMINAL LAW - Defences - Provocation - Availability - There is no evidence that deceased uttered any word - To provoke appellant to a state of rage - Before he stabbed the deceased to death (H4) Musa v. State (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1929; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1165) 467

 

CRIMINAL LAW - Defences - Self defence - Availability - To avail accused person - He must not have been the aggressor in the first instance - Unlike appellant herein who was the aggressor (H5) Musa v. State (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1929; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1165) 467

 

CRIMINAL LAW - Defences - Sudden fight - Applicability - Penal Code, s. 222 (4) - For the provision to apply there must be sudden fight - In the heat of passion - Which was not the case herein (H6) Musa v. State (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1929; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1165) 467

 

CRIMINAL LAW - Evidence - Murder - Circumstantial evidence - Limits - The inference that the person last seen with the deceased is the murderer - Would be irrelevant - Where there is undisputed evidence as to how deceased died (H1) Mbang v. State (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2405; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1172) 140

 

CRIMINAL LAW - Murder - Conspiracy - Countermanding - Applicability - That appellant revealed the decision to kill to P.W. 3 - Did not amount in law to a renunciation of the agreement (H11) Omotola v. State (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 683; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1139) 148

 

CRIMINAL LAW - Murder - Liability - Common intention as basis - Requisites - It must be proved that there was common intention to prosecute unlawful purpose - In furtherance of which deceased was killed - As a probable consequence of that purpose (H2) Mbang v. State (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2405; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1172) 140

 

CRIMINAL LAW - Robbery - Legislative powers - Both the Federal and the State Government can legislate thereon - By virtue of s. 14 (2) (b) of the 1999 Constitution (H1) Tanko v. State (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 541; (2009) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1131) 430

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Admissions - Exhibit ‘B’ - Self defence - Applicability - Exhibit B is an admission by appellant - That he did the act for which he was charged - So also his plea of self-defence (H3) Sule v. State (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1737; (2009) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1169) 33

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Alibi - Disproof - Whether achieved - In view of the evidence before the trial court - The prosecution has been unable to fix the appellant at the scene of crime - So the alibi was not disproved (H2) Almu v. State (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265) 797; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1148) 31

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Alibi - Duty on party raising it - He has the burden of establishing the circumstances of the alibi - Appellant failed to so establish - So police had nothing to investigate (H1) Ndukwe v. State (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 413; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1139) 43

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Alibi - Effect of - The fact that an accused raised an alibi by his evidence - Does not imply that the alibi must be accepted by the court (H4) Omotola v. State (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 683; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1139) 148

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Alibi - Evaluation of - The 1st appellant gave sufficient information in support of his alibi - Therefore the two courts below were in error in the peremptory manner - They dismissed the defence (H3) Omotola v. State (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 683; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1139) 148

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Alibi - Investigation of - Duty of prosecution - Once an accused pleads alibi - Giving details of his whereabouts - The prosecution has the burden of investigating it - Failure to do so is an admission of the story of the accused (H1) Almu v. State (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265) 797; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1148) 31

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Alibi - Manner of raising - Propriety of - It must be raised at the earliest opportunity - When accused is confronted by the police - So that police may check it out (H2) Ebenehi v. State (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 575; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1138) 431

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Alibi - Rebuttal - Duty of prosecution - Once alibi is raised - Burden is on prosecution to investigate and rebut such evidence - Neither of which was done in this case (H4) Ani v. State (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 268) 1463; (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1168) 443

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Armed robbery - Power to prosecute - Not only does a State High Court have jurisdiction to try it - Officials of State Ministry of Justice are also qualified to prosecute robbery in any State High Court (H2) Tanko v. State (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 541; (2009) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1131) 430

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Armed robbery - Proof - Circumstantial evidence - Sufficiency of - Evidence of PW 2 sufficiently linked 2nd appellant - As being in the armed robbery gang (H3) Ebenehi v. State (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 575; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1138) 431

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Armed robbery - Sentence of death - Mode of execution - It is not for the trial court to prescribe mode - Under the Robbery & Firearms Act - But where it does - It does not vitiate the proceedings (H5) Tanko v. State (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 541; (2009) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1131) 430

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Arraignment - English language - Propriety - There is nothing on record suggesting that appellant did not understand the charge - When read & explained to him (H2) Olabode v. State (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1337; (2009) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1152) 254

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Arraignment - Validity - S. 215 C.P.A. - Though strict compliance is required - In absence of anything to the contrary - Trial judge must be given benefit of doubt - That he ensured compliance (H1) Olabode v. State (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1337; (2009) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1152) 254

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Burden of proof - Beyond reasonable doubt - Discharge - If trial court is left with no doubt - That the offence was committed by the accused person - The burden is discharged (H2) Bolanle v. State (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 272) 2211; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1172) 1

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Circumstantial evidence - Effect of - Where there is circumstantial evidence conclusively pointing to guilt of accused - It raises a presumption of guilt - To be rebutted by accused - Which accused herein failed to do (H3) Arogundare v. State (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 299; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1136) 165

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Circumstantial evidence - Quality of - One test which such evidence must satisfy is that it should lead to the guilt of the accused - Leaving no possibility that other persons could have committed the offence (H1) Ebenehi v. State (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 575; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1138) 431

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Conspiracy - Conviction of one person alone - Propriety - Conviction of one suggests the guilt of the others - As it takes two to conspire - But each case must be considered on its own facts (H7) Sule v. State (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1737; (2009) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1169) 33

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Conspiracy - Discharge and acquittal - Propriety - Decision of trial judge acquitting and discharging other accused persons - Is perverse - Having regard to the circumstances of this case (H6) Sule v. State (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1737; (2009) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1169) 33

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Conspiracy - Proof - It is an offence which is difficult to prove because it is hatched in secrecy - Circumstantial evidence is used to point to the fact - As does the failure of the 5th appellant to forewarn the deceased (H10) Omotola v. State (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 683; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1139) 148

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Conviction - Sufficiency of evidence - Court can convict on evidence of one credible witness - Unless where the law requires corroboration (H1) Sule v. State (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1737; (2009) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1169) 33

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Conviction of co-accused - And discharge of one - Propriety - Though where evidence is same against two accused persons - In all material respect - Discharge for one should be discharge for both - Evidence herein is not the same (H1) Bolanle v. State (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 272) 2211; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1172) 1

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Crime - Duty to report - It is the duty of citizens to report crime to the police - What happens after the report is the responsibility of the police (H4) Fajemirokun v. Commercial Bank Nig. Ltd. (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 315; (2009) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1135) 588

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Evidence - Admissibility - Hearsay - Applicability - Where a witness before whom an oral confession is made - Testifies in the open court as to what he was told - It is not hearsay but a direct evidence of what he was told (H2) Arogundare v. State (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 299; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1136) 165

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Evidence - Admissibility - Hearsay - Applicability - PW1 & PW2 gave evidence of what they saw and heard from deceased - Their evidence can not be inadmissable - As constituting hearsay evidence (H3) Olabode v. State (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1337; (2009) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1152) 254

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Evidence - Confession of co-accused - Effect - A man’s confession is only evidence against him - Not against his accomplices - Confession of 1st accused cannot therefore be used against appellant (H3) Mbang v. State (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2405; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1172) 140

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Evidence - Confessional statement - Admissibility - Any contention that Exhibit ‘B’ is inadmissible is misconceived - In view of the evidence on record - And the absence of objection by defence counsel (H4) Sule v. State (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1737; (2009) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1169) 33

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Evidence - Inconsistency rule - Application of - If appellant retracts Exhibit ‘B’ by giving inconsistent testimony at trial - Such testimony is to be treated as unreliable - While Exhibit ‘B’ is not regarded as evidence on which the court can act (H5) Sule v. State (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1737; (2009) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1169) 33

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Evidence - Witnesses - Kinship with the parties - Blood relationship with the victim of crime cannot be regarded as a basis - To describe their evidence as untrue, biased or tainted (H5) Omotola v. State (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 683; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1139) 148

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Identification parade - Necessity of - As much as there was evidence which the trial court accepted - That P.W. 10 knew appellant before the event - Formal identification parade was not necessary (H8) Omotola v. State (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 683; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1139) 148

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Identity of accused - Recognition - Need for early mention - Though PW1 explained why he did not mention names to villagers - But DW1 insists that he also failed to mention them when he first reported to police (H1) Ani v. State (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 268) 1463; (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1168) 443

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Investigations - Identification parade - Necessity of - It is not necessary in this case - Where PW7 knew the appellant before the incident (H4) Almu v. State (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265) 797; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1148) 31

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Murder - Conviction - Propriety - A person need not to be convicted of conspiracy to murder - Before he is convicted of murder - Though he is charged with both offences (H9) Omotola v. State (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 683; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1139) 148

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Murder - Proof - Sufficiency of - Evidence against 1st and 2nd appellants is more than circumstantial - Their unexplained presence in the group that killed the deceased - At the time of the killing - Is sufficient proof of guilt (H6) Omotola v. State (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 683; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1139) 148

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Oral confessions - Admissibility - Being an admission made by a person - Suggesting that he committed the offence - It is a relevant fact against him and admissible under s. 27 of Evidence Act (H1) Arogundare v. State (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 299; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1136) 165

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Orders of court - Retrial - Propriety - The order cannot be made in a situation where the appellant is exposed to prejudice - As in this case where the appellant has served a substantial part of his sentence (H2) Umaru v. State (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 743; (2009) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1142) 134

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Proof - Contradictions - Effect - If there are contradictions in evidence of prosecution - Materially affecting the charge - Doubt will be created benefit of which must be given to accused (H3) Almu v. State (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265) 797; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1148) 31

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Proof - Identity of accused - Where prosecution witnesses who knew him closely - Identify him at the scene of crime - Their evidence is reliable - If the defence does not demolish it (H2) Ndukwe v. State (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 413; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1139) 43

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Proof beyond reasonable doubt - Purport - Once all essential ingredients of an offence - Have been satisfactorily proved - The charge is proved beyond reasonable doubt (H7) Musa v. State (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1929; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1165) 467

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Prosecution evidence - Minor contradictions - Effect - Where it did not affect credibility of witnesses - It cannot vitiate the case of the prosecution (H3) Musa v. State (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1929; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1165) 467

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Sentencing - Judicial discretion - Where the prescribed sentence is death only - It is not within the competence of a trial judge to reduce the death sentence - To a term of years (H4) Tanko v. State (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 541; (2009) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1131) 430

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Trials in absentia - Failed Banks Decree - Propriety - S. 27 of the Decree clearly permits such proceedings - To the extent of executing orders arising therefrom (H5) Uwagba v. FRN (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1439; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1163) 91

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Witnesses - Number of - Sufficiency - Prosecution is not bound to call all witnesses - The need for appearance in court of the pathologist did not arise - In view of evidence on record (H5) Olabode v. State (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1337; (2009) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1152) 254

 

CROSS EXAMINATION - Effect - Appellants’ suit against Rebisi Youths - Though this fact which was extracted while cross examining a defence witness - Was not pleaded in the statement of claim - It tends to support appellants’ claim (H5) Anyanwu v. Uzowuaka (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1829; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1159) 445

 

CROSS EXAMINATION - Evidence - Taken in earlier proceedings - Relevancy - To later proceedings - It is irrelevant - Except for purpose of discrediting the particular witness - In cross examination - And for that purpose only (H4) Oguntayo v. Adelaja (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1957; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1163) 150

 

CUSTOMARY LAW - Allottee & customary tenant - Difference - Though both exercise occupational rights over land - The allottee’s interest in family land cannot be forfeited - Unlike that of the customary tenant (H7) Dim v. Enemuo (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 266) 1117; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1149) 353

 

CUSTOMARY LAW - Bini customary law - Inheritance of Igiogbe - Applicability - Before the custom can come into play it must be established - That the ownership of the house sought to be inherited thereunder - Was on a firm ground (H2) Ibrahim v. Osunde (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 341; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1137) 382

 

CUSTOMARY LAW - Customary Courts of Appeal - Composition - Propriety - It should consist of not less than three judges - For anything done under the Constitution - Including determination of existing customary law - Else it is incompetent (H2) Shelim v. Gobang (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1719; (2009) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1156) 435

 

CUSTOMARY LAW - Customary tenancy - Abandonment - How proved - Being a matter of intention it can be shown - By proving facts from which such intention may be inferred - Or by direct evidence of the party concerned (H6) Dim v. Enemuo (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 266) 1117; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1149) 353

 

CUSTOMARY LAW - Customary tenancy - Forfeiture - Applicability - There is no evidence of customary tenancy - Between appellant and respondent - So the question of forfeiture does not arise (H5) Iroagbara v. Ufomadu (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1283; (2009) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1153) 587

 

CUSTOMARY LAW - Customary tenancy - Grant of forfeiture - Propriety - In the absence of specific finding by trial court on ishakole - And as such on issue of customary tenancy - There can be no grant of forfeiture (H7) Bamgbegbin v. Oriare (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 268) 1525; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1158) 370

 

CUSTOMARY LAW - Customary tenancy - Grantor’s title - Denial - By a plea of jus terti - Attitude of courts - License will not be grated to tenants to deny their grantors’ title - Through a plea of jus terti (H5) Jinadu v. Esurombi-Aro (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265) 883; (2009) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1145) 55

 

CUSTOMARY LAW - Customary tenancy - Payment of tribute - It is not an incident of customary tenancy - That tributes can be paid by customary tenant to the landlord through a third party - As alleged by appellants herein (H4) Dashi v. Satlong (2009) 1 KLR (pt. 262) 1; (2009) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1134) 281

 

CUSTOMARY LAW - Customary tenancy - Title - Declaration of - Judicial precedents - Where title is in a 3rd party - Court will not grant such declaration - But instant facts are distinguishable from Dada case - As evidence show that appellants are customary tenants of respondents (H4) Jinadu v. Esurombi-Aro (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265) 883; (2009) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1145) 55

 

CUSTOMARY LAW - Customary tenancy - Title to land - Proof - In view of appellants’ assertion that respondents are in possession by customary tenancy - Appellants can only prove their title by proving customary tenancy of respondents - Which they have failed to do (H5) Dashi v. Satlong (2009) 1 KLR (pt. 262) 1; (2009) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1134) 281

 

CUSTOMARY LAW - Family membership - Matrilineal descent - Applicability - No customary law forbids a Yoruba man - From tracing his family membership along his maternal line - Trial court was wrong to have discounted that possibility (H1) Oyewole v. Akande (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2119; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1163) 119

 

CUSTOMARY LAW - Family property - Disposition of - Where done by the head of family without consent of other family members - It is valid - Though it is voidable at the instance of those other family members (H4) Ohiaeri v. Yussuf (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 455; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1137) 207

 

CUSTOMARY LAW - Judicial precedents - Distinguishing - Coram of Customary Courts of Appeal - Decision in Golok v. Diyalpwan based on s. 224 of 1979 Constitution - Remains intact - As it was made when the coram of the court was fluid (H4) Shelim v. Gobang (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1719; (2009) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1156) 435

 

CUSTOMARY LAW - Land law - Customary tenancy - Admission of existence - Issue of - The issue cannot now be raised by appellants - As it was neither raised nor canvassed - Before the lower courts (H2) Oshoboja v. Amida (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 272) 2275; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1172) 164

 

DAMAGES - Appeals - Issues - Raised suo motu - Propriety of - There was proper pleading of special damages - This obviates the need to consider propriety or otherwise of suo motu raising of the issue - By Court of Appeal (H3) Amadi v. Chinda (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265) 819; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1148) 107

 

DAMAGES - Award - Basis - It is not awarded as a matter of course - Nor based on sentiment - It is based on legal evidence of probative value - Adduced for establishment of actionable wrong (H10) A.S.E.S.A. v. Ekwenem (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1803; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1158) 410

 

DAMAGES - Award - Entitlement - Sufficiency of proof - Evidence of PW4 established that appellant can no longer use the land - For industrial purposes - This is sufficient proof that appellant suffered damages (H4) Feed & Food Farms Ltd v. NNPC (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 268) 1561

 

DAMAGES - Award - Purpose - It is awarded to compensate plaintiff for loss suffered - The guiding principle is restitution in integrum (H6) A.S.E.S.A. v. Ekwenem (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1803; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1158) 410

 

DAMAGES - Basis - Construction contracts - Redundant machinery - As basis for damages - It requires evidence of facts such as inquiries for their hire - Depreciation & maintenance - Appellant failed to prove any of these facts (H3) Arisons Ltd v. Mil. Gov. Ogun State (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 268) 1483; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1163) 26

 

DAMAGES - Claims for - Made as alternatives - Effect - The law permits the court to consider only one of the claims - And base its damages on it - Arguments in respect of the other claim - Are of no moment (H4) G.K.F. Ltd v. NITEL (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1899; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1164) 344

 

DAMAGES - General damages - Assessment - Guiding principle - It is necessary to award only such damages - As meet the justice of each case (H1) Sonibare v. Soleye (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 266) 1157; (2009) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1155) 275

 

DAMAGES - General damages - Quantum of - Determinant factors - A court should confine itself to the facts of the case - And the circumstances leading to the injury suffered - Trial court considered irrelevant matters (H1) Usong v. Hanseatic Int. Ltd (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1425; (2009) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1153) 522

 

DAMAGES - Meaning - It is the pecuniary compensation obtainable by successful party - In an action for wrong - Which is either a tort or a breach of contract (H5) A.S.E.S.A. v. Ekwenem (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1803; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1158) 410

 

DAMAGES - Proof - Concession - Effect - Concession by counsel is relevant only where the law allows it - Respondent’s counsel’s concession can not make claim for damages recoverable - Without proof (H3) G.K.F. Ltd v. NITEL (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1899; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1164) 344

 

DAMAGES - Quantum - Claim for totally destroyed property - The measure of damages for such claim- Is the value of the property at the time of its destruction (H8) A.S.E.S.A. v. Ekwenem (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1803; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1158) 410

 

DAMAGES - Quantum - Repairs of damaged property - The cost of repairs cannot be confined to the time damage occurred - It must take into consideration the current market situation (H9) A.S.E.S.A. v. Ekwenem (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1803; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1158) 410

 

DAMAGES - Reduction on appeal - Proper procedure - Appellate court should consider whether or not the amount awarded was so extremely high - As to make an entirely erroneous estimate - Before reducing it (H2) Usong v. Hanseatic Int. Ltd (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1425; (2009) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1153) 522

 

DAMAGES - Reliefs awarded - Challenge to - Propriety - Appellant never challenged award of N9.5 m to petitioner at the hearing - It is therefore too late for him to raise that issue at this stage (H4) Iteogu v. LPDC (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2383; (2009) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1171) 614

 

DAMAGES - Special damages - Involving allegation of crime - Standard of proof - Applicable standard is proof beyond reasonable doubt - Having failed to so prove it - Claim for special damages was rightly refused (H10) Anyanwu v. Uzowuaka (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1829; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1159) 445

 

DAMAGES - Special damages - Manner of pleading - Sufficiency of - In spite of non-filing of amendment -The original statement of claim is unassailable - As far as the pleading of special damages is concerned (H4) Amadi v. Chinda (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265) 819; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1148) 107

 

DAMAGES - Special damages - Recovery - Requirements - They must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved by plaintiff - It is not a matter of hypothetical exercise (H2) Arisons Ltd v. Mil. Gov. Ogun State (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 268) 1483; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1163) 26

 

DAMAGES - Special damages - Trespass - Proof - Court of Appeal was wrong to have held that there was no evidence in proof of special damages - On alleged ground that there was no trespass - There is evidence of both trespass and special damages (H5) Feed & Food Farms Ltd v. NNPC (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 268) 1561

 

DAMAGES - Trespass - Loss - Damages without proof of loss - Propriety - Because trespass is actionable per se - successful plaintiff is entitled to damages - Though he has sustained no loss (H9) Anyanwu v. Uzowuaka (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1829; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1159) 445

 

DOCUMENTS - Admissibility - Admission of Exhibit A - Propriety - It was properly admitted as there is nothing making it inadmissible - Absence of a witness as a party to the suit - Is immaterial to its admissibility (H4) Ogbe v. Asade (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2425; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1172) 106

 

DOCUMENTS - Appeals - Evaluation by appellate court - Propriety - Appellate High Court was right to have evaluated Exhibit A - For appellate court is in as good a position as trial court in evaluating documentary evidence (H6) Ogbe v. Asade (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2425; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1172) 106

 

DOCUMENTS - Assessment - Documentary evidence - Effect on oral evidence - Where there is oral and documentary evidence - Documentary evidence should be used as a hanger from which to assess oral evidence (H2) Jinadu v. Esurombi-Aro (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265) 883; (2009) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1145) 55

 

DOCUMENTS - Company law - Memorandum and articles - Alteration - Powers of company - A company has power to alter its memorandum and articles - Once it does so validly - The altered document becomes lifeless in law (H2) Orji v. Dorji Textiles Mills (Nig) Ltd (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 274) 2723; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 467

 

DOCUMENTS - Contents - Proof of - A document is the best proof of its contents - No oral evidence will be allowed to contradict the contents - Except where fraud is pleaded (H3) Anyanwu v. Uzowuaka (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1829; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1159) 445

 

DOCUMENTS - Effect - Exhibit S - Though it supports respondents’ claim of existence of a joint union in 1975 - It is a mere application for a Tipper park - Not shown to be same as the land in dispute (H7) Anyanwu v. Uzowuaka (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1829; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1159) 445

 

DOCUMENTS - Effect - Gazette Notice No. 149 - It has no effect in altering the position of the judgment of Court of Appeal - As the list containing the elevation of the Chief Judge - Does not belong therein (H7) Our Line Ltd v. S.C.C. Ltd (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2083; (2009) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1170) 382

 

DOCUMENTS - Evidence - Licences issued - Effect - It shows overwhelming evidence in favour of appellants - Oral evidence cannot be allowed to contradict them - As no fraud was alleged (H4) Anyanwu v. Uzowuaka (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1829; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1159) 445

 

DOCUMENTS - Execution - Exhibit 17 - Execution by proper authority - It was made by D. G. on behalf of the Commissioner - Who is empowered to appoint and discipline civil servants - So it did emanate from constituted authority (H3) Abdullahi v. Mil. Admin. Kaduna State (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1767; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1165) 417

 

DOCUMENTS - Gazette - Probative value of - It is prima facie proof of any fact of a public nature - Which it is intended to notify (H4) Our Line Ltd v. S.C.C. Ltd (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2083; (2009) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1170) 382

 

DOCUMENTS - Land law - Payment of consideration - Proof - Exhibit F being an agreement with a clause acknowledging receipt of consideration - And signed by all the parties - Court of Appeal was wrong to say there was no evidence of payment (H2) Egharevba v. Osagie (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 274) 2613; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 299

 

DOCUMENTS - Objection - Failure to reply - Effect - Failure of 1st respondents’s counsel to reply - Meant he conceded the objection - It was an abandonment of his right to reply (H3) Oguntayo v. Adelaja (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1957; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1163) 150

 

DOCUMENTS - Proof - Amount received by appellant - Whether proved - Petitioner did prove by documentary evidence that it was as he averred - Appellant had the burden of proving he did not receive the full sum - Which he failed to discharge (H3) Iteogu v. LPDC (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2383; (2009) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1171) 614

 

DOCUMENTS - Proof - Company membership - Effect of original memorandum - The document no longer has effect - In the light of the evidence that appellant’s name was removed as a member - By the shareholders (H3) Orji v. Dorji Textiles Mills (Nig) Ltd (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 274) 2723; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 467

 

DOCUMENTS - Proof - Document pleaded but not tendered - Effect - Once plaintiff puts sufficient evidence in support of his claim - It is not the law that all documents pleaded - Must be tendered in evidence (H4) Bamgbegbin v. Oriare (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 268) 1525; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1158) 370

 

DOCUMENTS - Relevancy - Exhibit 17 - It alleges that the retirement was on the basis of Pension Act - Which allegation is denied by respondents - So Court of Appeal was wrong to hold that it is irrelevant (H2) Abdullahi v. Mil. Admin. Kaduna State (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1767; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1165) 417

 

DOCUMENTS - Signature - Genuineness of - Where in dispute - Court has power to compare the disputed one with an undisputed version - The alleged owner of the signature need not swear to any affidavit to deny it (H5) Tomtec Ltd v. FHA (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2471; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 358

 

DOCUMENTS - Unsigned by their makers - Admissibility - Exhibits R & S though unsigned - Do not become inadmissible thereby - But should attract little or no weight (H1) Jinadu v. Esurombi-Aro (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265) 883; (2009) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1145) 55

 

DOCUMENTS - Value - Exhibit 17 - Probative value - Though the letter predated the serving of Civil Service Commission’s letter - That fact does not reduce it’s evidential or probative content (H4) Abdullahi v. Mil. Admin. Kaduna State (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1767; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1165) 417

 

DOCUMENTS - Weight - Exhibit A - Evidential quality - It not only explains how the land was granted to appellant as customary tenant - But also shows why appellant and his people - Are in physical possession thereof (H5) Ogbe v. Asade (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2425; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1172) 106

 

DOCUMENTS - Weight - Facts in gazette - Weight to be attached - How ascertained - It is a matter of inference - To be drawn from established facts (H5) Our Line Ltd v. S.C.C. Ltd (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2083; (2009) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1170) 382

 

DOCUMENTS - Withdrawn at trial - Admissibility at Supreme Court - Since 1st respondent’s counsel did not press for its admission in trial court - It cannot be admitted at Supreme Court level (H5) Oguntayo v. Adelaja (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1957; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1163) 150

 

DOCUMENTS - Withdrawn upon objection - Action by court - In view of the withdrawal - Without replying to the objection - Trial court was wrong to have marked it rejected (H2) Oguntayo v. Adelaja (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1957; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1163) 150

 

DOCUMENTS - Written instruments - Construction - Rules - The words must be taken in their ordinary sense - Unless that would lead to some absurdity - Or inconsistency with the rest of the instrument (H6) Our Line Ltd v. S.C.C. Ltd (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2083; (2009) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1170) 382

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Electoral Act 2006, ss. 145 &146 - Intention of - It is to ensure that only petitions that on their faces - Disclose reasonable causes of action - Can go for trial (H5) Ojukwu v. Yar’adua (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 266) 1017; (2009) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1154) 50

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Grounds - Complaints - Whether known to law - A careful reading of grounds 2 & 3 together with their particulars - Shows complaints as falling within the grounds in s. 145 (a) - (b) of the Act (H3) Ojukwu v. Yar’adua (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 266) 1017; (2009) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1154) 50

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Inelegant drafting - Grounds of complaint - Notwithstanding the inelegance in drafting - The instant petition contains a recognised ground of complaint (H1) Hope Democratic Party (HDP) v. INEC (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 623; (2009) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1143) 297

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Mistake in name - Effect - Respondents and Court were not misled as to the person sued - In view of the acronym added to that name - Court of Appeal wrongfully held that it was a non-juristic person (H5) Hope Democratic Party (HDP) v. INEC (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 623; (2009) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1143) 297

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Parties - Capacity - Effect - The 2nd respondent was sued in his personal capacity - Whereas the law says he should be sued in official capacity - Court of Appeal rightly struck out his name (H6) Hope Democratic Party (HDP) v. INEC (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 623; (2009) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1143) 297

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Parties - Competency - Mistake in the writing of the name notwithstanding - The facts show that the appellant intended to sue INEC - The Court ought to have judicially noticed this name (H3) Hope Democratic Party (HDP) v. INEC (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 623; (2009) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1143) 297

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Practice & Procedure - Preliminary objection - Propriety of - If a respondent feels strongly that the petition is patently unsustainable - He may raise it - And the tribunal has the jurisdiction to entertain it (H1) Ojukwu v. Yar’adua (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 266) 1017; (2009) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1154) 50

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Technicalities - Applicability of - The intention of the Act is to do substantial justice - So any conclusion tending to bar a case from hearing on the merits - Ought not to be encouraged (H4) Hope Democratic Party (HDP) v. INEC (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 623; (2009) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1143) 297

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Validity - Sufficiency of pleadings - In view of the facts of noncompliance pleaded - Court of Appeal was in error to hold that the petition was not based on any ground known to law (H2) Hope Democratic Party (HDP) v. INEC (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 623; (2009) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1143) 297

 

ELECTIONS - Candidates - Substitution - Cogency of reason - In view of existing court judgments on the qualification of the appellant - Any reason for substitution based on his disqualification - Cannot be cogent (H4) Udeh v. Okoli (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 723; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1141) 571

 

ELECTIONS - Candidates - Substitution of - Applicability of party guidelines - The applicable law on the issue of substitution is s. 34 of the Electoral Act 2006 - Irrespective of the provisions of party guidelines (H1) Udeh v. Okoli (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 723; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1141) 571

 

ELECTIONS - Constitutional law - Elected officers - Status of - S. 137 (1)(g), 1999 Constitution - They are not civil or public servants within the provision of the section - On the principle of expressio unius (H6) Ojukwu v. Yar’adua (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 266) 1017; (2009) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1154) 50

 

ELECTIONS - Judgments - Binding effect - It remains valid and binding on parties - Until set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction - So qualification of appellant was not in issue as at 20/2/07 (H3) Udeh v. Okoli (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 723; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1141) 571

 

ELECTIONS - Nullification - Effect of - The law regards whatever was purportedly done in the name of an election - As not having taken place at all (H3) Labour Party v. INEC (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 385; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1137) 315

 

ELECTIONS - Pleadings - Averments - Sufficiency of - A petitioner challenging an election on grounds of noncompliance - Must not only plead facts of noncompliance - But also that it substantially affected the result (H4) Ojukwu v. Yar’adua (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 266) 1017; (2009) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1154) 50

 

ELECTIONS - Political parties - Candidates - Sponsorship of - Appellant cannot exercise its right to field a candidate in the circumstances of this case - As the date & period for calling for nominations has elapsed (H7) Labour Party v. INEC (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 385; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1137) 315

 

ELECTIONS - Political party candidates - Substitution of - Reasons for - To state the reason as ‘’insufficient information’’ - Is to assign no reason whatsoever for the substitution (H2) Udeh v. Okoli (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 723; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1141) 571

 

ELECTIONS - Rerun elections - Candidature - Political parties are not entitled to field new candidates - In the absence of evidence that their candidates at the nullified election - Had withdrawn their candidature (H5) Labour Party v. INEC (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 385; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1137) 315

 

ELECTIONS - Rerun elections - Meaning of - It means the same as fresh elections in place of that which is nullified - The Act need not use the word specifically (H4) Labour Party v. INEC (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 385; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1137) 315

 

EQUITY - Case of a party - Estoppel - Standing by - Applicability - It is not the case of appellant that respondents stood by - When the earlier suits were being tried - So the doctrine of standing by is inapplicable (H6) Omiyale v. Macaulay (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 655; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1141) 597

 

EQUITY - Investments - Illegality of - Trustee Investments Act, s. 2 - Purpose of - It is meant to safeguard investments against abuse of power - Not to make them illegal for ignoring the Provisions thereof (H3) Fasel Services Limited v. NPA (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265) 843; (2009) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1146) 400

 

EQUITY - Land Law - Agreement to sale - Effect - Where there is such agreement pursuant to which the purchaser makes part payment - And is put in possession - He acquires equitable interest as high as a legal estate (H1) Ohiaeri v. Yussuf (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 455; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1137) 207

 

EQUITY - Land Law - Title - Priority of interests - Only a subsequent bonafide purchaser of a legal estate for value - Without actual, constructive or imputed notice - Can take priority over a prior equitable interest (H5) Ohiaeri v. Yussuf (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 455; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1137) 207

 

EQUITY - Specific performance - Sale of land contract - Such contract attracts greater justification for a decree of specific performance - As the land may have a peculiar value (H6) Ohiaeri v. Yussuf (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 455; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1137) 207

 

EQUITY - Trustees - Administrators of estates - Duties - It is wrong in law for administrator of estate or anybody claiming through him - To assimilate that property to his own - Equity will not even permit that under any guise (H3) Ibrahim v. Osunde (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 341; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1137) 382

 

ESTOPPEL - Issue estoppel - Applicability - Issue of title having been earlier resolved - Between same parties and privies - Trial judge properly applied the principle - As rightly upheld by Court of Appeal (H2) Bamgbegbin v. Oriare (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 268) 1525; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1158) 370

 

ESTOPPEL - Issue estoppel - Applicability of - There is evidence that the status of the defendant has been finally decided - As per Exhibit E - The instant parties being privies to those on Exhibit E cannot re-open the issue (H8) Dim v. Enemuo (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 266) 1117; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1149) 353

 

ESTOPPEL - Issue estoppel - Award by Industrial Panel - As basis of plea - It has to comply with yardsticks for invoking such a plea - Which was not the case herein - So there was no basis for invoking the doctrine (H9) Oloruntoba-Oju v. Abdul-Raheem (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1673; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 83

 

ESTOPPEL - Issue estoppel - Effect - It is an impediment which bars a person from re-litigating an issue - Which has been isolated and raised in a particular proceeding - In which it was finally determined (H1) Bamgbegbin v. Oriare (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 268) 1525; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1158) 370

 

ESTOPPEL - Issue estoppel - Industrial Arbitration - Applicability - As neither the parties nor the subject matter in this case - Is the same as that in the industrial arbitration - Issue estoppel cannot apply (H9)

 

ESTOPPEL - Land law - Res judicata - Ingredients - Identity of land in dispute - Though a plan would have been a better means of identification - Identity of the instant land suffices - As the records show that parties are id idem on it - Notwithstanding the different names (H5) Jimoh v. Akande (2009) 1 KLR (pt. 262) 39; (2009) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1135) 549

 

ESTOPPEL - Res Judicata - Applicability - Issue of - Arguments of counsel on this issue were not addressed to the relevant judgment - They are therefore irrelevant for the determination of the appeal (H6) Akayepe v. Akayepe (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1183; (2009) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1152) 217

 

ESTOPPEL - Res judicata - Applicability - It does not apply as the earlier judgment did not make a decisive pronouncement - On validity of order making the presence of appellant mandatory on hearing date (H1) Uwagba v. FRN (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1439; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1163) 91

 

ESTOPPEL - Res judicata - Applicability - Requirements - Exhibit D5 being a subsisting judgment in favour of respondents - And the issues, parties & land in dispute being same therein as in the instant case - The defence of res judicata applies (H6) Jimoh v. Akande (2009) 1 KLR (pt. 262) 39; (2009) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1135) 549

 

ESTOPPEL - Res judicata - Applicability of - As parties in the suits in which the earlier judgments were given - Are not same as in the instant suit - The plea is inapplicable (H1) Omiyale v. Macaulay (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 655; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1141) 597

 

ESTOPPEL - Res judicata - Effect of plea - Where the principles of res judicata applies to conclude plaintiff’s case - It is of no use for plaintiff to lead further evidence in the case - Defendant may move the court to dismiss the case peremptorily (H3) Jimoh v. Akande (2009) 1 KLR (pt. 262) 39; (2009) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1135) 549

 

ESTOPPEL - Res judicata - Ingredients - Privies to parties - Applicability - Respondents did not acquire title from plaintiffs in earlier suits - Therefore they could not be privies to the said plaintiffs (H2) Omiyale v. Macaulay (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 655; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1141) 597

 

ESTOPPEL - Res judicata - Ingredients - Sameness of issues - Though the issue of radical title over the land was not settled in Exhibit ‘A’ - There are legally binding pronouncements as to the parties’ rights over the land therein - Which rights are again questioned in this suit (H2) Dashi v. Satlong (2009) 1 KLR (pt. 262) 1; (2009) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1134) 281

 

ESTOPPEL - Res judicata - Ingredients - Sameness of parties - Trial court found that respondents and Irimaya Topsin - Are privies bound by the decision in Exhibit ‘A’ - The finding was endorsed by the two courts below - Appellants have not shown reason to hold otherwise (H3) Dashi v. Satlong (2009) 1 KLR (pt. 262) 1; (2009) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1134) 281

 

ESTOPPEL - Res judicata - Ingredients - Sameness of subject matter - Land which is the subject matter of dispute in Exhibit ‘A’ - Is same as the one herein - Notwithstanding the unproved assertion by appellants that the former is smaller (H1) Dashi v. Satlong (2009) 1 KLR (pt. 262) 1; (2009) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1134) 281

 

ESTOPPEL - Res judicata - Issue of - Primacy - The issue should be disposed of before other issues - For the plea has the effect of ousting court’s jurisdiction - Where successful (H4) Jimoh v. Akande (2009) 1 KLR (pt. 262) 39; (2009) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1135) 549

 

ESTOPPEL - Res judicata - Privity of estate - A prior purchaser of land such as respondents - Cannot be estopped as being privy in estate - By a judgment obtained in an action against vendor - Commenced after the purchase (H3) Omiyale v. Macaulay (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 655; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1141) 597

 

ESTOPPEL - Res Judicata - Proof - Means - In the absence of certified true copies of the judgments in the previous cases relied on - There is no means of determining if all the conditions have been met by appellants - To sustain the plea (H7) Akayepe v. Akayepe (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1183; (2009) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1152) 217

 

ESTOPPEL - Standing by - Applicability - It is not the case of appellant that respondents stood by - When the earlier suits were being tried - So the doctrine of standing by is inapplicable (H6) Omiyale v. Macaulay (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 655; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1141) 597

 

EVIDENCE - Crime - Proof beyond reasonable doubt - Purport - Once all essential ingredients of an offence - Have been satisfactorily proved - The charge is proved beyond reasonable doubt (H7) Musa v. State (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1929; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1165) 467

 

EVIDENCE - Actions - Basis of decision - Title - Proof - Though civil suits are decided on a balance of probabilities - A case for declaration of title - Must succeed on the strength of plaintiff’s case - Not on weakness of defence (H7) Osuji v. Ekeocha (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2033; (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1166) 81

 

EVIDENCE - Actions - Reliefs granted - Relation with findings - Though trial court properly evaluated - And made proper findings of fact - The relief granted thereafter did not flow from the findings (H9) Osuji v. Ekeocha (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2033; (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1166) 81

 

EVIDENCE - Admissibility - Admission of Exhibit A - Propriety - It was properly admitted as there is nothing making it inadmissible - Absence of a witness as a party to the suit - Is immaterial to its admissibility (H4) Ogbe v. Asade (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2425; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1172) 106

 

EVIDENCE - Admissibility - Crime - Hearsay - Applicability - Where a witness before whom an oral confession is made - Testifies in the open court as to what he was told - It is not hearsay but a direct evidence of what he was told (H2) Arogundare v. State (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 299; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1136) 165

 

EVIDENCE - Admissibility - Deed of debenture - Without Governor’s consent - Debenture charged over floating assets does not create any charge on land - So it does not require Governor’s consent for validity - It is therefore admissible without it (H6) Olalomi Industries Ltd v. N.I.D.B. Ltd (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2001; (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1167) 266

 

EVIDENCE - Admissibility - Documents - Unsigned by their makers - Exhibits R & S though unsigned - Do not become inadmissible thereby - But should attract little or no weight (H1) Jinadu v. Esurombi-Aro (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265) 883; (2009) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1145) 55

 

EVIDENCE - Admissibility - Hearsay - Applicability - PW1 & PW2 gave evidence of what they saw and heard from deceased - Their evidence can not be inadmissable - As constituting hearsay evidence (H3) Olabode v. State (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1337; (2009) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1152) 254

 

EVIDENCE - Admissibility - Objection - Applicability of waiver - Where a counsel or party consents to admissibility of a document - Or regularity of a procedure - The consent amount to a waiver of his right - To subsequently object thereto (H3) Shell Petroleum v. Edamkue (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2143; (2009) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1160) 1

 

EVIDENCE - Admissions - Exhibit ‘B’ - Self defence - Applicability - Exhibit B is an admission by appellant - That he did the act for which he was charged - So also his plea of self-defence (H3) Sule v. State (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1737; (2009) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1169) 33

 

EVIDENCE - Admissions - Pleadings - Averments - Binding effect - Purport of - From the pleading of both parties that they have no common boundary and the admission by PW2 - It is obvious that the land in dispute as claimed by respondent differ from that claimed by appellant (H3) Ukaegbu v. Nwololo (2009) 1 KLR (pt. 262) 103; (2009) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1127) 194

 

EVIDENCE - Affidavits - Admissions - Applicability - Failure to swear to further-affidavit where there is unchallenged counter-affidavit - Amounts to admission of the counter-affidavit (H1) Henry Stephens Eng. Ltd. v. S. A. Yakubu Ltd. (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1267; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1149) 416

 

EVIDENCE - Affidavits - Reliance on affidavits - Not referred to by parties - Propriety - Where the contents appear damaging to a party’s case - Trial court should give him opportunity to react thereto - Before relying on it (H2) Oyewole v. Akande (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2119; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1163) 119

 

EVIDENCE - Age of witness - Submissions of counsel - Evidential value - Counsel erroneously relied on submission - Contrary to evidence - As proof of the age of P.W. 10 (H7) Omotola v. State (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 683; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1139) 148

 

EVIDENCE - Alibi - Disproof - Whether achieved - In view of the evidence before the trial court - The prosecution has been unable to fix the appellant at the scene of crime - So the alibi was not disproved (H2) Almu v. State (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265) 797; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1148) 31

 

EVIDENCE - Alibi - Duty on party raising it - He has the burden of establishing the circumstances of the alibi - Appellant failed to so establish - So police had nothing to investigate (H1) Ndukwe v. State (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 413; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1139) 43

 

EVIDENCE - Alibi - Effect of - The fact that an accused raised an alibi by his evidence - Does not imply that the alibi must be accepted by the court (H4) Omotola v. State (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 683; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1139) 148

 

EVIDENCE - Alibi - Evaluation of - The 1st appellant gave sufficient information in support of his alibi - Therefore the two courts below were in error in the peremptory manner - They dismissed the defence (H3) Omotola v. State (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 683; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1139) 148

 

EVIDENCE - Alibi - Investigation of - Duty of prosecution - Once an accused pleads alibi - Giving details of his whereabouts - The prosecution has the burden of investigating it - Failure to do so is an admission of the story of the accused (H1) Almu v. State (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265) 797; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1148) 31

 

EVIDENCE - Appeals - Concurrent findings - Attitude of Supreme Court - It will not interfere with such findings - Where such is not shown to be perverse (H2) Sule v. State (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1737; (2009) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1169) 33

 

EVIDENCE - Appeals - Findings - Re-evaluation on appeal - Basis of - Where they are found to be perverse - It is the duty of appellate court - To re-evaluate same - As Court of Appeal did with the consequential orders (H8) Osuji v. Ekeocha (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2033; (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1166) 81

 

EVIDENCE - Appeals - Findings of fact - Interference with - Duty of appellate court - It has a duty in the interest of justice - To disturb such findings - If they cannot be supported on printed evidence (H3) Oyewole v. Akande (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2119; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1163) 119

 

EVIDENCE - Appeals - Land law - Identity of land - As basis of challenge by appellant - Propriety - In view of no appeal against finding by trial court - That parties are ad-idem on identity of land - Appellant’s challenge on this point is misconceived (H2) Ogbe v. Asade (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2425; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1172) 106

 

EVIDENCE - Armed robbery - Proof - Circumstantial evidence - Sufficiency of - Evidence of PW 2 sufficiently linked 2nd appellant - As being in the armed robbery gang (H3) Ebenehi v. State (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 575; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1138) 431

 

EVIDENCE - Assessment - Documentary evidence - Effect on oral evidence - Where there is oral and documentary evidence - Documentary evidence should be used as a hanger from which to assess oral evidence (H2) Jinadu v. Esurombi-Aro (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265) 883; (2009) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1145) 55

 

EVIDENCE - Burden of proof - Beyond reasonable doubt - Discharge - If trial court is left with no doubt - That the offence was committed by the accused person - The burden is discharged (H2) Bolanle v. State (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 272) 2211; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1172) 1

 

EVIDENCE - Circumstantial evidence - Effect of - Where there is circumstantial evidence conclusively pointing to guilt of accused - It raises a presumption of guilt - To be rebutted by accused - Which accused herein failed to do (H3) Arogundare v. State (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 299; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1136) 165

 

EVIDENCE - Circumstantial evidence - Quality of - One test which such evidence must satisfy is that it should lead to the guilt of the accused - Leaving no possibility that other persons could have committed the offence (H1) Ebenehi v. State (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 575; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1138) 431

 

EVIDENCE - Civil actions - Allegations of fraud - Manner of proving - It must be pleaded and proved beyond reasonable doubt - But it was neither pleaded in this case - Nor was evidence led thereon (H3) Olalomi Industries Ltd v. N.I.D.B. Ltd (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2001; (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1167) 266

 

EVIDENCE - Civil cases - Burden of proof - Incidence - It rests on the party - Whether plaintiff or defendant - Who substantially asserts the affirmative of the issue (H2) Iroagbara v. Ufomadu (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1283; (2009) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1153) 587

 

EVIDENCE - Company law - Status as company member - Onus of proof - Is on appellant to prove her status - As a member and director of the company - In order to obtain judgment (H1) Orji v. Dorji Textiles Mills (Nig) Ltd (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 274) 2723; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 467

 

EVIDENCE - Confessional statement - Admissibility - Any contention that Exhibit ‘B’ is inadmissible is misconceived - In view of the evidence on record - And the absence of objection by defence counsel (H4) Sule v. State (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1737; (2009) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1169) 33

 

EVIDENCE - Conspiracy - Proof - It is an offence which is difficult to prove because it is hatched in secrecy - Circumstantial evidence is used to point to the fact - As does the failure of the 5th appellant to forewarn the deceased (H10) Omotola v. State (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 683; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1139) 148

 

EVIDENCE - Contracts - Breach - Resultant injury - Proof - Weekly loss of profit was not proved - As appellant did not provide previous sales figure - To aid Court in making deduction - Nor was the expense on prepaid phone cards proved (H2) G.K.F. Ltd v. NITEL (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1899; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1164) 344

 

EVIDENCE - Contradictions - Concurrent Findings - Where there is no material contradiction in the evidence of PWs 1 & 2 - Concurrent findings of lower courts to that effect were justified (H3) Ndukwe v. State (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 413; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1139) 43

 

EVIDENCE - Conviction - Propriety of - Though the extrajudicial statement was expunged by the Court of Appeal - There is sufficient evidence on the records - To sustain the conviction of the appellant (H6) Tanko v. State (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 541; (2009) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1131) 430

 

EVIDENCE - Conviction - Sufficiency of evidence - Court can convict on evidence of one credible witness - Unless where the law requires corroboration (H1) Sule v. State (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1737; (2009) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1169) 33

 

EVIDENCE - Conviction of co-accused - And discharge of one - Propriety - Though where evidence is same against two accused persons - In all material respect - Discharge for one should be discharge for both - Evidence herein is not the same (H1) Bolanle v. State (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 272) 2211; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1172) 1

 

EVIDENCE - Counsel’s address - Evidential value - It is not in evidence that the name ‘Bashorun’ is the same as ‘Osinnolohun’ - It is in counsel’s address but his address cannot take the place of evidence (H2) Olagunju v. Adesoye (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265) 937; (2009) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1146) 225

 

EVIDENCE - Counterclaim - Dismissal of - Propriety - It was properly dismissed as there was no basis for granting it - In view of the evidence before the trial Court (H8) Jinadu v. Esurombi-Aro (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265) 883; (2009) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1145) 55

 

EVIDENCE - Crime - Proof - Contradictions - Effect - If there are contradictions in evidence of prosecution - Materially affecting the charge - Doubt will be created benefit of which must be given to accused (H3) Almu v. State (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265) 797; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1148) 31

 

EVIDENCE - Crime - Witnesses - Kinship with the parties - Blood relationship with the victim of crime cannot be regarded as a basis - To describe their evidence as untrue, biased or tainted (H5) Omotola v. State (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 683; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1139) 148

 

EVIDENCE - Criminal procedure - Confession of co-accused - Effect - A man’s confession is only evidence against him - Not against his accomplices - Confession of 1st accused cannot therefore be used against appellant (H3) Mbang v. State (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2405; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1172) 140

 

EVIDENCE - Criminal procedure - Oral confessions - Admissibility - Being an admission made by a person - Suggesting that he committed the offence - It is a relevant fact against him and admissible under s. 27 of Evidence Act (H1) Arogundare v. State (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 299; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1136) 165

 

EVIDENCE - Cross examination - Effect - Appellants’ suit against Rebisi Youths - Though this fact which was extracted while cross examining a defence witness - Was not pleaded in the statement of claim - It tends to support appellants’ claim (H5) Anyanwu v. Uzowuaka (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1829; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1159) 445

 

EVIDENCE - Culpable Homicide - Provocation - Availability - There is no evidence that deceased uttered any word - To provoke appellant to a state of rage - Before he stabbed the deceased to death (H4) Musa v. State (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1929; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1165) 467

 

EVIDENCE - Culpable homicide - Punishable with death - Ingredients - It must be proved that a person’s death - Was caused by accused - With prior intention of causing death (H1) Musa v. State (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1929; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1165) 467

 

EVIDENCE - Damages - Award - Basis - It is not awarded as a matter of course - Nor based on sentiment - It is based on legal evidence of probative value - Adduced for establishment of actionable wrong (H10) A.S.E.S.A. v. Ekwenem (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1803; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1158) 410

 

EVIDENCE - Damages - Award - Entitlement - Sufficiency of proof - Evidence of PW4 established that appellant can no longer use the land - For industrial purposes - This is sufficient proof that appellant suffered damages (H4) Feed & Food Farms Ltd v. NNPC (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 268) 1561

 

EVIDENCE - Damages - Proof - Concession - Effect - Concession by counsel is relevant only where the law allows it - Respondent’s counsel’s concession can not make claim for damages recoverable - Without proof (H3) G.K.F. Ltd v. NITEL (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1899; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1164) 344

 

EVIDENCE - Declaration of rights - Proof - Effect of admissions - The right will not be conferred simply upon the state of pleadings or admissions therein - Plaintiff must satisfy the court by evidence (H4) Dim v. Enemuo (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 266) 1117; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1149) 353

 

EVIDENCE - Declaration of title - Proof - Effect of admission - Plaintiff has onus of proving title to satisfaction of the court - It is erroneous to grant a declaration of title - Based on admission in opponent’s pleadings (H2) Shasi v. Smith (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 272) 2295; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 330

 

EVIDENCE - Dieing declaration - Proof - Sufficiency of - Though evidence of PW2 cannot pass for dying declaration - Exhibits B, B1, C & F richly corroborate the testimonies of PW1 & PW2 (H4) Olabode v. State (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1337; (2009) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1152) 254

 

EVIDENCE - Discrepancies - In own traditional evidence - Effect - Minor as the discrepancies may be - They are material to the determination - Of the veracity of the traditional evidence (H5) Nwokorobia v. Nwogu (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1303; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1150) 553

 

EVIDENCE - Documents - Contents - Proof of - A document is the best proof of its contents - No oral evidence will be allowed to contradict the contents - Except where fraud is pleaded (H3) Anyanwu v. Uzowuaka (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1829; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1159) 445

 

EVIDENCE - Documents - Effect - Exhibit S - Though it supports respondents’ claim of existence of a joint union in 1975 - It is a mere application for a Tipper park - Not shown to be same as the land in dispute (H7) Anyanwu v. Uzowuaka (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1829; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1159) 445

 

EVIDENCE - Documents - Evaluation by appellate court - Propriety - Appellate High Court was right to have evaluated Exhibit A - For appellate court is in as good a position as trial court in evaluating documentary evidence (H6) Ogbe v. Asade (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2425; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1172) 106

 

EVIDENCE - Documents - Exhibit 17 - Execution by proper authority - It was made by D. G. on behalf of the Commissioner - Who is empowered to appoint and discipline civil servants - So it did emanate from constituted authority (H3) Abdullahi v. Mil. Admin. Kaduna State (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1767; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1165) 417

 

EVIDENCE - Documents - Exhibit 17 - Probative value - Though the letter predated the serving of Civil Service Commission’s letter - That fact does not reduce it’s evidential or probative content (H4) Abdullahi v. Mil. Admin. Kaduna State (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1767; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1165) 417

 

EVIDENCE - Documents - Letter of retirement - Basis of - Pension Act - The circular referred to by the letter made reference to the Act - Court of Appeal was wrong therefore to hold that the letter did not refer to the Act (H1) Abdullahi v. Mil. Admin. Kaduna State (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1767; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1165) 417

 

EVIDENCE - Documents - Licences issued - Effect - It shows overwhelming evidence in favour of appellants - Oral evidence cannot be allowed to contradict them - As no fraud was alleged (H4) Anyanwu v. Uzowuaka (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1829; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1159) 445

 

EVIDENCE - Documents - Objection - Failure to reply - Effect - Failure of 1st respondents’s counsel to reply - Meant he conceded the objection - It was an abandonment of his right to reply (H3) Oguntayo v. Adelaja (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1957; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1163) 150

 

EVIDENCE - Documents - Withdrawn at trial - Admissibility at Supreme Court - Since 1st respondent’s counsel did not press for its admission in trial court - It cannot be admitted at Supreme Court level (H5) Oguntayo v. Adelaja (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1957; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1163) 150

 

EVIDENCE - Documents - Withdrawn upon objection - Action by court - In view of the withdrawal - Without replying to the objection - Trial court was wrong to have marked it rejected (H2) Oguntayo v. Adelaja (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1957; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1163) 150

 

EVIDENCE - Documents - Yet to be tendered - Findings thereon - Propriety - Those findings are premature - And ought not to have been made at this stage of the proceedings (H2) Oduko v. Govt. of Ebonyi St. Nigeria (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265) 915; (2009) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1147) 439

 

EVIDENCE - Effect - Gazette Notice No. 149 - It has no effect in altering the position of the judgment of Court of Appeal - As the list containing the elevation of the Chief Judge - Does not belong therein (H7) Our Line Ltd v. S.C.C. Ltd (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2083; (2009) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1170) 382

 

EVIDENCE - Estoppel - Res judicata - Applicability - Requirements - Exhibit D5 being a subsisting judgment in favour of respondents - And the issues, parties & land in dispute being same therein as in the instant case - The defence of res judicata applies (H6) Jimoh v. Akande (2009) 1 KLR (pt. 262) 39; (2009) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1135) 549

 

EVIDENCE - Estoppel - Res judicata - Applicability of - As parties in the suits in which the earlier judgments were given - Are not same as in the instant suit - The plea is inapplicable (H1) Omiyale v. Macaulay (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 655; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1141) 597

 

EVIDENCE - Estoppel - Res judicata - Effect of plea - Where the principles of res judicata applies to conclude plaintiff’s case - It is of no use for plaintiff to lead further evidence in the case - Defendant may move the court to dismiss the case peremptorily (H3) Jimoh v. Akande (2009) 1 KLR (pt. 262) 39; (2009) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1135) 549

 

EVIDENCE - Estoppel - Res judicata - Ingredients - Privies to parties - Applicability - Respondents did not acquire title from plaintiffs in earlier suits - Therefore they could not be privies to the said plaintiffs (H2) Omiyale v. Macaulay (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 655; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1141) 597

 

EVIDENCE - Evaluation - Appellate Courts - Position of - Though evaluation of evidence is for the trial court - Where it would not entail assessment of credibility of witnesses - Appellate court is in as vantage a position as trial court (H1) Mini Lodge Ltd v. Ngei (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 274) 2639; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 254

 

EVIDENCE - Evaluation - By appellate court - Propriety of - Where trial court fails to properly evaluate the evidence before it - Appellate court may evaluate same to make proper findings (H6) Onyekwelu v. Elf Petroleum (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 501; (2009) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1133) 181

 

EVIDENCE - Evaluation - Duty of trial Court - It has the primary duty not only to admit or reject evidence but also to ascribe probative value thereto - Appellate court will only interfere where trial court fails to do so - Or does so improperly - Which was not the case herein (H2) Anyaegwu v. Onuche (2009) 1 KLR (pt. 262) 1; (2009) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1129) 659

 

EVIDENCE - Evaluation - Exhibits - Not before the court - Propriety of evaluation - A court must see the exhibits before taking any decision on them - Court of Appeal was therefore wrong to accept the finding on Exhibit A - Without seeing it (H6) Ekpemupolo v. Edremoda (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 589; (2009) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1142) 166

 

EVIDENCE - Evaluation - Improper evaluation of evidence - Need to arrest - It will perpetuate injustice in our judicial processes - If appellate court does not interfere therein (H7) Arisons Ltd v. Mil. Gov. Ogun State (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 268) 1483; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1163) 26

 

EVIDENCE - Evaluation - Purport - It should entail assessment of evidence of both parties - By placing same on that imaginary scale - To determine the party in whose favour the balance tilts (H6) Anyanwu v. Uzowuaka (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1829; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1159) 445

 

EVIDENCE - Evaluation - Reevaluation on appeal - Correctness - For Court of Appeal to hold that complainant gave names of appellants - At the first report - Is not borne out from the record (H2) Ani v. State (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 268) 1463; (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1168) 443

 

EVIDENCE - Evaluation - Role of appellate court - Where trial court has failed in its duty of properly evaluating evidence - Resulting in perverse finding - Appellate court has to intervene by reevaluating the evidence (H2) Anyanwu v. Uzowuaka (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1829; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1159) 445

 

EVIDENCE - Evaluation - Role of trial court - Evaluation is preeminently the business of trial court - Appeal court will not lightly interfere with same - Unless for compelling reason (H2) Musa v. State (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1929; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1165) 467

 

EVIDENCE - Evaluation - Role of trial court - It has the primary function of evaluating evidence - And evaluation is not the same thing as summary of the evidence - Presented by parties (H1) Anyanwu v. Uzowuaka (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1829; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1159) 445

 

EVIDENCE - Expert witness - Necessity of - Where the evidence already before the court sufficiently proves a party’s case without reliance on an expert opinion - The exercise of calling an expert witness may be avoided as unnecessary - As observed by the Court of Appeal (H3) Onyekwelu v. Elf Petroleum (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 501; (2009) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1133) 181

 

EVIDENCE - Facts not pleaded - Evidence thereon - Effect - Appellant did not plead the name of their first forefather to come to Offa - Evidence on that fact therefore goes to no issue (H1) Olagunju v. Adesoye (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265) 937; (2009) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1146) 225

 

EVIDENCE - Findings of fact - Misdirection - Applicability - Court of Appeal misdirected itself when it held that PW1 recognized appellants’ voices - Evidence before the High Court was that he recognized them with light from bush lantern (H3) Ani v. State (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 268) 1463; (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1168) 443

 

EVIDENCE - Identification parade - Necessity of - As much as there was evidence which the trial court accepted - That P.W. 10 knew appellant before the event - Formal identification parade was not necessary (H8) Omotola v. State (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 683; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1139) 148

 

EVIDENCE - Inconsistency rule - Application of - If appellant retracts Exhibit ‘B’ by giving inconsistent testimony at trial - Such testimony is to be treated as unreliable - While Exhibit ‘B’ is not regarded as evidence on which the court can act (H5) Sule v. State (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1737; (2009) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1169) 33

 

EVIDENCE - Issue estoppel - Applicability - Issue of title having been earlier resolved - Between same parties and privies - Trial judge properly applied the principle - As rightly upheld by Court of Appeal (H2) Bamgbegbin v. Oriare (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 268) 1525; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1158) 370

 

EVIDENCE - Issue estoppel - Applicability of - There is evidence that the status of the defendant has been finally decided - As per Exhibit E - The instant parties being privies to those on Exhibit E cannot re-open the issue (H8) Dim v. Enemuo (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 266) 1117; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1149) 353

 

EVIDENCE - Issue estoppel - Effect - It is an impediment which bars a person from re-litigating an issue - Which has been isolated and raised in a particular proceeding - In which it was finally determined (H1) Bamgbegbin v. Oriare (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 268) 1525; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1158) 370

 

EVIDENCE - Issue estoppel - Industrial Arbitration - Applicability - As neither the parties nor the subject matter in this case - Is the same as that in the industrial arbitration - Issue estoppel cannot apply (H9)

 

EVIDENCE - Joinder - Document not produced - S. 149 (d) Evidence Act - Respondent ought to have applied to join NPA as 2nd defendant - If indeed it delivered the goods to them - Failure to do so justifies the invocation of s. 149 (d) (H2) FMH v. Comet Shipping Agencies (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265) 859; (2009) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1145) 193

 

EVIDENCE - Judgments - Findings of fact - When made - Observations during summary of evidence - Are not findings of fact made during evaluation - In this case evaluation started from page 195 - What came before are mere observations (H2) Mini Lodge Ltd v. Ngei (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 274) 2639; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 254

 

EVIDENCE - Judgments - Stay of execution - Proof of special circumstances - Onus - It is on the party applying for stay pending appeal - To satisfy the court that in the peculiar circumstances - A refusal would be unjust (H3) NNPC v. Famfa Oil Ltd (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1647; (2009) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1156) 462

 

EVIDENCE - Judicial precedents - Distinguishing - Evidence on facts not pleaded - Applicability of Anyanwu v. Iwuchukwu - The principle is totally inapplicable to the instant case as the fact of respondent’s rejection of the good supplied was properly pleaded - In line with the evidence led (H2) Onyekwelu v. Elf Petroleum (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 501; (2009) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1133) 181

 

EVIDENCE - Land law - Inconsistency in address used - Effect - The inconsistency and how it came about having been explained by plaintiff witness - There was no doubt that both parties - Were talking of the same property (H1) Oseni v. Bajulu (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2453; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1172) 164

 

EVIDENCE - Land law - Payment of consideration - Proof - Exhibit F being an agreement with a clause acknowledging receipt of consideration - And signed by all the parties - Court of Appeal was wrong to say there was no evidence of payment (H2) Egharevba v. Osagie (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 274) 2613; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 299

 

EVIDENCE - Land law - Proof of title - Rule in Kojo v. Bonsie - Applicability - The rule will only apply where the land in dispute - Is same portion of land from evidence before the court (H5) Ukaegbu v. Nwololo (2009) 1 KLR (pt. 262) 103; (2009) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1127) 194

 

EVIDENCE - Land law - Res judicata - Ingredients - Identity of land in dispute - Though a plan would have been a better means of identification - Identity of the instant land suffices - As the records show that parties are id idem on it - Notwithstanding the different names (H5) Jimoh v. Akande (2009) 1 KLR (pt. 262) 39; (2009) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1135) 549

 

EVIDENCE - Land law - Revocation - Claim for nullification - Proof of title - Applicability - Though issue of title be incidental to claim - Plaintiff is not required to establish title - On the authority of Dzungwe case (H3) Ononuju v. A-G Anambra State (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1357; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1148) 182

 

EVIDENCE - Land law - Title - Certificate of occupancy - Evidential value - If on the state of the law a certificate of occupancy lacked evidential value - To prove title being claimed - The Court has a duty to say so (H7) Omiyale v. Macaulay (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 655; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1141) 597

 

EVIDENCE - Land law - Title - Proof - Evidence of acquisition - Effect - Acquisition of part of the land in Exhibit A from the respondents by government - Strengthens the respondents’ claim of title to the land in dispute (H7) Jinadu v. Esurombi-Aro (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265) 883; (2009) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1145) 55

 

EVIDENCE - Land law - Title - Proof - Means of - Plaintiff must plead and prove root of title - Where he fails to do so - Acts of possession based on that root of title cannot sustain the claim for title (H2) Ukaegbu v. Nwololo (2009) 1 KLR (pt. 262) 103; (2009) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1127) 194

 

EVIDENCE - Land law - Title - Proof - Rule in Kojo v. Bonsie - Where there is a conflict of traditional history - With both sides appearing honest in their story - Court should decide by testing the probability of each story - On the basis of experience and wisdom (H4) Ukaegbu v. Nwololo (2009) 1 KLR (pt. 262) 103; (2009) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1127) 194

 

EVIDENCE - Land law - Title - Proof - Sufficiency of - Appellant sufficiently proved his case before trial court - Court of Appeal was therefore wrong - To hold that he is not the holder of statutory right of occupancy over the land (H6) Amadi v. Chinda (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265) 819; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1148) 107

 

EVIDENCE - Land law - Title - Traditional history - Proof - Though 13th appellant pleaded traditional history of their title to the land in dispute - There is evidence accepted by trial court contrary to that pleading (H6) Jinadu v. Esurombi-Aro (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265) 883; (2009) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1145) 55

 

EVIDENCE - Locus in quo - Visit to - Purpose - Inspection of locus is only necessary - Where a judge has a clear doubt that he felt arose from the evidence - For the purpose of confirming what is already on the record with the actual physical inspection (H7) Ukaegbu v. Nwololo (2009) 1 KLR (pt. 262) 103; (2009) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1127) 194

 

EVIDENCE - Murder - Circumstantial evidence - Limits - The inference that the person last seen with the deceased is the murderer - Would be irrelevant - Where there is undisputed evidence as to how deceased died (H1) Mbang v. State (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2405; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1172) 140

 

EVIDENCE - Murder - Liability - Common intention as basis - Requisites - It must be proved that there was common intention to prosecute unlawful purpose - In furtherance of which deceased was killed - As a probable consequence of that purpose (H2) Mbang v. State (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2405; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1172) 140

 

EVIDENCE - Murder - Proof - Sufficiency of - Evidence against 1st and 2nd appellants is more than circumstantial - Their unexplained presence in the group that killed the deceased - At the time of the killing - Is sufficient proof of guilt (H6) Omotola v. State (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 683; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1139) 148

 

EVIDENCE - Omissions by trial court - Power to correct - Court of Appeal is in as good a position as trial court to do or refrain from doing - What trial court has erroneously done or refrained from (H1) Arisons Ltd v. Mil. Gov. Ogun State (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 268) 1483; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1163) 26

 

EVIDENCE - Onus of proof - Shifting of - Meaning - It means that burden of proof may shift - Depending on how scale of evidence preponderates - To rest on party who would fail - If no more evidence were given (H3) Iroagbara v. Ufomadu (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1283; (2009) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1153) 587

 

EVIDENCE - Outside pleadings - Fate of - Such evidence - Like the testimony of appellant that Nwoko deforested the land - Should be ignored and treated as non issue (H6) Nwokorobia v. Nwogu (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1303; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1150) 553

 

EVIDENCE - Pleadings - Evidence on facts not pleaded - Propriety - Though only facts need be pleaded - Every evidence must have some semblance to pleaded facts - And not contain facts not pleaded - Else it is liable to be expunged (H2) Amodu v. Commandant Police College Maiduguri (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1791; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1163) 75

 

EVIDENCE - Pleadings - Nature - Binding effect of - Litigation is fought on pleadings of parties - Pleadings bereft of necessary facts cannot be proved by evidence no matter how cogent - As parties are bound by their pleadings (H2) Nwokorobia v. Nwogu (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1303; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1150) 553

 

EVIDENCE - Pleadings - Statement of defence - General traverse - Purpose of - It serves to salvage such a situation - Where a pleader may inadvertently fail to deny a fact - Thereby admitting what he did not intend to (H4) Arisons Ltd v. Mil. Gov. Ogun State (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 268) 1483; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1163) 26

 

EVIDENCE - Pleadings - Statement of defence - General traverse - Effect - It has the same effect as specific denial - That is to put plaintiff to proof of the allegation in that paragraph (H5) Arisons Ltd v. Mil. Gov. Ogun State (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 268) 1483; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1163) 26

 

EVIDENCE - Pleadings - Statement of defence - General traverse - Propriety - In respect of essential and material allegations in statement of claim - General traverse is not enough to controvert them - They must be specifically denied (H3) Bamgbegbin v. Oriare (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 268) 1525; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1158) 370

 

EVIDENCE - Proceedings during vacation - Proof of urgency - Burden of - Appellant had the onus of proving urgency - But failed to discharge the burden (H9) Onwuka v. Ononuju (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1393; (2009) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1151) 174

 

EVIDENCE - Proof - Amount received by appellant - Whether proved - Petitioner did prove by documentary evidence that it was as he averred - Appellant had the burden of proving he did not receive the full sum - Which he failed to discharge (H3) Iteogu v. LPDC (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2383; (2009) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1171) 614

 

EVIDENCE - Proof - Armed robbery - Meaning - Ingredients - It simply means stealing plus violence - Used or threatened - From the evidence on record - These were established (H7) Tanko v. State (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 541; (2009) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1131) 430

 

EVIDENCE - Proof - Bailment - Action for breach - Presumption of fault - The loss of or damage to goods in bailee’s possession - Places the onus of proof on the bailee - To show that it occurred without his fault (H5) FMH v. Comet Shipping Agencies (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265) 859; (2009) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1145) 193

 

EVIDENCE - Proof - Burden - It was for the appellant who alleged that he was reported to the police to prove so - But he did not prove it (H1) Fajemirokun v. Commercial Bank Nig. Ltd. (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 315; (2009) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1135) 588

 

EVIDENCE - Proof - Company membership - Effect of original memorandum - The document no longer has effect - In the light of the evidence that appellant’s name was removed as a member - By the shareholders (H3) Orji v. Dorji Textiles Mills (Nig) Ltd (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 274) 2723; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 467

 

EVIDENCE - Proof - Consistency with pleadings - It is not true that the cross-respondent’s evidence is inconsistent with his pleadings - As alleged by counsel for the cross-appellant (H3) Usong v. Hanseatic Int. Ltd (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1425; (2009) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1153) 522

 

EVIDENCE - Proof - Construction contracts - Redundant machinery - As basis for damages - It requires evidence of facts such as inquiries for their hire - Depreciation & maintenance - Appellant failed to prove any of these facts (H3) Arisons Ltd v. Mil. Gov. Ogun State (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 268) 1483; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1163) 26

 

EVIDENCE - Proof - Crime - Allegation of in civil proceedings - Standard of proof required - The main claim being for compensation for loss - Crime not being directly in issue - Proof beyond reasonable doubt is inapplicable (H4) A.S.E.S.A. v. Ekwenem (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1803; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1158) 410

 

EVIDENCE - Proof - Declaration of title - Onus of proof - Discharge of - Plaintiff must establish his claim - With credible acceptable evidence - Based on strength of his case - Not on weakness of defendant’s (H5) Osuji v. Ekeocha (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2033; (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1166) 81

 

EVIDENCE - Proof - Declaration of title - Onus of proof - How discharged - Plaintiff has to discharge the onus on the strength of his own case - Not on the weakness of the defendant’s case (H1) Dim v. Enemuo (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 266) 1117; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1149) 353

 

EVIDENCE - Proof - Document pleaded but not tendered - Effect - Once plaintiff puts sufficient evidence in support of his claim - It is not the law that all documents pleaded - Must be tendered in evidence (H4) Bamgbegbin v. Oriare (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 268) 1525; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1158) 370

 

EVIDENCE - Proof - Identity of accused - Where prosecution witnesses who knew him closely - Identify him at the scene of crime - Their evidence is reliable - If the defence does not demolish it (H2) Ndukwe v. State (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 413; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1139) 43

 

EVIDENCE - Proof - Reliefs - Grant - Relationship with claim - It is when a claim succeeds - That granting of reliefs go with the success - Trial court erred in granting reliefs - Where appellant failed to prove his claim (H3) Osuji v. Ekeocha (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2033; (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1166) 81

 

EVIDENCE - Proof - Special damages - Involving allegation of crime - Standard of proof - Applicable standard is proof beyond reasonable doubt - Having failed to so prove it - Claim for special damages was rightly refused (H10) Anyanwu v. Uzowuaka (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1829; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1159) 445

 

EVIDENCE - Proof - Special damages - Recovery - Requirements - They must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved by plaintiff - It is not a matter of hypothetical exercise (H2) Arisons Ltd v. Mil. Gov. Ogun State (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 268) 1483; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1163) 26

 

EVIDENCE - Proof - Termination of appointment - Justification - How proved - Employer must satisfy the court that the allegation was disclosed to employee - That he was given fair hearing - And found liable after hearing (H16) Oloruntoba-Oju v. Abdul-Raheem (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1673; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 83

 

EVIDENCE - Proof - Title to land - In view of appellants’ assertion that respondents are in possession by customary tenancy - Appellants can only prove their title by proving customary tenancy of respondents - Which they have failed to do (H5) Dashi v. Satlong (2009) 1 KLR (pt. 262) 1; (2009) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1134) 281

 

EVIDENCE - Proof - Uncontroverted evidence - Attitude of court - As the only facts before trial court were as deposed by respondent - That the transaction took place in Jos - Trial court was right to have assumed jurisdiction (H4) Abia St. Trans. Corp. v. Quorum Consortium Ltd (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 266) 973; (2009) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1145) 1

 

EVIDENCE - Proof - Uncontroverted evidence - Unchallenged evidence of PW5 is sufficient proof of ownership - In the plaintiff - Therefore the trial court ought to have acted upon it (H1) Ibrahim v. Osunde (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 341; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1137) 382

 

EVIDENCE - Proof of company membership - Production of register - Onus - Though the register is in the custody of the company - The onus is on appellant to call the company as witness - To tender the relevant portions thereof (H4) Orji v. Dorji Textiles Mills (Nig) Ltd (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 274) 2723; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 467

 

EVIDENCE - Prosecution evidence - Minor contradictions - Effect - Where it did not affect credibility of witnesses - It cannot vitiate the case of the prosecution (H3) Musa v. State (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1929; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1165) 467

 

EVIDENCE - Reevaluation - By Court of Appeal - Propriety - As parties’ briefs centred on the evidence at trial - Court of Appeal could not have ignored this aspect of the argument - Without causing miscarriage of justice (H1) G.K.F. Ltd v. NITEL (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1899; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1164) 344

 

EVIDENCE - Reevaluation - By Court of Appeal - Propriety - It is properly done - As issue (i) of appellants could not be resolved properly - Without evaluating evidence - Called by the parties at the trial (H5) Da Kabirikim v. Emefor (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1867; (2009) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1162) 602

 

EVIDENCE - Relevancy - Exhibit 17 - It alleges that the retirement was on the basis of Pension Act - Which allegation is denied by respondents - So Court of Appeal was wrong to hold that it is irrelevant (H2) Abdullahi v. Mil. Admin. Kaduna State (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1767; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1165) 417

 

EVIDENCE - Res Judicata - Proof - Means - In the absence of certified true copies of the judgments in the previous cases relied on - There is no means of determining if all the conditions have been met by appellants - To sustain the plea (H7) Akayepe v. Akayepe (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1183; (2009) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1152) 217

 

EVIDENCE - Signature - Genuineness of - Where in dispute - Court has power to compare the disputed one with an undisputed version - The alleged owner of the signature need not swear to any affidavit to deny it (H5) Tomtec Ltd v. FHA (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2471; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 358

 

EVIDENCE - Special damages - Trespass - Proof - Court of Appeal was wrong to have held that there was no evidence in proof of special damages - On alleged ground that there was no trespass - There is evidence of both trespass and special damages (H5) Feed & Food Farms Ltd v. NNPC (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 268) 1561

 

EVIDENCE - Submission of counsel - Alleging new facts - Propriety - A party cannot make out a case solely on address of counsel - But on facts pleaded and evidence adduced in support (H10) Oloruntoba-Oju v. Abdul-Raheem (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1673; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 83

 

EVIDENCE - Taken in earlier proceedings - Relevancy - To later proceedings - It is irrelevant - Except for purpose of discrediting the particular witness - In cross examination - And for that purpose only (H4) Oguntayo v. Adelaja (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1957; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1163) 150

 

EVIDENCE - Title - Claim for - Identity of land - Means of proof - Can be by evidence of boundary men of the land in dispute - Or by a plan - Court of Appeal was therefore wrong - To hold that there is no certainty of description - In view of evidence on record (H1) Nwokorobia v. Nwogu (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1303; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1150) 553

 

EVIDENCE - Title - Identity of land - Need to establish it - Plaintiff must show exactly & precisely - A defined and identifiable area to which the claim relates - Else the claim must fail (H6) Ukaegbu v. Nwololo (2009) 1 KLR (pt. 262) 103; (2009) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1127) 194

 

EVIDENCE - Title - Means of proof - Long possession - Plaintiff has not pleaded specifically his acts of user in possession - By various, positive & numerous acts - Over a long period as to prove ownership (H3) Dim v. Enemuo (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 266) 1117; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1149) 353

 

EVIDENCE - Title - Proof - Basis of - Title must be considered & decided upon on the basis of the plaintiff’s case - So that where plaintiff initially fails to prove title - His case must be dismissed without recourse to defendant’s case (H5) Dim v. Enemuo (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 266) 1117; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1149) 353

 

EVIDENCE - Title - Proof - Traditional evidence - Necessary facts - Must contain such facts as who founded the land - How he founded it - And particulars of intervening owners (H3) Nwokorobia v. Nwogu (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1303; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1150) 553

 

EVIDENCE - Title - Proof - Whether achieved - Appellant may have failed to proved title by traditional history - But he proved it by one of the ways - Enunciated in Idundun v. Okumagba - As proof in civil cases is on a balance of probability (H10) Nwokorobia v. Nwogu (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1303; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1150) 553

 

EVIDENCE - Title - Proof by traditional evidence - Effect of contradiction - It can not sustain the action for declaration of title - As traditional history must be pleaded & proved with consistent & uncontradicted evidence (H7) Nwokorobia v. Nwogu (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1303; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1150) 553

 

EVIDENCE - Title - Proof of ownership of surrounding land - Legal implication - Appellant has proved that the land he is farming on - Is contiguous to the land in dispute - This raises the probability - That he owns the land in dispute (H9) Nwokorobia v. Nwogu (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1303; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1150) 553

 

EVIDENCE - Uncontroverted evidence - Reliance by court - Propriety - Court is entitled to rely thereon - In such situation there is nothing to weigh on the imaginary scale - And onus is discharged on minimum proof (H7) Shell Petroleum v. Edamkue (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2143; (2009) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1160) 1

 

EVIDENCE - Value - Documents - Gazette - Probative value of - It is prima facie proof of any fact of a public nature - Which it is intended to notify (H4) Our Line Ltd v. S.C.C. Ltd (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2083; (2009) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1170) 382

 

EVIDENCE - Weight - Exhibit A - Evidential quality - It not only explains how the land was granted to appellant as customary tenant - But also shows why appellant and his people - Are in physical possession thereof (H5) Ogbe v. Asade (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2425; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1172) 106

 

EVIDENCE - Weight - Facts in gazette - Weight to be attached - How ascertained - It is a matter of inference - To be drawn from established facts (H5) Our Line Ltd v. S.C.C. Ltd (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2083; (2009) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1170) 382

 

EVIDENCE - Witnesses - Minors - Prior examination by court - In view of available evidence - This is not a case in which trial court needed to conduct prior examination - As to the intelligence of the witness (H7) Omotola v. State (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 683; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1139) 148

 

EVIDENCE - Witnesses - Number of - Sufficiency - Prosecution is not bound to call all witnesses - The need for appearance in court of the pathologist did not arise - In view of evidence on record (H5) Olabode v. State (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1337; (2009) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1152) 254

 

EVIDENCE - Written instruments - Construction - Rules - The words must be taken in their ordinary sense - Unless that would lead to some absurdity - Or inconsistency with the rest of the instrument (H6) Our Line Ltd v. S.C.C. Ltd (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2083; (2009) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1170) 382

 

EXPERT OPINIONS - Necessity of - Where the evidence already before the court sufficiently proves a party’s case without reliance on an expert opinion - The exercise of calling an expert witness may be avoided as unnecessary - As observed by the Court of Appeal (H3) Onyekwelu v. Elf Petroleum (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 501; (2009) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1133) 181

 

FAIR HEARING - Appeals - Issues - Raised and resolved suo motu - Effect - It amounts to a denial of fair hearing - Which occasioned miscarriage of justice to appellants - For Court of Appeal to have so raised and resolved the issue of admission (H1) Shasi v. Smith (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 272) 2295; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 330

 

FAIR HEARING - Applicability - Undefended list procedure - The procedure recognises fair hearing by reserving to the defendant the right to file a notice to defend - It is a different matter where defendant fails to utilize the right (H8) Joel Okunrinboye Exp. Ltd v. Skye Bank Plc (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 477; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1138) 518

 

FAIR HEARING - Breach - Applicability - Dismissal of appeal on the ground that appellant’s brief did not accord with the rules - Is tantamount to a denial of fair hearing (H2) Ekpemupolo v. Edremoda (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 589; (2009) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1142) 166

 

FAIR HEARING - Fundamental rights - Breach - When the trial judge proceeded to hear the evidence of the appellant - In the absence of his counsel - He breached his right to fair hearing (H1) Umaru v. State (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 743; (2009) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1142) 134

 

FAIR HEARING - Master & servant - Conduct of staff - Scandalous conduct - How determined - It can only be determined in a judicial enquiry - Where fair hearing will be afforded the staff who is accused (H4) Olufeagba v. Abdur-Raheem (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 274) 2667; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 384

 

FAIR HEARING - Opportunity to be heard - Which the law is designed to give - Where a defendant decides not to utilize that opportunity - He cannot turn around to blame the court - As fair hearing should also avail plaintiff (H9) Joel Okunrinboye Exp. Ltd v. Skye Bank Plc (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 477; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1138) 518

 

FAIR HEARING - Order not claimed - Making of - Proper steps - Court must hear the view of the parties - Before making such order - Since somebody’s right must be affected - He should not be denied the right to be heard (H10) Osuji v. Ekeocha (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2033; (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1166) 81

 

FAIR HEARING - Principles - Effect on issue of locus standi - Locus standi is a threshold issue - Fair hearing is concerned with adjudication - Unless there is locus standi - Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate (H8) Basinco Motors Ltd v. Woermann-Line (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1609; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 149

 

FAIR HEARING - Termination of appointment - Justification - How proved - Employer must satisfy the court that the allegation was disclosed to employee - That he was given fair hearing - And found liable after hearing (H16) Oloruntoba-Oju v. Abdul-Raheem (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1673; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 83

 

FAIR HEARING - Termination of appointment - Procedure - Fair hearing - Relevant point - There is a distinction between recommendation of investigating panel - And its implementation - Fair hearing should apply between the two points (H17) Oloruntoba-Oju v. Abdul-Raheem (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1673; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 83

 

FAMILY LAW - Customary Law - Family property - Disposition of - Where done by the head of family without consent of other family members - It is valid - Though it is voidable at the instance of those other family members (H4) Ohiaeri v. Yussuf (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 455; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1137) 207

 

FAMILY LAW - Family membership - Matrilineal descent - Applicability - No customary law forbids a Yoruba man - From tracing his family membership along his maternal line - Trial court was wrong to have discounted that possibility (H1) Oyewole v. Akande (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2119; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1163) 119

 

FRAUD - Civil actions - Allegations of fraud - Manner of proving - It must be pleaded and proved beyond reasonable doubt - But it was neither pleaded in this case - Nor was evidence led thereon (H3) Olalomi Industries Ltd v. N.I.D.B. Ltd (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2001; (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1167) 266

 

FRAUD - Documents - Contents - Proof of - A document is the best proof of its contents - No oral evidence will be allowed to contradict the contents - Except where fraud is pleaded (H3) Anyanwu v. Uzowuaka (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1829; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1159) 445

 

FRAUD - Documents - Licences issued - Effect - It shows overwhelming evidence in favour of appellants - Oral evidence cannot be allowed to contradict them - As no fraud was alleged (H4) Anyanwu v. Uzowuaka (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1829; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1159) 445

 

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS - Fair hearing - Breach - When the trial judge proceeded to hear the evidence of the appellant - In the absence of his counsel - He breached his right to fair hearing (H1) Umaru v. State (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 743; (2009) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1142) 134

 

INDUSTRIAL LAW - Cause of action - Nature of - Issue of cessation of appellants’ employment - Has no connotation of trade dispute - Court of Appeal was therefore wrong - To have held otherwise (H6) Oloruntoba-Oju v. Abdul-Raheem (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1673; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 83

 

INJUNCTIONS - Family land - Injunction against family members - Effect - In spite of the order of injunction on appellants - Overall interest of Akayepe family - Including appellants - Remains intact - Their complaint is therefore baseless (H4) Akayepe v. Akayepe (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1183; (2009) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1152) 217

 

INTERESTS - Judgment sum - Post judgment interest - Entitlement - Where rules of court provides for recovery of interest on judgment sum - It automatically carries interest at prescribed rate - Unless otherwise ordered (H5) G.K.F. Ltd v. NITEL (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1899; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1164) 344

 

INTERESTS - Loan agreements - Agreed interest rate - Binding effect - From admissions of PW1 the parties agreed on 14% p.a. interest - Repayable as from January 1985 - Respondent is therefore entitled to charge the agreed interest rate (H7) Olalomi Industries Ltd v. N.I.D.B. Ltd (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2001; (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1167) 266

 

INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS - Appeals - Extension of time to file reply brief - Failure to consider motion - Effect - Though Court of Appeal had a duty to consider the application - Failure to so do did not occasion any miscarriage of justice (H4) Mini Lodge Ltd v. Ngei (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 274) 2639; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 254

 

INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS - Discontinuance - Application to discontinue - Initiation of - During vacation - It must be brought either with the consent of the parties - Or by reason of some urgency (H7) Onwuka v. Ononuju (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1393; (2009) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1151) 174

 

INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS - Withdrawal - Application to withdraw - Based on urgency - Need for affidavit of urgency - It should be filed to verify the facts of urgent nature of the matter - But appellant failed to do so (H8) Onwuka v. Ononuju (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1393; (2009) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1151) 174

 

INTERNATIONAL LAW - Foreign companies - Provisions of CAMA - Applicability - In view of the definition of company in s. 264 thereof - The provisions of CAMA do not regulate the affairs of foreign companies (H4) Agro Allied Dev. Ent. Ltd v. MV Northern Reefer (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1167; (2009) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1155) 255

 

INTERNATIONAL LAW - Judgments - Foreign judgments - Enforcement - Applicable law - Where the foreign jurisdiction is the United Kingdom - The applicable law is still the Reciprocal Enforcement of judgment Act (Cap. 175 of 1958) (H1) Grosvenor Casinos Ltd. v. Halaoui (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1241; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1149) 309

 

INTERNATIONAL LAW - Judgments - Foreign Judgments - Enforcement under s. 3 of the Act - A judgment obtained in England can only be registered - For enforcement in Nigeria - If the judgment debtor had submitted to the jurisdiction of that court in England (H2) Grosvenor Casinos Ltd. v. Halaoui (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1241; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1149) 309

 

JOINDER OF PARTIES - Non-joinder - Document not produced - S. 149 (d) Evidence Act - Respondent ought to have applied to join NPA as 2nd defendant - If indeed it delivered the goods to them - Failure to do so justifies the invocation of s. 149 (d) (H2) FMH v. Comet Shipping Agencies (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265) 859; (2009) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1145) 193

 

JUDGMENTS - Actions - Reliefs granted - Relation with findings - Though trial court properly evaluated - And made proper findings of fact - The relief granted thereafter did not flow from the findings (H9) Osuji v. Ekeocha (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2033; (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1166) 81

 

JUDGMENTS - APPEALS - Basis of complaints - Ratio or obiter - Though an appeal is usually against a ratio - The comment on fraud by Court of Appeal - Even if it is obiter - Is so linked with the ratio as to have influenced it (H2) Olalomi Industries Ltd v. N.I.D.B. Ltd (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2001; (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1167) 266

 

JUDGMENTS - Appeals - Findings - Re-evaluation on appeal - Basis of - Where they are found to be perverse - It is the duty of appellate court - To re-evaluate same - As Court of Appeal did with the consequential orders (H8) Osuji v. Ekeocha (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2033; (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1166) 81

 

JUDGMENTS - Appeals - Grounds - Whether law or fact - Where a ground reveals a misapplication of the law - To facts already proved or admitted - It is a ground of law (H1) Ogundele v. Agiri (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 272) 2249; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 219

 

JUDGMENTS - Appeals - Issues - Raised and resolved suo motu - Effect - It amounts to a denial of fair hearing - Which occasioned miscarriage of justice to appellants - For Court of Appeal to have so raised and resolved the issue of admission (H1) Shasi v. Smith (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 272) 2295; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 330

 

JUDGMENTS - Appeals - Judicial precedents - Overruling - Conditions for - Judgment to be overruled must be shown to be erroneous in law - Or given per incuriam, or contrary to public policy - None of which is the position with Emelogu case (H3) Tanko v. State (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 541; (2009) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1131) 430

 

JUDGMENTS - Appeals - Stay of execution - Presumption of correctness of judgment - Which applies subject to rebuttal on appeal - Avails in this case - To prevent depriving a party from reaping his fruit of success (H4) NNPC v. Famfa Oil Ltd (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1647; (2009) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1156) 462

 

JUDGMENTS - Basis - Extraneous matters - Court of Appeal based its judgment on issues not raised by parties - Without affording them opportunity to address it on them - As such it is based on extraneous matters (H3) Ogundele v. Agiri (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 272) 2249; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 219

 

JUDGMENTS - Binding effect - It remains valid and binding on parties - Until set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction - So qualification of appellant was not in issue as at 20/2/07 (H3) Udeh v. Okoli (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 723; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1141) 571

 

JUDGMENTS - Concurring judgment - Legal status - It forms part of the leading judgment - And is meant to complement same - Both leading & concurring judgments crystallize into the judgment of an appellate court (H15) Oloruntoba-Oju v. Abdul-Raheem (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1673; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 83

 

JUDGMENTS - Consent judgment - Meaning - It is a contract between parties - Whereby rights are created between them - In substitution for order of consideration - Of abandonment of the claims in court (H2) Star Paper Mill Ltd v. Adetunji (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2173; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1159) 647

 

JUDGMENTS - Consequential orders - Nature of - It is one flowing directly upon a judgment - It must give effect to a judgment already given - And not grant a fresh unclaimed relief (H11) Osuji v. Ekeocha (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2033; (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1166) 81

 

JUDGMENTS - Conspiracy - Discharge and acquittal - Propriety - Decision of trial judge acquitting and discharging other accused persons - Is perverse - Having regard to the circumstances of this case (H6) Sule v. State (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1737; (2009) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1169) 33

 

JUDGMENTS - Courts - Finding by trial court - False misrepresentation - Correctness - Respondents produced proceedings of 14/7/37 as final judgment - Instead of those of 5/10/38 - The finding was therefore correct (H2) Ogundele v. Agiri (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 272) 2249; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 219

 

JUDGMENTS - Courts - Resolution of issues - After a finding of lack of jurisdiction - Propriety - Any court below the Supreme Court - Is in order to take the merits - After such finding - In case the finding is declared wrong on appeal (H6) Feed & Food Farms Ltd v. NNPC (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 268) 1561

 

JUDGMENTS - Courts - Stay of execution - Exercise of discretion by courts - Proper Manner - It must take into account competing rights of parties to justice - Else it has not been judicially & judiciously exercised (H2) NNPC v. Famfa Oil Ltd (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1647; (2009) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1156) 462

 

JUDGMENTS - Cross-appeals - Points not appealed on - Where a respondent did not cross-appeal on a point - He cannot raise that point on appeal as of right (H4) Aderigbigbe v. Abidoye (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265)773; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1150) 592

 

JUDGMENTS - Decisions - Challenge through objection - Propriety - It is wrong to challenge decision of a court - Under the guise of preliminary objection - Since a court becomes functus officio - When it hands down a decision (H2) Tomtec Ltd v. FHA (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2471; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 358

 

JUDGMENTS - Decisions of court - Failure to appeal - Effect - Where a party fails to appeal against any decision - He is deemed to have accepted it - He is consequently bound by it (H3) Tomtec Ltd v. FHA (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2471; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 358

 

JUDGMENTS - Decisions of court - Found to be nullity - Power to set aside - Courts of record have inherent jurisdiction - To set aside their decisions - Found to be nullity - As rightly done by Court of Appeal (H6) Tomtec Ltd v. FHA (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2471; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 358

 

JUDGMENTS - Delivery - 3 months Limitation - From final addresses - Computation - Time begins to run from the date of last address of counsel - In this case from 1st of December 1992 - Not 22nd of May 1992 (H2) Savannah Bank v. Starite Ind. Corp. (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 523; (2009) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1144) 491

 

JUDGMENTS - Elections - Candidates - Substitution - Cogency of reason - In view of existing court judgments on the qualification of the appellant - Any reason for substitution based on his disqualification - Cannot be cogent (H4) Udeh v. Okoli (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 723; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1141) 571

 

JUDGMENTS - Findings - Verdict of no valid interest in appellants - Affirmation - Propriety - Trial court made the finding with ample support of evidence - Court of Appeal was therefore right to have affirmed same (H3) Mini Lodge Ltd v. Ngei (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 274) 2639; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 254

 

JUDGMENTS - Findings of fact - When made - Observations during summary of evidence - Are not findings of fact made during evaluation - In this case evaluation started from page 195 - What came before are mere observations (H2) Mini Lodge Ltd v. Ngei (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 274) 2639; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 254

 

JUDGMENTS - Foreign judgments - Enforcement - Applicable law - Where the foreign jurisdiction is the United Kingdom - The applicable law is still the Reciprocal Enforcement of judgment Act (Cap. 175 of 1958) (H1) Grosvenor Casinos Ltd. v. Halaoui (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1241; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1149) 309

 

JUDGMENTS - Foreign Judgments - Enforcement under s. 3 of the Act - A judgment obtained in England can only be registered - For enforcement in Nigeria - If the judgment debtor had submitted to the jurisdiction of that court in England (H2) Grosvenor Casinos Ltd. v. Halaoui (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1241; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1149) 309

 

JUDGMENTS - Foreign laws & cases - Effect of - They are only persuasive in the interpretation of our constitution & statutes - They can not be relied on - To hold that decisions of our courts - Based on our statutes - Are not good laws (H1) Basinco Motors Ltd v. Woermann-Line (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1609; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 149

 

JUDGMENTS - Form - Preface of facts - Propriety - It is a good approach to preface consideration of issues - With exposition of background facts leading to the dispute (H1) Omotola v. State (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 683; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1139) 148

 

JUDGMENTS - Issues - Errors - Effect - Though Court of Appeal erroneously stated that the issues outnumbered grounds of appeal filed - It nevertheless considered all the issues in its judgment (H1) Iroagbara v. Ufomadu (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1283; (2009) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1153) 587

 

JUDGMENTS - Judgment sum - Post judgment interest - Entitlement - Where rules of court provides for recovery of interest on judgment sum - It automatically carries interest at prescribed rate - Unless otherwise ordered (H5) G.K.F. Ltd v. NITEL (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1899; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1164) 344

 

JUDGMENTS - Land law - Reliefs - Sharing order by court - Effect - Its effect is the partitioning or allotment of the property - Since both partition or allotment is strictly a family affair - The court cannot do so by stroke of pen (H12) Osuji v. Ekeocha (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2033; (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1166) 81

 

JUDGMENTS - Mistakes - Power of court to amend - Extent - There is inherent jurisdiction vested in courts or tribunals to amend their rulings - To take care of accidental slips - Exercise of this power does not depend on application being in writing (H3) Osigwe v. PSPLS Mgt. Consortium Ltd (2009) 1 KLR (pt. 262) 73; (2009) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1128) 378

 

JUDGMENTS - Monetary judgments - Award of interest unclaimed - Propriety - The general rule is that monetary judgments attracts appropriate interest - Even where none is claimed (H5) Diamond Bank Ltd v. Partnership Investment Co. Ltd (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 272) 2221; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1172) 67

 

JUDGMENTS - Obiter - Appeals - Grounds of appeal - Based on obiter - Sustainability - The remark by Court of Appeal on identity of land as a non-issue - Is an obiter dictum - So it cannot form the basis of a ground of appeal (H3) Ogbe v. Asade (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2425; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1172) 106

 

JUDGMENTS - Orders - Binding effect - Even where it is perverse, a court order must be obeyed - Until it is set aside by a competent court - It is therefore of no moment whether the Court of Appeal was right in making the order (H6) Labour Party v. INEC (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 385; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1137) 315

 

JUDGMENTS - Reliefs - Grant - Relationship with claim - It is when a claim succeeds - That granting of reliefs go with the success - Trial court erred in granting reliefs - Where appellant failed to prove his claim (H3) Osuji v. Ekeocha (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2033; (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1166) 81

 

JUDGMENTS - Res judicata - Applicability - It does not apply as the earlier judgment did not make a decisive pronouncement - On validity of order making the presence of appellant mandatory on hearing date (H1) Uwagba v. FRN (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1439; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1163) 91

 

JUDGMENTS - Res judicata - Privity of estate - A prior purchaser of land such as respondents - Cannot be estopped as being privy in estate - By a judgment obtained in an action against vendor - Commenced after the purchase (H3) Omiyale v. Macaulay (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 655; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1141) 597

 

JUDGMENTS - Reversed on appeal - Effect on reliefs claimed - Where a judgment is reversed on appeal - Appellate court ought to make consequential orders - Granting any reliefs it considered to be supported by the evidence available (H3) Egharevba v. Osagie (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 274) 2613; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 299

 

JUDGMENTS - Separate days - Separate appeals - Same suit - As none of the appeals was in the form of cross-appeal - And no miscarriage of justice has been shown - The practice is proper in the circumstance (H8) Olalomi Industries Ltd v. N.I.D.B. Ltd (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2001; (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1167) 266

 

JUDGMENTS - Stay of execution - Grant of - Determinant factors - Courts should not grant stay unless there are special circumstances - Like likelihood of subject matter of proceedings being destroyed (H1) NNPC v. Famfa Oil Ltd (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1647; (2009) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1156) 462

 

JUDGMENTS - Stay of execution - Proof of special circumstances - Onus - It is on the party applying for stay pending appeal - To satisfy the court that in the peculiar circumstances - A refusal would be unjust (H3) NNPC v. Famfa Oil Ltd (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1647; (2009) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1156) 462

 

JUDGMENTS - Stay of execution - Reasonableness of - As the res in this matter is a depleting one - An order for stay will be against reason - Since the 1st respondent is the judgment creditor (H5) NNPC v. Famfa Oil Ltd (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1647; (2009) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1156) 462

 

JUDGMENTS - Stay of execution - Special circumstance - Effect of reconditeness - Even if recondite point is raised - It is not enough as special circumstance and reconditeness must coexist - Which is not the case here (H7) NNPC v. Famfa Oil Ltd (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1647; (2009) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1156) 462

 

JUDGMENTS - Stay of execution - Status of parties - Effect on the application - The fact that applicant is a Federal Government Agency - Does not give it any special status (H6) NNPC v. Famfa Oil Ltd (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1647; (2009) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1156) 462

 

JUDGMENTS - Styles - Propriety - There is no universal style - Each judge has his own style and each case often calls for its own approach - The important thing is that the element of good judgment are incorporated (H2) Omotola v. State (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 683; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1139) 148

 

JUDGMENTS - Terms - Monetary awards - Ascertainment of - Contrary to appellant’s contention - The awards as adjusted by Court of Appeal - Is ascertainable (H9) Olalomi Industries Ltd v. N.I.D.B. Ltd (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2001; (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1167) 266

 

JUDGMENTS - Terms of settlement - Adoption - Whether automatic - Courts have discretion as to whether or not - To adopt terms of settlement as their judgments - Particularly where such terms are vague (H3) Star Paper Mill Ltd v. Adetunji (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2173; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1159) 647

 

JUDGMENTS - Terms of settlement - Rejection by court - Propriety - Court of Appeal was right in not accepting to enter it as its judgment - As it did not state clearly the rights created or abandoned - In respect of the subject matter (H4)Star Paper Mill Ltd v. Adetunji (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2173; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1159) 647

 

JUDGMENTS - Treatment of parties’ cases - Need to be evenhanded - Court of Appeal failed to treat the parties’ respective cases - With evenhandedness - As expected of appellate courts - Thereby shirking its statutory responsibility (H2) Uzuda v. Ebigah (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2189; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1163) 1

 

JUDGMENTS - Validity - Issues - Where crucial issues are not considered - It occasions miscarriage of justice - Which renders the judgment a nullity (H7) Ekpemupolo v. Edremoda (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 589; (2009) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1142) 166

 

JUDGMENTS - Validity - Time of delivery - Non-Compliance with the time limit of 3 months after final addresses - Will not invalidate judgment - Unless it occasions a miscarriage of justice (H1) Savannah Bank v. Starite Ind. Corp. (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 523; (2009) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1144) 491

 

JUDICIAL OFFICERS - Appointment of - Appointment date - And swearing-in date - There is a distinction between the former and the latter - The former is the date of elevation - The latter marks assumption of office (H2) Our Line Ltd v. S.C.C. Ltd (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2083; (2009) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1170) 382

 

JUDICIAL OFFICERS - Courts - Jurisdiction - Elevation of judges - Effect - It deprives the judge of jurisdiction to continue with matters - Pending before him prior to the elevation (H3) Our Line Ltd v. S.C.C. Ltd (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2083; (2009) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1170) 382

 

JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS - Appeals - Overruling - Conditions for - Judgment to be overruled must be shown to be erroneous in law - Or given per incuriam, or contrary to public policy - None of which is the position with Emelogu case (H3) Tanko v. State (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 541; (2009) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1131) 430

 

JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS - Distinguishing - Bank draft - Made subject to confirmation - Propriety - As bank manager gave an implied undertaking - To comply to PW1’s instruction - The facts of UBA Ltd V. Ibhafidon is not applicable to this case (H4) Diamond Bank Ltd v. Partnership Investment Co. Ltd (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 272) 2221; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1172) 67

 

JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS - Distinguishing - Coram of Customary Courts of Appeal - Decision in Golok v. Diyalpwan based on s. 224 of 1979 Constitution - Remains intact - As it was made when the coram of the court was fluid (H4) Shelim v. Gobang (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1719; (2009) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1156) 435

 

JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS - Distinguishing - Different issues - Case of Dale power Systems Plc - The issues involved in that appeal are not the same as in this appeal (H3) Grosvenor Casinos Ltd. v. Halaoui (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1241; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1149) 309

 

JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS - Distinguishing - Evidence on facts not pleaded - Applicability of Anyanwu v. Iwuchukwu - The principle is totally inapplicable to the instant case as the fact of respondent’s rejection of the good supplied was properly pleaded - In line with the evidence led (H2) Onyekwelu v. Elf Petroleum (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 501; (2009) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1133) 181

 

JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS - Distinguishing - Jamgbadi case - It is distinguishable from this case - In that unlike in Jamgbadi the Court of Appeal failed to make any finding on appellant’s case - Both in the main appeal and the cross appeal (H1) Uzuda v. Ebigah (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2189; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1163) 1

 

JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS - Foreign laws & cases - Effect of - They are only persuasive in the interpretation of our constitution & statutes - They can not be relied on - To hold that decisions of our courts - Based on our statutes - Are not good laws (H1) Basinco Motors Ltd v. Woermann-Line (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1609; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 149

 

JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS - Mandatory statutory provisions - Applicability of waiver - Principles - It appears Supreme Court put the position too wide in Menakaya case - In view of the court’s later decision in the case of Mobil (H3) Feed & Food Farms Ltd v. NNPC (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 268) 1561

 

JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS - Overruling - Applicability - Though Supreme Court may over rule its previous decisions - Where a decision is based on statute - It requires statutory amendment to over rule it (H9) Basinco Motors Ltd v. Woermann-Line (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1609; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 149

 

JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS - Stare decisis - Bucknor Maclean case - Applicability - It is not evocable in the face of the provision of s. 26 of Land Use Act - Trial judge was right to have nullified Exh 1 (H5) Olalomi Industries Ltd v. N.I.D.B. Ltd (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2001; (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1167) 266

 

JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS - Title - Declaration of - Where title is in a 3rd party - Court will not grant such declaration - But instant facts are distinguishable from Dada case - As evidence show that appellants are customary tenants of respondents (H4) Jinadu v. Esurombi-Aro (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265) 883; (2009) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1145) 55

 

JURISDICTION - Actions for declaration - Federal Government - Proper court - Federal High Court is vested with power - To adjudicate on such actions - By s. 251 (1) of 1999 Constitution (H7) Oloruntoba-Oju v. Abdul-Raheem (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1673; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 83

 

JURISDICTION - Appeals - Jurisdiction of Customary Courts of Appeal - Issue of - Cognizance of before Court of Appeal - It is cognisable because jurisdiction is the life wire of any adjudication (H1) Shelim v. Gobang (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1719; (2009) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1156) 435

 

JURISDICTION - Appeals - Right of appeal - Source & implication - It can only be conferred by statute - So where the Constitution has donated a right of appeal - Without any condition - Court of Appeal can not lay such a condition (H3) Uwagba v. FRN (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1439; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1163) 91

 

JURISDICTION - Appellate courts - Conclusions not supported by record - An appellate court is bound by the record - It has no jurisdiction to draw conclusions - Which are not supported by the record (H5) Olufeagba v. Abdur-Raheem (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 274) 2667; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 384

 

JURISDICTION - Armed robbery - Courts - Not only does a State High Court have jurisdiction to try it - Officials of State Ministry of Justice are also qualified to prosecute robbery in any State High Court (H2) Tanko v. State (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 541; (2009) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1131) 430

 

JURISDICTION - Commissions of inquiry - Land ownership - Power to appoint - Governor of Plateau State has power to appoint such - If in his opinion - It would be for the public welfare - And it does not interfere with High Court’s constitutional jurisdiction (H4) Da Kabirikim v. Emefor (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1867; (2009) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1162) 602

 

JURISDICTION - Court - Juristic personality - Death of co-parties - Effect - Where a sole party to an appeal dies - And is not substituted - The appeal ends - But this is not the case where there are surviving co-parties (H1) Olufeagba v. Abdur-Raheem (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 274) 2667; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 384

 

JURISDICTION - Courts - Decisions of court - Found to be nullity - Power to set aside - Courts of record have inherent jurisdiction - To set aside their decisions - Found to be nullity - As rightly done by Court of Appeal (H6) Tomtec Ltd v. FHA (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2471; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 358

 

JURISDICTION - Courts - Determining factor - It is the claim of the plaintiff which determines the jurisdiction of a court - To entertain a suit - The Court of Appeal was therefore right to hold that trial court had jurisdiction (H1) Oduko v. Govt. of Ebonyi St. Nigeria (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265) 915; (2009) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1147) 439

 

JURISDICTION - Courts - Elevation of judges - Effect - It deprives the judge of jurisdiction to continue with matters - Pending before him prior to the elevation (H3) Our Line Ltd v. S.C.C. Ltd (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2083; (2009) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1170) 382

 

JURISDICTION - Courts - Importance - It is fundamental to adjudication - A litigant must not only have genuine cause - But must also address it to the competent court - To get justice (H5) Oloruntoba-Oju v. Abdul-Raheem (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1673; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 83

 

JURISDICTION - Courts - National Industrial Court - Scope - Did not include jurisdiction to make declaration - And to order injunction - Under the Trade Dispute Act 1976 (H8) Oloruntoba-Oju v. Abdul-Raheem (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1673; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 83

 

JURISDICTION - Courts - Resolution of issues - After a finding of lack of jurisdiction - Propriety - Any court below the Supreme Court - Is in order to take the merits - After such finding - In case the finding is declared wrong on appeal (H6) Feed & Food Farms Ltd v. NNPC (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 268) 1561

 

JURISDICTION - Estoppel - Res judicata - Issue of - Primacy - The issue should be disposed of before other issues - For the plea has the effect of ousting court’s jurisdiction - Where successful (H4) Jimoh v. Akande (2009) 1 KLR (pt. 262) 39; (2009) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1135) 549

 

JURISDICTION - Fair hearing - Principles - Effect on issue of locus standi - Locus standi is a threshold issue - Fair hearing is concerned with adjudication - Unless there is locus standi - Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate (H8) Basinco Motors Ltd v. Woermann-Line (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1609; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 149

 

JURISDICTION - Federal High Court - Exclusive jurisdiction - Applicability - A question of payment of pension to public servants under the Pensions Act - Is an issue within the administration of the relevant Federal government enterprise - So it is within the exclusive jurisdiction of Federal High Court (H3) Adekoye v. N.S.P.M.C. Ltd (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 233; (2009) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1134) 322

 

JURISDICTION - Filing fees - Failure to pay - Effect - It does not raise issue of jurisdiction - It is a mere irregularity which when not taken timeously or when acquiesced in - Becomes incapable of affecting the proceedings in any way (H1) Akpaji v. Udemba (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 263; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1138) 545

 

JURISDICTION - Locus standi - Effect on jurisdiction - It is a forerunner to jurisdiction - Where plaintiff lacks locus standi - Court will decline jurisdiction (H4) Basinco Motors Ltd v. Woermann-Line (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1609; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 149

 

JURISDICTION - Matters affecting - Categorization - For purpose of waiver - They should be categorized into those affecting the public and those affecting the parties - The former cannot in law be waived - But the latter can be waived (H2) Feed & Food Farms Ltd v. NNPC (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 268) 1561

 

JURISDICTION - Orders of court - Competency - Orders of court has to be lawfully & competently made - An order made without jurisdiction is a nullity ab initio (H4) Uwagba v. FRN (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1439; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1163) 91

 

JURISDICTION - Orders of Court - Leave to sue - Variation - By a court of equal jurisdiction - Such order does not constitute a decision of a judge - That cannot be varied by a judge of equal jurisdiction - Therefore it was properly varied (H6) Shell Petroleum v. Edamkue (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2143; (2009) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1160) 1

 

JURISDICTION - Ouster provisions - Public Officers (Special Provisions) Act - Scope - It ousts the jurisdiction of the court from adjudicating on a suit - Filed by a dismissed public officer - So far as dismissal was purported to have been done under the Act (H1) Kalango v. Gov. Bayelsa State (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 365; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1139) 17

 

JURISPRUDENCE - Appeals - Party’s case - Variation of on appeal - Propriety - It runs contrary to practice and procedure of our civil jurisprudence - Neither counsel nor litigant is permitted - To approbate and reprobate in the conduct of a case (H4) Osuji v. Ekeocha (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2033; (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1166) 81

 

JUSTICE - Appeals - Concurrent findings - Attitude of courts - Where such findings are patently wrong or perverse - An appellate court will interfere in the interest of justice (H5) Ibrahim v. Osunde (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 341; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1137) 382

 

JUSTICE - Appeals - Issues - Raised and resolved suo motu - Effect - It amounts to a denial of fair hearing - Which occasioned miscarriage of justice to appellants - For Court of Appeal to have so raised and resolved the issue of admission (H1) Shasi v. Smith (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 272) 2295; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 330

 

JUSTICE - Appeals - Trial court - Exercise of discretion - Interference - Duty of appellate court - It is incumbent on appellate court to show that the discretion - Has been exercised arbitrarily - And has occasioned miscarriage of justice (H3) Uzuda v. Ebigah (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2189; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1163) 1

 

JUSTICE - Courts - Jurisdiction - Importance - It is fundamental to adjudication - A litigant must not only have genuine cause - But must also address it to the competent court - To get justice (H5) Oloruntoba-Oju v. Abdul-Raheem (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1673; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 83

 

JUSTICE - Courts - Mistakes - Effect on appeal - Mistake by court will not lead to nullification of proceedings - Or result in appeal being allowed - Unless it has occasioned miscarriage of justice (H8) Sule v. State (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1737; (2009) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1169) 33

 

JUSTICE - Damages - General damages - Assessment - Guiding principle - It is necessary to award only such damages - As meet the justice of each case (H1) Sonibare v. Soleye (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 266) 1157; (2009) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1155) 275

 

JUSTICE - Election petitions - Technicalities - Applicability of - The intention of the Act is to do substantial justice - So any conclusion tending to bar a case from hearing on the merits - Ought not to be encouraged (H4) Hope Democratic Party (HDP) v. INEC (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 623; (2009) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1143) 297

 

JUSTICE - Fair hearing - Opportunity to be heard - Which the law is designed to give - Where a defendant decides not to utilize that opportunity - He cannot turn around to blame the court - As fair hearing should also avail plaintiff (H9) Joel Okunrinboye Exp. Ltd v. Skye Bank Plc (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 477; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1138) 518

 

JUSTICE - Judgments - Validity - Time of delivery - Non-Compliance with the time limit of 3 months after final addresses - Will not invalidate judgment - Unless it occasions a miscarriage of justice (H1) Savannah Bank v. Starite Ind. Corp. (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 523; (2009) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1144) 491

 

JUSTICE - Miscarriage - Appeals - Extension of time to file reply brief - Failure to consider motion - Effect - Though Court of Appeal had a duty to consider the application - Failure to so do did not occasion any miscarriage of justice (H4) Mini Lodge Ltd v. Ngei (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 274) 2639; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 254

 

JUSTICE - Miscarriage - Improper evaluation of evidence - Need to arrest - It will perpetuate injustice in our judicial processes - If appellate court does not interfere therein (H7) Arisons Ltd v. Mil. Gov. Ogun State (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 268) 1483; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1163) 26

 

JUSTICE - Miscarriage - Judgments - Separate days - Separate appeals - Same suit - As none of the appeals was in the form of cross-appeal - And no miscarriage of justice has been shown - The practice is proper in the circumstance (H8) Olalomi Industries Ltd v. N.I.D.B. Ltd (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2001; (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1167) 266

 

JUSTICE - Miscarriage - Meaning & applicability - It simply means failure of justice - No elements of miscarriage of justice have been disclosed in the present case (H3) Akayepe v. Akayepe (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1183; (2009) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1152) 217

 

JUSTICE - Miscarriage of - Fair hearing - Breach - When the trial judge proceeded to hear the evidence of the appellant - In the absence of his counsel - He breached his right to fair hearing (H1) Umaru v. State (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 743; (2009) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1142) 134

 

JUSTICE - Miscarriage of - Judgments - Validity - Issues - Where crucial issues are not considered - It occasions miscarriage of justice - Which renders the judgment a nullity (H7) Ekpemupolo v. Edremoda (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 589; (2009) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1142) 166

 

JUSTICE - Substantial justice - Technicalities - Though rules of court should be complied with by parties - It is in the interest of justice that technicalities must be shunned - And claims determined on merit (H4) Oloruntoba-Oju v. Abdul-Raheem (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1673; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 83

 

LABOUR LAW - Cause of action - Nature of - Issue of cessation of appellants’ employment - Has no connotation of trade dispute - Court of Appeal was therefore wrong - To have held otherwise (H6) Oloruntoba-Oju v. Abdul-Raheem (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1673; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 83

 

LAND LAW - Actions - Basis of decision - Title - Proof - Though civil suits are decided on a balance of probabilities - A case for declaration of title - Must succeed on the strength of plaintiff’s case - Not on weakness of defence (H7) Osuji v. Ekeocha (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2033; (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1166) 81

 

LAND LAW - Agreement to sale - Effect - Where there is such agreement pursuant to which the purchaser makes part payment - And is put in possession - He acquires equitable interest as high as a legal estate (H1) Ohiaeri v. Yussuf (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 455; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1137) 207

 

LAND LAW - Appeals - Grounds of appeal - Based on obiter - Sustainability - The remark by Court of Appeal on identity of land as a non-issue - Is an obiter dictum - So it cannot form the basis of a ground of appeal (H3) Ogbe v. Asade (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2425; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1172) 106

 

LAND LAW - Appeals - Identity of land - As basis of challenge by appellant - Propriety - In view of no appeal against finding by trial court - That parties are ad-idem on identity of land - Appellant’s challenge on this point is misconceived (H2) Ogbe v. Asade (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2425; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1172) 106

 

LAND LAW - Appeals - Issues - Nonpayment of consideration for land - Propriety - Court of Appeal was in error in raising the issue - As a basis for allowing the appeal - Since there was no such issue before it (H1) Egharevba v. Osagie (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 274) 2613; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 299

 

LAND LAW - Appeals - Issues - Usefulness of - It is apparent from the pleadings of the parties - That identity of the land in dispute was a non-issue - As both parties knew the land (H5) Omiyale v. Macaulay (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 655; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1141) 597

 

LAND LAW - Commissions of inquiry - Land ownership - Power to appoint - Governor of Plateau State has power to appoint such - If in his opinion - It would be for the public welfare - And it does not interfere with High Court’s constitutional jurisdiction (H4) Da Kabirikim v. Emefor (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1867; (2009) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1162) 602

 

LAND LAW - Compulsory acquisition - Public purpose requirement - Import - It must be for public purpose or it is invalid - And a subsequent grant to a private person can never be construed as public purpose (H6) Ononuju v. A-G Anambra State (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1357; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1148) 182

 

LAND LAW - Customary law - Allottee & customary tenant - Difference - Though both exercise occupational rights over land - The allottee’s interest in family land cannot be forfeited - Unlike that of the customary tenant (H7) Dim v. Enemuo (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 266) 1117; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1149) 353

 

LAND LAW - Customary Law - Family property - Disposition of - Where done by the head of family without consent of other family members - It is valid - Though it is voidable at the instance of those other family members (H4) Ohiaeri v. Yussuf (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 455; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1137) 207

 

LAND LAW - Customary tenancy - Admission of existence - Issue of - The issue cannot now be raised by appellants - As it was neither raised nor canvassed - Before the lower courts (H2) Oshoboja v. Amida (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 272) 2275; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1172) 164

 

LAND LAW - Customary tenancy - Payment of tribute - It is not an incident of customary tenancy - That tributes can be paid by customary tenant to the landlord through a third party - As alleged by appellants herein (H4) Dashi v. Satlong (2009) 1 KLR (pt. 262) 1; (2009) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1134) 281

 

LAND LAW - Damages - Award - Entitlement - Sufficiency of proof - Evidence of PW4 established that appellant can no longer use the land - For industrial purposes - This is sufficient proof that appellant suffered damages (H4) Feed & Food Farms Ltd v. NNPC (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 268) 1561

 

LAND LAW - Declaration of title - Onus of proof - Discharge of - Plaintiff must establish his claim - With credible acceptable evidence - Based on strength of his case - Not on weakness of defendant’s (H5) Osuji v. Ekeocha (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2033; (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1166) 81

 

LAND LAW - Declaration of title - Onus of proof - How discharged - Plaintiff has to discharge the onus on the strength of his own case - Not on the weakness of the defendant’s case (H1) Dim v. Enemuo (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 266) 1117; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1149) 353

 

LAND LAW - Declaration of title - Proof - Effect of admission - Plaintiff has onus of proving title to satisfaction of the court - It is erroneous to grant a declaration of title - Based on admission in opponent’s pleadings (H2) Shasi v. Smith (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 272) 2295; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 330

 

LAND LAW - Equity - Title - Priority of interests - Only a subsequent bonafide purchaser of a legal estate for value - Without actual, constructive or imputed notice - Can take priority over a prior equitable interest (H5) Ohiaeri v. Yussuf (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 455; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1137) 207

 

LAND LAW - Evidence - Facts not pleaded - Evidence thereon - Effect - Appellant did not plead the name of their first forefather to come to Offa - Evidence on that fact therefore goes to no issue (H1) Olagunju v. Adesoye (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265) 937; (2009) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1146) 225

 

LAND LAW - Evidence - Locus in quo - Visit to - Purpose - Inspection of locus is only necessary - Where a judge has a clear doubt that he felt arose from the evidence - For the purpose of confirming what is already on the record with the actual physical inspection (H7) Ukaegbu v. Nwololo (2009) 1 KLR (pt. 262) 103; (2009) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1127) 194

 

LAND LAW - Evidence - Proof - Title to land - In view of appellants’ assertion that respondents are in possession by customary tenancy - Appellants can only prove their title by proving customary tenancy of respondents - Which they have failed to do (H5) Dashi v. Satlong (2009) 1 KLR (pt. 262) 1; (2009) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1134) 281

 

LAND LAW - Evidence - Weight - Exhibit A - Evidential quality - It not only explains how the land was granted to appellant as customary tenant - But also shows why appellant and his people - Are in physical possession thereof (H5) Ogbe v. Asade (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2425; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1172) 106

 

LAND LAW - Family land - Injunction against family members - Effect - In spite of the order of injunction on appellants - Overall interest of Akayepe family - Including appellants - Remains intact - Their complaint is therefore baseless (H4) Akayepe v. Akayepe (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1183; (2009) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1152) 217

 

LAND LAW - Family land - Partitioning of - Proof - In view of the fact that both sections of Akayepe family took part in taking the loan for the building - And in letting out the shops - The finding that the land is not partitioned is justified (H5) Akayepe v. Akayepe (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1183; (2009) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1152) 217

 

LAND LAW - Holders of land - Prior to the Land Use Act - Effect of Act on their interests - Such land is properly vested in them - Not even government can deprive them of it - Unless by compulsory acquisition in accordance with the Act (H4) Ononuju v. A-G Anambra State (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1357; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1148) 182

 

LAND LAW - Identity of land - Inconsistency in address used - Effect - The inconsistency and how it came about having been explained by plaintiff witness - There was no doubt that both parties - Were talking of the same property (H1) Oseni v. Bajulu (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2453; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1172) 164

 

LAND LAW - Identity of land - Issue of - When said to be raised - It is raised when defendants dispute the area - Or the size or other features - Shown on plaintiffs’ plan - In their statement of defence (H11) Anyanwu v. Uzowuaka (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1829; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1159) 445

 

LAND LAW - Notice of revocation - Service - Validity of - Respondents failed to comply with provisions of the Land Use Act - If any service was done at all - It was in violation of s. 28 thereof (H5) Ononuju v. A-G Anambra State (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1357; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1148) 182

 

LAND LAW - Payment of consideration - Proof - Exhibit F being an agreement with a clause acknowledging receipt of consideration - And signed by all the parties - Court of Appeal was wrong to say there was no evidence of payment (H2) Egharevba v. Osagie (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 274) 2613; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 299

 

LAND LAW - Pleadings - Averments - Binding effect - Purport of - From the pleading of both parties that they have no common boundary and the admission by PW2 - It is obvious that the land in dispute as claimed by respondent differ from that claimed by appellant (H3) Ukaegbu v. Nwololo (2009) 1 KLR (pt. 262) 103; (2009) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1127) 194

 

LAND LAW - Reliefs - Sharing order by court - Effect - Its effect is the partitioning or allotment of the property - Since both partition or allotment is strictly a family affair - The court cannot do so by stroke of pen (H12) Osuji v. Ekeocha (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2033; (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1166) 81

 

LAND LAW - Res judicata - Ingredients - Identity of land in dispute - Though a plan would have been a better means of identification - Identity of the instant land suffices - As the records show that parties are id idem on it - Notwithstanding the different names (H5) Jimoh v. Akande (2009) 1 KLR (pt. 262) 39; (2009) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1135) 549

 

LAND LAW - Res judicata - Ingredients - Privies to parties - Applicability - Respondents did not acquire title from plaintiffs in earlier suits - Therefore they could not be privies to the said plaintiffs (H2) Omiyale v. Macaulay (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 655; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1141) 597

 

LAND LAW - Res judicata - Privity of estate - A prior purchaser of land such as respondents - Cannot be estopped as being privy in estate - By a judgment obtained in an action against vendor - Commenced after the purchase (H3) Omiyale v. Macaulay (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 655; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1141) 597

 

LAND LAW - Revocation - Claim for nullification - Proof of title - Applicability - Though issue of title be incidental to claim - Plaintiff is not required to establish title - On the authority of Dzungwe case (H3) Ononuju v. A-G Anambra State (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1357; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1148) 182

 

LAND LAW - Revocation - Statutes of revocation - Applicability of - Where there is fraudulent concealment of the fact of revocation - There is postponement of limitation period - As no prescription runs against a person who was hindered in bringing a court action (H6) Administrators Abacha’s Estate v. Eke-Spiff (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 197; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1139) 97

 

LAND LAW - Revocation by government - In breach of Land Use Act - Validity of - Revocation of land by government must be for overriding public interest - With notice of revocation served on the allottee - Else it is invalid (H5) Administrators Abacha’s Estate v. Eke-Spiff (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 197; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1139) 97

 

LAND LAW - Special damages - Trespass - Proof - Court of Appeal was wrong to have held that there was no evidence in proof of special damages - On alleged ground that there was no trespass - There is evidence of both trespass and special damages (H5) Feed & Food Farms Ltd v. NNPC (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 268) 1561

 

LAND LAW - Specific performance - Sale of land contract - Such contract attracts greater justification for a decree of specific performance - As the land may have a peculiar value (H6) Ohiaeri v. Yussuf (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 455; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1137) 207

 

LAND LAW - Subject matter - Documents - Effect - Exhibit S - Though it supports respondents’ claim of existence of a joint union in 1975 - It is a mere application for a Tipper park - Not shown to be same as the land in dispute (H7) Anyanwu v. Uzowuaka (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1829; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1159) 445

 

LAND LAW - Tenancy - Grantor’s title - Denial - By a plea of jus terti - Attitude of courts - License will not be grated to tenants to deny their grantors’ title - Through a plea of jus terti (H5) Jinadu v. Esurombi-Aro (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265) 883; (2009) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1145) 55

 

LAND LAW - Title - Certificate of occupancy - Evidential value - If on the state of the law a certificate of occupancy lacked evidential value - To prove title being claimed - The Court has a duty to say so (H7) Omiyale v. Macaulay (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 655; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1141) 597

 

LAND LAW - Title - Claim for - Facts to plead - Where title is derived from a prior owner by whatever means - The pleading should aver facts as to the founding of the land - And the person who exercised original acts of possession thereon (H1) Ukaegbu v. Nwololo (2009) 1 KLR (pt. 262) 103; (2009) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1127) 194

 

LAND LAW - Title - Claim for - Identity of land - Means of proof - Can be by evidence of boundary men of the land in dispute - Or by a plan - Court of Appeal was therefore wrong - To hold that there is no certainty of description - In view of evidence on record (H1) Nwokorobia v. Nwogu (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1303; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1150) 553

 

LAND LAW - Title - Declaration of - Judicial precedents - Where title is in a 3rd party - Court will not grant such declaration - But instant facts are distinguishable from Dada case - As evidence show that appellants are customary tenants of respondents (H4) Jinadu v. Esurombi-Aro (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265) 883; (2009) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1145) 55

 

LAND LAW - Title - Discrepancies - In own traditional evidence - Effect - Minor as the discrepancies may be - They are material to the determination - Of the veracity of the traditional evidence (H5) Nwokorobia v. Nwogu (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1303; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1150) 553

 

LAND LAW - Title - Identity of land - Need to establish it - Plaintiff must show exactly & precisely - A defined and identifiable area to which the claim relates - Else the claim must fail (H6) Ukaegbu v. Nwololo (2009) 1 KLR (pt. 262) 103; (2009) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1127) 194

 

LAND LAW - Title - Issue estoppel - Applicability - Issue of title having been earlier resolved - Between same parties and privies - Trial judge properly applied the principle - As rightly upheld by Court of Appeal (H2) Bamgbegbin v. Oriare (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 268) 1525; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1158) 370

 

LAND LAW - Title - Means of proof - Long possession - Plaintiff has not pleaded specifically his acts of user in possession - By various, positive & numerous acts - Over a long period as to prove ownership (H3) Dim v. Enemuo (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 266) 1117; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1149) 353

 

LAND LAW - Title - Pleadings - Sufficiency of averments - Where title is said to derive from grant or inheritance - Facts relating to the founding of the land must be averred to - As well as the successive owners thereof (H4) Iroagbara v. Ufomadu (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1283; (2009) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1153) 587

 

LAND LAW - Title - Proof - Basis of - Title must be considered & decided upon on the basis of the plaintiff’s case - So that where plaintiff initially fails to prove title - His case must be dismissed without recourse to defendant’s case (H5) Dim v. Enemuo (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 266) 1117; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1149) 353

 

LAND LAW - Title - Proof - Evidence of acquisition - Effect - Acquisition of part of the land in Exhibit A from the respondents by government - Strengthens the respondents’ claim of title to the land in dispute (H7) Jinadu v. Esurombi-Aro (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265) 883; (2009) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1145) 55

 

LAND LAW - Title - Proof - Means of - Plaintiff must plead and prove root of title - Where he fails to do so - Acts of possession based on that root of title cannot sustain the claim for title (H2) Ukaegbu v. Nwololo (2009) 1 KLR (pt. 262) 103; (2009) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1127) 194

 

LAND LAW - Title - Proof - Rule in Kojo v. Bonsie - Applicability - The rule will only apply where the land in dispute - Is same portion of land from evidence before the court (H5) Ukaegbu v. Nwololo (2009) 1 KLR (pt. 262) 103; (2009) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1127) 194

 

LAND LAW - Title - Proof - Rule in Kojo v. Bonsie - Where there is a conflict of traditional history - With both sides appearing honest in their story - Court should decide by testing the probability of each story - On the basis of experience and wisdom (H4) Ukaegbu v. Nwololo (2009) 1 KLR (pt. 262) 103; (2009) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1127) 194

 

LAND LAW - Title - Proof - Sufficiency of - Appellant sufficiently proved his case before trial court - Court of Appeal was therefore wrong - To hold that he is not the holder of statutory right of occupancy over the land (H6) Amadi v. Chinda (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265) 819; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1148) 107

 

LAND LAW - Title - Proof - Traditional evidence - Necessary facts - Must contain such facts as who founded the land - How he founded it - And particulars of intervening owners (H3) Nwokorobia v. Nwogu (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1303; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1150) 553

 

LAND LAW - Title - Proof - Whether achieved - Appellant may have failed to proved title by traditional history - But he proved it by one of the ways - Enunciated in Idundun v. Okumagba - As proof in civil cases is on a balance of probability (H10) Nwokorobia v. Nwogu (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1303; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1150) 553

 

LAND LAW - Title - Proof by traditional evidence - Effect of contradiction - It can not sustain the action for declaration of title - As traditional history must be pleaded & proved with consistent & uncontradicted evidence (H7) Nwokorobia v. Nwogu (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1303; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1150) 553

 

LAND LAW - Title - Proof of ownership of surrounding land - Legal implication - Appellant has proved that the land he is farming on - Is contiguous to the land in dispute - This raises the probability - That he owns the land in dispute (H9) Nwokorobia v. Nwogu (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1303; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1150) 553

 

LAND LAW - Title - Root of - Need to plead with particularity - Particulars should be enough as to show the intervening owners - Through whom the land in dispute devolved to him (H2) Dim v. Enemuo (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 266) 1117; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1149) 353

 

LAND LAW - Title - Traditional history - Proof - Though 13th appellant pleaded traditional history of their title to the land in dispute - There is evidence accepted by trial court contrary to that pleading (H6) Jinadu v. Esurombi-Aro (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265) 883; (2009) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1145) 55

 

LAND LAW - Title - Traditional history - Sufficiency of pleading - Paragraph 4 of statement of claim is bereft of who founded the land - Because it generalized that it was owned by the family of Nwoko - When it is usually one person that founds a land (H4) Nwokorobia v. Nwogu (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1303; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1150) 553

 

LAND LAW - Title - Validity - Subsequent grant by a common grantor - By the prior sale to respondent’s predecessor-in-title - The Iyanru family no longer had interest in the land - To pass to the appellant by the subsequent grant (H4) Omiyale v. Macaulay (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 655; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1141) 597

 

LAND LAW - Trespass - Subsequent act - By lawful entrant - Where a person having entered upon land under lawful authority - Abuses that authority - He becomes a trespasser ab initio - And plaintiff can claim in trespass without issuing quit notice (H8) Anyanwu v. Uzowuaka (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1829; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1159) 445

 

LAND USE ACT - Compulsory acquisition - Public purpose requirement - Import - It must be for public purpose or it is invalid - And a subsequent grant to a private person can never be construed as public purpose (H6) Ononuju v. A-G Anambra State (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1357; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1148) 182

 

LAND USE ACT - Governor’s consent - Approval by Lands officer - Sufficiency - Since the person who signed was not the Governor’s delegate - The Commissioner for Lands - The approval letter was not in accordance with the Act (H4) Olalomi Industries Ltd v. N.I.D.B. Ltd (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2001; (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1167) 266

 

LAND USE ACT - Holders of land - Prior to Land Use Act - Effect of Act on their interests - Such land is properly vested in them - Not even government can deprive them of it - Unless by compulsory acquisition in accordance with the Act (H4) Ononuju v. A-G Anambra State (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1357; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1148) 182

 

LAND USE ACT - Notice of revocation - Service - Validity of - Respondents failed to comply with provisions of the Land Use Act - If any service was done at all - It was in violation of s. 28 thereof (H5) Ononuju v. A-G Anambra State (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1357; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1148) 182

 

LAND USE ACT - Revocation - Claim for nullification - Proof of title - Applicability - Though issue of title be incidental to claim - Plaintiff is not required to establish title - On the authority of Dzungwe case (H3) Ononuju v. A-G Anambra State (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1357; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1148) 182

 

LAND USE ACT - Revocation by government - In breach of Land Use Act - Validity of - Revocation of land by government must be for overriding public interest - With notice of revocation served on the allottee - Else it is invalid (H5) Administrators Abacha’s Estate v. Eke-Spiff (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 197; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1139) 97

 

LAND USE ACT - Stare decisis - Bucknor Maclean case - Applicability - It is not evocable in the face of the provision of s. 26 of Land Use Act - Trial judge was right to have nullified Exh 1 (H5) Olalomi Industries Ltd v. N.I.D.B. Ltd (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2001; (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1167) 266

 

LAND USE ACT - Title - Certificate of occupancy - Evidential value - If on the state of the law a certificate of occupancy lacked evidential value - To prove title being claimed - The Court has a duty to say so (H7) Omiyale v. Macaulay (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 655; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1141) 597

 

LAND USE ACT - Title - Proof - Sufficiency of - Appellant sufficiently proved his case before trial court - Court of Appeal was therefore wrong - To hold that he is not the holder of statutory right of occupancy over the land (H6) Amadi v. Chinda (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265) 819; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1148) 107

 

LANDLORD & TENANT - Allottee & customary tenant - Difference - Though both exercise occupational rights over land - The allottee’s interest in family land cannot be forfeited - Unlike that of the customary tenant (H7) Dim v. Enemuo (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 266) 1117; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1149) 353

 

LANDLORD & TENANT - Customary tenancy - Abandonment - How proved - Being a matter of intention it can be shown - By proving facts from which such intention may be inferred - Or by direct evidence of the party concerned (H6) Dim v. Enemuo (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 266) 1117; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1149) 353

 

LANDLORD & TENANT - Customary tenancy - Forfeiture - Applicability - There is no evidence of customary tenancy - Between appellant and respondent - So the question of forfeiture does not arise (H5) Iroagbara v. Ufomadu (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1283; (2009) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1153) 587

 

LANDLORD & TENANT - Customary tenancy - Payment of tribute - It is not an incident of customary tenancy - That tributes can be paid by customary tenant to the landlord through a third party - As alleged by appellants herein (H4) Dashi v. Satlong (2009) 1 KLR (pt. 262) 1; (2009) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1134) 281

 

LANDLORD & TENANT - Customary tenancy - Title - Declaration of - Judicial precedents - Where title is in a 3rd party - Court will not grant such declaration - But instant facts are distinguishable from Dada case - As evidence show that appellants are customary tenants of respondents (H4) Jinadu v. Esurombi-Aro (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265) 883; (2009) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1145) 55

 

LANDLORD & TENANT - Evidence - Weight - Exhibit A - Evidential quality - It not only explains how the land was granted to appellant as customary tenant - But also shows why appellant and his people - Are in physical possession thereof (H5) Ogbe v. Asade (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2425; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1172) 106

 

LANDLORD & TENANT - Tenancy - Grantor’s title - Denial - By a plea of jus terti - Attitude of courts - License will not be grated to tenants to deny their grantors’ title - Through a plea of jus terti (H5) Jinadu v. Esurombi-Aro (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265) 883; (2009) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1145) 55

 

LANDLORD & TENANT - Trespass - Subsequent act - By lawful entrant - Where a person having entered upon land under lawful authority - Abuses that authority - He becomes a trespasser ab initio - And plaintiff can claim in trespass without issuing quit notice (H8) Anyanwu v. Uzowuaka (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1829; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1159) 445

 

LANDLORD & TENANT -Customary tenancy - Grant of forfeiture - Propriety - In the absence of specific finding by trial court on ishakole - And as such on issue of customary tenancy - There can be no grant of forfeiture (H7) Bamgbegbin v. Oriare (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 268) 1525; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1158) 370

 

LEGAL DRAFTING - Election petitions - Inelegant drafting - Grounds of complaint - Notwithstanding the inelegance in drafting - The instant petition contains a recognised ground of complaint (H1) Hope Democratic Party (HDP) v. INEC (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 623; (2009) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1143) 297

 

LEGAL DRAFTING - Mandatory word - Kaduna State Civil Service - Retirement - Proper age - Under s. 9 (1) of Pensions and Gratuities Law - It is sixty years - As the use of the word ‘shall’ therein is mandatory (H5) Abdullahi v. Mil. Admin. Kaduna State (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1767; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1165) 417

 

LEGAL DRAFTING - Written instruments - Construction - Rules - The words must be taken in their ordinary sense - Unless that would lead to some absurdity - Or inconsistency with the rest of the instrument (H6) Our Line Ltd v. S.C.C. Ltd (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2083; (2009) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1170) 382

 

LEGAL PRACITIONERS - Evidence - Counsel’s address - Evidential value - It is not in evidence that the name ‘Bashorun’ is the same as ‘Osinnolohun’ - It is in counsel’s address but his address cannot take the place of evidence (H2) Olagunju v. Adesoye (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265) 937; (2009) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1146) 225

 

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS - Arguments - Relevance - Res judicata - Arguments of counsel on this issue were not addressed to the relevant judgment - They are therefore irrelevant for the determination of the appeal (H6) Akayepe v. Akayepe (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1183; (2009) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1152) 217

 

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS - Damages - Proof - Concession - Effect - Concession by counsel is relevant only where the law allows it - Respondent’s counsel’s concession can not make claim for damages recoverable - Without proof (H3) G.K.F. Ltd v. NITEL (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1899; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1164) 344

 

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS - Disciplinary Committee - Propriety of punishment - Infamous conduct - Though respondent did not use the word ‘infamous’ - It is clear it did find appellant liable for infamous conduct - Punishment was therefore proper (H5) Iteogu v. LPDC (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2383; (2009) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1171) 614

 

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS - Documents - Objection - Failure to reply - Effect - Failure of 1st respondent’s counsel to reply - Meant he conceded the objection - It was an abandonment of his right to reply (H3) Oguntayo v. Adelaja (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1957; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1163) 150

 

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS - Duty - Appeals - Incomplete record of proceedings - It is the duty of appellant’s counsel to obtain supplementary record - If important documents affecting his appeal were omitted -(H2) Amadi v. Chinda (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265) 819; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1148) 107

 

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS - Evidence - Admissibility - Objection - Applicability of waiver - Where a counsel or party consents to admissibility of a document - Or regularity of a procedure - The consent amount to a waiver of his right - To subsequently object thereto (H3) Shell Petroleum v. Edamkue (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2143; (2009) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1160) 1

 

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS - Mistake of counsel - Effect on client’s case - If the claim is dismissed for improper settling of Appellant’s pleadings - It would be punishing the respondents for the mistake of counsel - Which should not be (H5) Ekpemupolo v. Edremoda (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 589; (2009) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1142) 166

 

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS - Power of Attorney - Clients - Whether petitioner is appellant’s client - Since the donors donated the power - In their capacity as representatives of petitioners’ community - Petitioner is appellant’s client (H2) Iteogu v. LPDC (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2383; (2009) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1171) 614

 

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS - Submission of counsel - Alleging new facts - Propriety - A party cannot make out a case solely on address of counsel - But on facts pleaded and evidence adduced in support (H10) Oloruntoba-Oju v. Abdul-Raheem (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1673; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 83

 

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS - Submissions of counsel - Evidential value - Counsel erroneously relied on submission - Contrary to evidence - As proof of the age of P.W. 10 (H7) Omotola v. State (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 683; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1139) 148

 

LEGISLATION - Robbery - Legislative powers - Both the Federal and the State Government can legislate thereon - By virtue of s. 14 (2) (b) of the 1999 Constitution (H1) Tanko v. State (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 541; (2009) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1131) 430

 

LEGISLATURE - State House of Assembly - First sitting of - Governor’s proclamation of - Validity - Effect of his removal by tribunal - Since he was a serving governor at time of proclamation - It is valid - It is immaterial that his election is subsequently nullified (H2) Balonwu v. Governor of Anambra State (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 274) 2569; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1172) 13

 

LEGISLATURE - State House of Assembly - How dissolved - S. 105 of 1999 Constitution - Whether or not there had been proclamations for the holdings of its first session - A House stands dissolved at expiration of four years from its first sitting (H3) Balonwu v. Governor of Anambra State (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 274) 2569; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1172) 13

 

LOCUS STANDI - Actions - Privity of contract - Applicability - What petitioner needs to sustain his complaint against appellant - Is not privity of contract but locus standi - Which he has established by proving sufficient interest (H1) Iteogu v. LPDC (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2383; (2009) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1171) 614

 

LOCUS STANDI - Contracts - Requirements - Claim of plaintiff must, inter alia, reveal a justiciable cause of action - So where action is for breach of contract - There is need for privity of contract (H5) Basinco Motors Ltd v. Woermann-Line (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1609; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 149

 

LOCUS STANDI - Fair hearing - Principles - Effect on issue of locus standi - Locus standi is a threshold issue - Fair hearing is concerned with adjudication - Unless there is locus standi - Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate (H8) Basinco Motors Ltd v. Woermann-Line (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1609; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 149

 

LOCUS STANDI - Parties - Effect on jurisdiction - It is a forerunner to jurisdiction - Where plaintiff lacks locus standi - Court will decline jurisdiction (H4) Basinco Motors Ltd v. Woermann-Line (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1609; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 149

 

MASTER & SERVANT - Allegation of misconduct - Applicability of Trade Dispute Act - Since respondents maintain that the termination - Was not based on participation in strike - The provisions of the Act are inapplicable (H8) Olufeagba v. Abdur-Raheem (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 274) 2667; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 384

 

MASTER & SERVANT - Cause of action - Nature of - Issue of cessation of appellants’ employment - Has no connotation of trade dispute - Court of Appeal was therefore wrong - To have held otherwise (H6) Oloruntoba-Oju v. Abdul-Raheem (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1673; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 83

 

MASTER & SERVANT - Conduct of staff - Scandalous conduct - How determined - It can only be determined in a judicial enquiry - Where fair hearing will be afforded the staff who is accused (H4) Olufeagba v. Abdur-Raheem (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 274) 2667; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 384

 

MASTER & SERVANT - Employment contracts - Nature of - How determined - Question of whether it is governed by statute or not - Depends on construction of the contract or the relevant statute (H11) Oloruntoba-Oju v. Abdul-Raheem (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1673; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 83

 

MASTER & SERVANT - Kaduna State Civil Service - Compulsory Retirement - Persons under 60 years - Propriety - Under s. 9 (2) of Pensions & Gratuities Law 1991 - The Commission may so retire persons - Who are above 45 years (H8) Abdullahi v. Mil. Admin. Kaduna State (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1767; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1165) 417

 

MASTER & SERVANT - Kaduna State Civil Service - Retirement - Proper age - Under s. 9 (1) of Pensions and Gratuities Law - It is sixty years - As the use of the word ‘shall’ therein is mandatory (H5) Abdullahi v. Mil. Admin. Kaduna State (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1767; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1165) 417

 

MASTER & SERVANT - Letter of retirement - Basis of - Pension Act - The circular referred to by the letter made reference to the Act - Court of Appeal was wrong therefore to hold that the letter did not refer to the Act (H1) Abdullahi v. Mil. Admin. Kaduna State (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1767; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1165) 417

 

MASTER & SERVANT - Reinstatement - Interim employment - Effect - Securing employment following unlawful dismissal is not a bar to reinstatement - But affected staff has to account for overlapping remuneration (H7) Olufeagba v. Abdur-Raheem (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 274) 2667; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 384

 

MASTER & SERVANT - Termination of appointment - Justification - How proved - Employer must satisfy the court that the allegation was disclosed to employee - That he was given fair hearing - And found liable after hearing (H16) Oloruntoba-Oju v. Abdul-Raheem (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1673; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 83

 

MASTER & SERVANT - Termination of appointment - Procedure - Fair hearing - Relevant point - There is a distinction between recommendation of investigating panel - And its implementation - Fair hearing should apply between the two points (H17) Oloruntoba-Oju v. Abdul-Raheem (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1673; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 83

 

MASTER & SERVANT - Termination of employment - Fair hearing - Applicability - Foregoing Statute makes provision for fair hearing - In the process of removing members of staff - But there is no evidence that this process was adopted (H14) Oloruntoba-Oju v. Abdul-Raheem (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1673; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 83

 

MASTER & SERVANT - Termination of employment - Procedure - Waiver - The claim of respondents that applicants waived their rights under the Act - Is of no moment - As s.15 (1) or 15(3) applies to all termination of senior staff employment (H13) Oloruntoba-Oju v. Abdul-Raheem (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1673; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 83

 

MOTIONS - Court processes - Abuse - Similar subsequent motion - While the first is pending - As the first was withdrawn before the second was moved - There is no abuse under the circumstance (H4) Tomtec Ltd v. FHA (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2471; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 358

 

MOTIONS - Decisions - Challenge through objection - Propriety - It is wrong to challenge decision of a court - Under the guise of preliminary objection - Since a court becomes functus officio - When it hands down a decision (H2) Tomtec Ltd v. FHA (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2471; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 358

 

MOTIONS - Pleadings - Motion to strike out - Determination of - What to consider - The Court must restrict itself to facts in the particular pleading - Without recourse to the opponent’s pleading - As rightly done by Court of Appeal (H2) Ojukwu v. Yar’adua (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 266) 1017; (2009) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1154) 50

 

MURDER - Conspiracy - Countermanding - Applicability - That appellant revealed the decision to kill to P.W. 3 - Did not amount in law to a renunciation of the agreement (H11) Omotola v. State (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 683; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1139) 148

 

MURDER - Criminal procedure - Conviction - Propriety - A person need not to be convicted of conspiracy to murder - Before he is convicted of murder - Though he is charged with both offences (H9) Omotola v. State (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 683; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1139) 148

 

MURDER - Dieing declaration - Proof - Sufficiency of - Though evidence of PW2 cannot pass for dying declaration - Exhibits B, B1, C & F richly corroborate the testimonies of PW1 & PW2 (H4) Olabode v. State (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1337; (2009) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1152) 254

 

MURDER - Evidence - Admissibility - Hearsay - Applicability - PW1 & PW2 gave evidence of what they saw and heard from deceased - Their evidence can not be inadmissable - As constituting hearsay evidence (H3) Olabode v. State (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1337; (2009) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1152) 254

 

MURDER - Evidence - Circumstantial evidence - Limits - The inference that the person last seen with the deceased is the murderer - Would be irrelevant - Where there is undisputed evidence as to how deceased died (H1) Mbang v. State (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2405; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1172) 140

 

MURDER - Evidence - Confession of co-accused - Effect - A man’s confession is only evidence against him - Not against his accomplices - Confession of 1st accused cannot therefore be used against appellant (H3) Mbang v. State (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2405; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1172) 140

 

MURDER - Liability - Common intention as basis - Requisites - It must be proved that there was common intention to prosecute unlawful purpose - In furtherance of which deceased was killed - As a probable consequence of that purpose (H2) Mbang v. State (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2405; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1172) 140

 

MURDER - Proof - Sufficiency of - Evidence against 1st and 2nd appellants is more than circumstantial - Their unexplained presence in the group that killed the deceased - At the time of the killing - Is sufficient proof of guilt (H6) Omotola v. State (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 683; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1139) 148

 

NEGLIGENCE - Definition - It is failure to exercise the standard of care - That a reasonably prudent person would have exercised - In a similar situation (H2) Diamond Bank Ltd v. Partnership Investment Co. Ltd (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 272) 2221; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1172) 67

 

NEGLIGENCE - Liability of appellant - Propriety of finding - In view of the evidence on record - Particularly the instructions from 1st respondent as per Exhibit C - The finding is proper as borne out from the records (H3) Diamond Bank Ltd v. Partnership Investment Co. Ltd (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 272) 2221; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1172) 67

 

ORDERS OF COURT - Binding effect - Even where it is perverse, a court order must be obeyed - Until it is set aside by a competent court - It is therefore of no moment whether the Court of Appeal was right in making the order (H6) Labour Party v. INEC (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 385; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1137) 315

 

ORDERS OF COURT - Consequential orders - Nature of - It is one flowing directly upon a judgment - It must give effect to a judgment already given - And not grant a fresh unclaimed relief (H11) Osuji v. Ekeocha (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2033; (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1166) 81

 

ORDERS OF COURT - Crime - Retrial - Propriety - The order cannot be made in a situation where the appellant is exposed to prejudice - As in this case where the appellant has served a substantial part of his sentence (H2) Umaru v. State (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 743; (2009) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1142) 134

 

ORDERS OF COURT - Cross appeal - Order for rehearing it alone - Propriety - Dismissal of main appeal would render cross appeal nugatory - Justice demands that both appeals be reheard de novo - By Court of Appeal (H4) Uzuda v. Ebigah (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2189; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1163) 1

 

ORDERS OF COURT - Distribution of joint property - Order for - Propriety - Joint ownership was only canvassed by respondent as a defence - So court cannot predicate orders on it - In the absence of a counterclaim (H2) Osuji v. Ekeocha (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2033; (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1166) 81

 

ORDERS OF COURT - Judgment - Reversed on appeal - Effect on reliefs claimed - Where a judgment is reversed on appeal - Appellate court ought to make consequential orders - Granting any reliefs it considered to be supported by the evidence available (H3) Egharevba v. Osagie (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 274) 2613; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 299

 

ORDERS OF COURT - Land law - Reliefs - Sharing order by court - Effect - Its effect is the partitioning or allotment of the property - Since both partition or allotment is strictly a family affair - The court cannot do so by stroke of pen (H12) Osuji v. Ekeocha (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2033; (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1166) 81

 

ORDERS OF COURT - Leave to sue - Variation - By a court of equal jurisdiction - Such order does not constitute a decision of a judge - That cannot be varied by a judge of equal jurisdiction - Therefore it was properly varied (H6) Shell Petroleum v. Edamkue (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2143; (2009) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1160) 1

 

ORDERS OF COURT - Master & Servant - Reinstatement - Interim employment - Effect - Securing employment following unlawful dismissal is not a bar to reinstatement - But affected staff has to account for overlapping remuneration (H7) Olufeagba v. Abdur-Raheem (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 274) 2667; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 384

 

ORDERS OF COURT - Monetary judgments - Award of interest unclaimed - Propriety - The general rule is that monetary judgments attracts appropriate interest - Even where none is claimed (H5) Diamond Bank Ltd v. Partnership Investment Co. Ltd (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 272) 2221; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1172) 67

 

ORDERS OF COURT - Nature of - Court of Appeal’s order for further hearing - It is an interlocutory order - As it did not determine the suit finally (H2) Gomez v. Cherubim & Seraphim Society (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1211; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1149) 223

 

ORDERS OF COURT - Nature of - Whether interlocutory or final - Applicable test - The test varies in accordance with the court that gave the order - Whether it is court of trial or appellate court (H1) Gomez v. Cherubim & Seraphim Society (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1211; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1149) 223

 

ORDERS OF COURT - Order not claimed - Making of - Proper steps - Court must hear the view of the parties - Before making such order - Since somebody’s right must be affected - He should not be denied the right to be heard (H10) Osuji v. Ekeocha (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2033; (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1166) 81

 

ORDERS OF COURT - Retrial - Purpose - Appellate court orders a retrial - Where trial court made no finding of fact on conflicting evidence - On an issue the resolution of which is essential in the just determination of the case - Which is not the case herein (H8) Ukaegbu v. Nwololo (2009) 1 KLR (pt. 262) 103; (2009) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1127) 194

 

ORDERS OF COURT - Striking out order - Made upon withdrawal of an application - Challenge procedure - It is the duty of appellant to have appealed against it - If he disagrees with the order - As the order is a decision by Court of Appeal (H1) Tomtec Ltd v. FHA (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2471; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 358

 

ORDERS OF COURT - Without jurisdiction - Competency - Orders of court has to be lawfully & competently made - An order made without jurisdiction is a nullity ab initio (H4) Uwagba v. FRN (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1439; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1163) 91

 

PARTIES - Actions - Capacity - Effect - The 2nd respondent was sued in his personal capacity - Whereas the law says he should be sued in official capacity - Court of Appeal rightly struck out his name (H6) Hope Democratic Party (HDP) v. INEC (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 623; (2009) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1143) 297

 

PARTIES - Actions - Cause of action - Survival - Upon death of plaintiff - Where several plaintiffs jointly sue - For benefits accruing severally to them - The suit survives to surviving plaintiffs - Upon the death of any of the plaintiffs (H2) Olufeagba v. Abdur-Raheem (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 274) 2667; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 384

 

PARTIES - Actions - Privity of contract - Applicability - What petitioner needs to sustain his complaint against appellant - Is not privity of contract but locus standi - Which he has established by proving sufficient interest (H1) Iteogu v. LPDC (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2383; (2009) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1171) 614

 

PARTIES - Affidavits - Reliance on affidavits - Not referred to by parties - Propriety - Where the contents appear damaging to a party’s case - Trial court should give him opportunity to react thereto - Before relying on it (H2) Oyewole v. Akande (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2119; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1163) 119

 

PARTIES - Agency - Liability of agents - Extent - Where principal is disclosed - An agent acting on behalf of a known & disclosed principal - Incurs no personal liability - Neither is he a necessary party to an action founded on the transaction with him (H2) Osigwe v. PSPLS Mgt. Consortium Ltd (2009) 1 KLR (pt. 262) 73; (2009) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1128) 378

 

PARTIES - Appeals - Basis - Points not decided against appellant - An appeal presupposes the existence of a decision appealed against - There cannot be an appeal against what had not been decided - Against a party (H3) Olufeagba v. Abdur-Raheem (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 274) 2667; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 384

 

PARTIES - Appeals - Juristic personality - Death of co-parties - Effect - Where a sole party to an appeal dies - And is not substituted - The appeal ends - But this is not the case where there are surviving co-parties (H1) Olufeagba v. Abdur-Raheem (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 274) 2667; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 384

 

PARTIES - Appeals - Party’s case - Variation of on appeal - Propriety - It runs contrary to practice and procedure of our civil jurisprudence - Neither counsel nor litigant is permitted - To approbate and reprobate in the conduct of a case (H4) Osuji v. Ekeocha (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2033; (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1166) 81

 

PARTIES - Appeals - Points not appealed - Binding effect - Such points whether of law or fact are deemed to have been conceded - By the party against whom it was decided - So they remain valid and binding on the parties (H4) Shell Petroleum v. Edamkue (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2143; (2009) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1160) 1

 

PARTIES - Appellants - Duty - Incomplete record of proceedings - It is the duty of appellant’s counsel to obtain supplementary record - If important documents affecting his appeal were omitted -(H2) Amadi v. Chinda (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265) 819; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1148) 107

 

PARTIES - Case of a party - Estoppel - Standing by - Applicability - It is not the case of appellant that respondents stood by - When the earlier suits were being tried - So the doctrine of standing by is inapplicable (H6) Omiyale v. Macaulay (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 655; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1141) 597

 

PARTIES - Civil cases - Burden of proof - Incidence - It rests on the party - Whether plaintiff or defendant - Who substantially asserts the affirmative of the issue (H2) Iroagbara v. Ufomadu (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1283; (2009) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1153) 587

 

PARTIES - Company in liquidation - Capacity to sue - S. 417 of CAMA - The party to seek & obtain leave before instituting an action - Is not the company - But the party commencing action against the company (H2) Agro Allied Dev. Ent. Ltd v. MV Northern Reefer (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1167; (2009) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1155) 255

 

PARTIES - Consent - Discontinuance - Application to discontinue - Initiation of - During vacation - It must be brought either with the consent of the parties - Or by reason of some urgency (H7) Onwuka v. Ononuju (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1393; (2009) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1151) 174

 

PARTIES - Consent judgment - Meaning - It is a contract between parties - Whereby rights are created between them - In substitution for order of consideration - Of abandonment of the claims in court (H2) Star Paper Mill Ltd v. Adetunji (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2173; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1159) 647

 

PARTIES - Contracts - Statutory provisions - Waiver - Applicability - Statutory provisions cannot be waived - As no one is permitted to contract out or waive - A rule of public policy (H6) Olufeagba v. Abdur-Raheem (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 274) 2667; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 384

 

PARTIES - Crime - Witnesses - Kinship with the parties - Blood relationship with the victim of crime cannot be regarded as a basis - To describe their evidence as untrue, biased or tainted (H5) Omotola v. State (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 683; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1139) 148

 

PARTIES - Decisions of court - Failure to appeal - Effect - Where a party fails to appeal against any decision - He is deemed to have accepted it - He is consequently bound by it (H3) Tomtec Ltd v. FHA (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2471; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 358

 

PARTIES - Declaration of title - Onus of proof - Discharge of - Plaintiff must establish his claim - With credible acceptable evidence - Based on strength of his case - Not on weakness of defendant’s (H5) Osuji v. Ekeocha (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2033; (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1166) 81

 

PARTIES - Defendants - Legal capacity - Onus of proof - As it is an essential to the competence of an action - The onus is on the plaintiff to prove the legal capacity of the defendant - When challenged (H3) Administrators Abacha’s Estate v. Eke-Spiff (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 197; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1139) 97

 

PARTIES - Disputes - Amicable resolution - Attitude of court - It is one of the cardinal principles of our judicial system - To allow parties to amicably resolve disputes between them (H1) Star Paper Mill Ltd v. Adetunji (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2173; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1159) 647

 

PARTIES - Election petitions - Competency - Mistake in the writing of the name notwithstanding - The facts show that the appellant intended to sue INEC - The Court ought to have judicially noticed this name (H3) Hope Democratic Party (HDP) v. INEC (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 623; (2009) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1143) 297

 

PARTIES - Evidence - Admissibility - Admission of Exhibit A - Propriety - It was properly admitted as there is nothing making it inadmissible - Absence of a witness as a party to the suit - Is immaterial to its admissibility (H4) Ogbe v. Asade (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2425; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1172) 106

 

PARTIES - Evidence - Admissibility - Objection - Applicability of waiver - Where a counsel or party consents to admissibility of a document - Or regularity of a procedure - The consent amount to a waiver of his right - To subsequently object thereto (H3) Shell Petroleum v. Edamkue (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2143; (2009) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1160) 1

 

PARTIES - Evidence - Evaluation - Purport - It should entail assessment of evidence of both parties - By placing same on that imaginary scale - To determine the party in whose favour the balance tilts (H6) Anyanwu v. Uzowuaka (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1829; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1159) 445

 

PARTIES - Evidence - Proof - Amount received by appellant - Whether proved - Petitioner did prove by documentary evidence that it was as he averred - Appellant had the burden of proving he did not receive the full sum - Which he failed to discharge (H3) Iteogu v. LPDC (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2383; (2009) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1171) 614

 

PARTIES - Fair hearing - Opportunity to be heard - Which the law is designed to give - Where a defendant decides not to utilize that opportunity - He cannot turn around to blame the court - As fair hearing should also avail plaintiff (H9) Joel Okunrinboye Exp. Ltd v. Skye Bank Plc (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 477; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1138) 518

 

PARTIES - Joinder - Nonjoinder - Effect - Failure to join the police was fatal to appellant’s case - Since he alleged arrest & detention by the police - Police ought to be joined to explain their role (H3) Fajemirokun v. Commercial Bank Nig. Ltd. (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 315; (2009) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1135) 588

 

PARTIES - Joinder - Validity of - The general rule is that both plaintiff & defendant should be juristic or natural persons - Existing or living at the time the action is instituted (H1) Administrators Abacha’s Estate v. Eke-Spiff (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 197; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1139) 97

 

PARTIES - Judgments - Basis - Extraneous matters - Court of Appeal based its judgment on issues not raised by parties - Without affording them opportunity to address it on them - As such it is based on extraneous matters (H3) Ogundele v. Agiri (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 272) 2249; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 219

 

PARTIES - Judgments - Binding effect - It remains valid and binding on parties - Until set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction - So qualification of appellant was not in issue as at 20/2/07 (H3) Udeh v. Okoli (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 723; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1141) 571

 

PARTIES - Judgments - Stay of execution - Proof of special circumstances - Onus - It is on the party applying for stay pending appeal - To satisfy the court that in the peculiar circumstances - A refusal would be unjust (H3) NNPC v. Famfa Oil Ltd (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1647; (2009) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1156) 462

 

PARTIES - Judgments - Stay of execution - Status of parties - Effect on the application - The fact that applicant is a Federal Government Agency - Does not give it any special status (H6) NNPC v. Famfa Oil Ltd (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1647; (2009) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1156) 462

 

PARTIES - Judgments - Treatment of parties’ cases - Need to be evenhanded - Court of Appeal failed to treat the parties’ respective cases - With evenhandedness - As expected of appellate courts - Thereby shirking its statutory responsibility (H2) Uzuda v. Ebigah (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2189; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1163) 1

 

PARTIES - Legal capacity - Right to challenge - Applicability of waiver - Such a right is so fundamental that it is not only for the benefit of supposed party - But also inures to the benefit of the public - Therefore it cannot be waived (H4) Administrators Abacha’s Estate v. Eke-Spiff (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 197; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1139) 97

 

PARTIES - Loan agreements - Agreed interest rate - Binding effect - From admissions of PW1 the parties agreed on 14% p.a. interest - Repayable as from January 1985 - Respondent is therefore entitled to charge the agreed interest rate (H7) Olalomi Industries Ltd v. N.I.D.B. Ltd (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2001; (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1167) 266

 

PARTIES - Locus standi - Contracts - Requirements - Claim of plaintiff must, inter alia, reveal a justiciable cause of action - So where action is for breach of contract - There is need for privity of contract (H5) Basinco Motors Ltd v. Woermann-Line (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1609; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 149

 

PARTIES - Locus standi - Effect on jurisdiction - It is a forerunner to jurisdiction - Where plaintiff lacks locus standi - Court will decline jurisdiction (H4) Basinco Motors Ltd v. Woermann-Line (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1609; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 149

 

PARTIES - Mistake in name - Effect - Respondents and Court were not misled as to the person sued - In view of the acronym added to that name - Court of Appeal wrongfully held that it was a non-juristic person (H5) Hope Democratic Party (HDP) v. INEC (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 623; (2009) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1143) 297

 

PARTIES - Non-joinder - Document not produced - S. 149 (d) Evidence Act - Respondent ought to have applied to join NPA as 2nd defendant - If indeed it delivered the goods to them - Failure to do so justifies the invocation of s. 149 (d) (H2) FMH v. Comet Shipping Agencies (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265) 859; (2009) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1145) 193

 

PARTIES - Onus of proof - Shifting of - Meaning - It means that burden of proof may shift - Depending on how scale of evidence preponderates - To rest on party who would fail - If no more evidence were given (H3) Iroagbara v. Ufomadu (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1283; (2009) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1153) 587

 

PARTIES - Order not claimed - Making of - Proper steps - Court must hear the view of the parties - Before making such order - Since somebody’s right must be affected - He should not be denied the right to be heard (H10) Osuji v. Ekeocha (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2033; (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1166) 81

 

PARTIES - Plaintiff’s case - How ascertained - It is the entire pleadings of parties that are looked into - To determine plaintiff’s case - Paragraphs of pleadings cannot be relied on in isolation for this purpose (H2) A.S.E.S.A. v. Ekwenem (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1803; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1158) 410

 

PARTIES - Pleadings - Nature - Binding effect of - Litigation is fought on pleadings of parties - Pleadings bereft of necessary facts cannot be proved by evidence no matter how cogent - As parties are bound by their pleadings (H2) Nwokorobia v. Nwogu (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1303; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1150) 553

 

PARTIES - Privity of contract - Purport of - It portrays that generally a contract affects the parties thereto - And cannot be enforced by or against a person - Who is not a party to it (H6) Basinco Motors Ltd v. Woermann-Line (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1609; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 149

 

PARTIES - Representative capacity - Judgment in - Propriety - Once pleadings and evidence show that a case is fought in that capacity - Court can enter judgment in that capacity - Even if an amendment to reflect the capacity - Has neither been sought nor obtained (H2) Shell Petroleum v. Edamkue (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2143; (2009) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1160) 1

 

PARTIES - Representative capacity - Objection by appellant - Propriety - Appellant lacked locus standi to question same - As he is not a member of those being represented - Only such a member can challenge the representation (H5) Shell Petroleum v. Edamkue (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2143; (2009) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1160) 1

 

PARTIES - Res judicata - Ingredients - Privies to parties - Applicability - Respondents did not acquire title from plaintiffs in earlier suits - Therefore they could not be privies to the said plaintiffs (H2) Omiyale v. Macaulay (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 655; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1141) 597

 

PARTIES - Res judicata - Privity of estate - A prior purchaser of land such as respondents - Cannot be estopped as being privy in estate - By a judgment obtained in an action against vendor - Commenced after the purchase (H3) Omiyale v. Macaulay (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 655; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1141) 597

 

PARTIES - Submission of counsel - Alleging new facts - Propriety - A party cannot make out a case solely on address of counsel - But on facts pleaded and evidence adduced in support (H10) Oloruntoba-Oju v. Abdul-Raheem (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1673; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 83

 

PLEADINGS - Amendments - Amended pleading - Status - Though such pleading no longer defines the issue to be tried - It does not cease to exist for all purposes - It is still part of the record (H7) A.S.E.S.A. v. Ekwenem (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1803; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1158) 410

 

PLEADINGS - Appeals - Issues - Usefulness of - It is apparent from the pleadings of the parties - That identity of the land in dispute was a non-issue - As both parties knew the land (H5) Omiyale v. Macaulay (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 655; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1141) 597

 

PLEADINGS - Averments - Binding effect - Purport of - From the pleading of both parties that they have no common boundary and the admission by PW2 - It is obvious that the land in dispute as claimed by respondent differ from that claimed by appellant (H3) Ukaegbu v. Nwololo (2009) 1 KLR (pt. 262) 103; (2009) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1127) 194

 

PLEADINGS - Averments - General traverse - Construction - The practice is to give it effect along with the whole tenor of other averments - It is not the practice to consider each paragraph of statement of defence in isolation (H6) Arisons Ltd v. Mil. Gov. Ogun State (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 268) 1483; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1163) 26

 

PLEADINGS - Civil cases - Burden of proof - Incidence - It rests on the party - Whether plaintiff or defendant - Who substantially asserts the affirmative of the issue (H2) Iroagbara v. Ufomadu (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1283; (2009) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1153) 587

 

PLEADINGS - Counter claim - Reply - Failure to file - Legal effect - Contrary to the statement of the Court of Appeal - Failure to file a reply is not deemed to be an admission of the counter claim (H4) Akpaji v. Udemba (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 263; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1138) 545

 

PLEADINGS - Crime - Civil Actions - Whether crime is in issue - How determined - Crime is in issue when commission of crime - Alleged in the pleadings - Is the basis of the claim or defence (H1) A.S.E.S.A. v. Ekwenem (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1803; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1158) 410

 

PLEADINGS - Cross examination - Effect - Appellants’ suit against Rebisi Youths - Though this fact which was extracted while cross examining a defence witness - Was not pleaded in the statement of claim - It tends to support appellants’ claim (H5) Anyanwu v. Uzowuaka (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1829; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1159) 445

 

PLEADINGS - Declaration of rights - Proof - Effect of admissions - The right will not be conferred simply upon the state of pleadings or admissions therein - Plaintiff must satisfy the court by evidence (H4) Dim v. Enemuo (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 266) 1117; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1149) 353

 

PLEADINGS - Documents - Contents - Proof of - A document is the best proof of its contents - No oral evidence will be allowed to contradict the contents - Except where fraud is pleaded (H3) Anyanwu v. Uzowuaka (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1829; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1159) 445

 

PLEADINGS - Election petitions - Grounds - Complaints - Whether known to law - A careful reading of grounds 2 & 3 together with their particulars - Shows complaints as falling within the grounds in s. 145 (a) - (b) of the Act (H3) Ojukwu v. Yar’adua (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 266) 1017; (2009) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1154) 50

 

PLEADINGS - Election petitions - Validity - Sufficiency of pleadings - In view of the facts of noncompliance pleaded - Court of Appeal was in error to hold that the petition was not based on any ground known to law (H2) Hope Democratic Party (HDP) v. INEC (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 623; (2009) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1143) 297

 

PLEADINGS - Elections - Electoral Act 2006, ss. 145 &146 - Intention of - It is to ensure that only petitions that on their faces - Disclose reasonable causes of action - Can go for trial (H5) Ojukwu v. Yar’adua (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 266) 1017; (2009) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1154) 50

 

PLEADINGS - Evidence - Containing facts not pleaded - Propriety - Though only facts need be pleaded - Every evidence must have some semblance to pleaded facts - And not contain facts not pleaded - Else it is liable to be expunged (H2) Amodu v. Commandant Police College Maiduguri (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1791; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1163) 75

 

PLEADINGS - Evidence - Outside pleadings - Fate of - Such evidence - Like the testimony of appellant that Nwoko deforested the land - Should be ignored and treated as non issue (H6) Nwokorobia v. Nwogu (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1303; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1150) 553

 

PLEADINGS - Issue estoppel - Award by Industrial Panel - As basis of plea - It has to comply with yardsticks for invoking such a plea - Which was not the case herein - So there was no basis for invoking the doctrine (H9) Oloruntoba-Oju v. Abdul-Raheem (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1673; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 83

 

PLEADINGS - Issues - Status - Main and ancillary - There are deducible from pleadings - The principal or main issues and the ancillary issues (H3) A.S.E.S.A. v. Ekwenem (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1803; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1158) 410

 

PLEADINGS - Judicial precedents - Distinguishing - Evidence on facts not pleaded - Applicability of Anyanwu v. Iwuchukwu - The principle is totally inapplicable to the instant case as the fact of respondent’s rejection of the good supplied was properly pleaded - In line with the evidence led (H2) Onyekwelu v. Elf Petroleum (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 501; (2009) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1133) 181

 

PLEADINGS - Land law - Averments - Sufficiency of - Plaintiff has not pleaded specifically his acts of user in possession - By various, positive & numerous acts - Over a long period as to prove ownership (H3) Dim v. Enemuo (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 266) 1117; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1149) 353

 

PLEADINGS - Land law - Identity of land - Issue of - When said to be raised - It is raised when defendants dispute the area - Or the size or other features - Shown on plaintiffs’ plan - In their statement of defence (H11) Anyanwu v. Uzowuaka (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1829; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1159) 445

 

PLEADINGS - Land law - Proof of title - Effect of admission - Plaintiff has onus of proving title to satisfaction of the court - It is erroneous to grant a declaration of title - Based on admission in opponent’s pleadings (H2) Shasi v. Smith (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 272) 2295; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 330

 

PLEADINGS - Land law - Title - Claim for - Facts to plead - Where title is derived from a prior owner by whatever means - The pleading should aver facts as to the founding of the land - And the person who exercised original acts of possession thereon (H1) Ukaegbu v. Nwololo (2009) 1 KLR (pt. 262) 103; (2009) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1127) 194

 

PLEADINGS - Land law - Title - Sufficiency of averments - Where title is said to derive from grant or inheritance - Facts relating to the founding of the land must be averred to - As well as the successive owners thereof (H4) Iroagbara v. Ufomadu (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1283; (2009) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1153) 587

 

PLEADINGS - Land law - Title - Traditional history - Sufficiency of pleading - Paragraph 4 of statement of claim is bereft of who founded the land - Because it generalized that it was owned by the family of Nwoko - When it is usually one person that founds a land (H4) Nwokorobia v. Nwogu (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1303; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1150) 553

 

PLEADINGS - Motion to strike out - Determination of - What to consider - The Court must restrict itself to facts in the particular pleading - Without recourse to the opponent’s pleading - As rightly done by Court of Appeal (H2) Ojukwu v. Yar’adua (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 266) 1017; (2009) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1154) 50

 

PLEADINGS - Nature - Binding effect of - Litigation is fought on pleadings of parties - Pleadings bereft of necessary facts cannot be proved by evidence no matter how cogent - As parties are bound by their pleadings (H2) Nwokorobia v. Nwogu (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1303; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1150) 553

 

PLEADINGS - Plaintiff’s case - How ascertained - It is the entire pleadings of parties that are looked into - To determine plaintiff’s case - Paragraphs of pleadings cannot be relied on in isolation for this purpose (H2) A.S.E.S.A. v. Ekwenem (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1803; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1158) 410

 

PLEADINGS - Proof - Consistency of evidence with pleadings - It is not true that the cross-respondent’s evidence is inconsistent with his pleadings - As alleged by counsel for the cross-appellant (H3) Usong v. Hanseatic Int. Ltd (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1425; (2009) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1153) 522

 

PLEADINGS - Special damages - Recovery - Requirements - They must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved by plaintiff - It is not a matter of hypothetical exercise (H2) Arisons Ltd v. Mil. Gov. Ogun State (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 268) 1483; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1163) 26

 

PLEADINGS - Statement of claim - Amendment - Whether effective - The original statement of claim is the extant statement of claim - As the proposed amendment - Which counsel said was deemed properly filed - Was in fact not filed (H1) Amadi v. Chinda (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265) 819; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1148) 107

 

PLEADINGS - Statement of claim - Averments - Sufficiency of - In spite of non-filing of amendment -The original statement of claim is unassailable - As far as the pleading of special damages is concerned (H4) Amadi v. Chinda (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265) 819; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1148) 107

 

PLEADINGS - Statement of claim - Claim ‘’as per writ of summons” - Effect - It incorporates the writ of summons in the statement of claim - Making the writ a part of the statement of claim (H4) Ekpemupolo v. Edremoda (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 589; (2009) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1142) 166

 

PLEADINGS - Statement of defence - General traverse - Effect - It has the same effect as specific denial - That is to put plaintiff to proof of the allegation in that paragraph (H5) Arisons Ltd v. Mil. Gov. Ogun State (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 268) 1483; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1163) 26

 

PLEADINGS - Statement of defence - General traverse - Propriety - In respect of essential and material allegations in statement of claim - General traverse is not enough to controvert them - They must be specifically denied (H3) Bamgbegbin v. Oriare (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 268) 1525; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1158) 370

 

PLEADINGS - Statement of defence - General traverse - Purpose of - It serves to salvage such a situation - Where a pleader may inadvertently fail to deny a fact - Thereby admitting what he did not intend to (H4) Arisons Ltd v. Mil. Gov. Ogun State (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 268) 1483; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1163) 26

 

PLEADINGS - Submission of counsel - Alleging new facts - Propriety - A party cannot make out a case solely on address of counsel - But on facts pleaded and evidence adduced in support (H10) Oloruntoba-Oju v. Abdul-Raheem (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1673; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 83

 

PLEADINGS - Title - Root of - Need to plead with particularity - Particulars should be enough as to show the intervening owners - Through whom the land in dispute devolved to him (H2) Dim v. Enemuo (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 266) 1117; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1149) 353

 

POLICE - Alibi - Duty on party raising it - He has the burden of establishing the circumstances of the alibi - Appellant failed to so establish - So police had nothing to investigate (H1) Ndukwe v. State (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 413; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1139) 43

 

POLICE - Armed robbery - Identity of accused - Recognition - Need for early mention - Though PW1 explained why he did not mention names to villagers - But DW1 insists that he also failed to mention them when he first reported to police (H1) Ani v. State (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 268) 1463; (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1168) 443

 

POLICE - Crime - Duty to report - It is the duty of citizens to report crime to the police - What happens after the report is the responsibility of the police (H4) Fajemirokun v. Commercial Bank Nig. Ltd. (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 315; (2009) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1135) 588

 

POLICE - Evidence - Proof - Burden - It was for the appellant who alleged that he was reported to the police to prove so - But he did not prove it (H1) Fajemirokun v. Commercial Bank Nig. Ltd. (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 315; (2009) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1135) 588

 

POLICE - Nonjoinder - Effect - Failure to join the police was fatal to appellant’s case - Since he alleged arrest & detention by the police - Police ought to be joined to explain their role (H3) Fajemirokun v. Commercial Bank Nig. Ltd. (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 315; (2009) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1135) 588

 

POLITICS - Commissions of inquiry - Land ownership - Power to appoint - Governor of Plateau State has power to appoint such - If in his opinion - It would be for the public welfare - And it does not interfere with High Court’s constitutional jurisdiction (H4) Da Kabirikim v. Emefor (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1867; (2009) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1162) 602

 

POLITICS - Commissions of inquiry - Setting up - Powers of the Governor - The power to set up commission on “any other matter” for public welfare - As provided in the Plateau State Law - Is independent of preceding items (H3) Da Kabirikim v. Emefor (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1867; (2009) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1162) 602

 

POLITICS - Constitutional law - State House of Assembly - First sitting of - Governor’s proclamation of - Validity - Effect of his removal by tribunal - Since he was a serving governor at time of proclamation - It is valid - It is immaterial that his election is subsequently nullified (H2) Balonwu v. Governor of Anambra State (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 274) 2569; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1172) 13

 

POLITICS - Elections - Candidates - Substitution - Cogency of reason - In view of existing court judgments on the qualification of the appellant - Any reason for substitution based on his disqualification - Cannot be cogent (H4) Udeh v. Okoli (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 723; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1141) 571

 

POLITICS - Elections - Candidates - Substitution of - Applicability of party guidelines - The applicable law on the issue of substitution is s. 34 of the Electoral Act 2006 - Irrespective of the provisions of party guidelines (H1) Udeh v. Okoli (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 723; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1141) 571

 

POLITICS - Elections - Nullification - Effect of - The law regards whatever was purportedly done in the name of an election - As not having taken place at all (H3) Labour Party v. INEC (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 385; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1137) 315

 

POLITICS - Elections - Rerun elections - Candidature - Political parties are not entitled to field new candidates - In the absence of evidence that their candidates at the nullified election - Had withdrawn their candidature (H5) Labour Party v. INEC (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 385; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1137) 315

 

POLITICS - Party Candidates - Substitution of - Reasons for - To state the reason as ‘’insufficient information’’ - Is to assign no reason whatsoever for the substitution (H2) Udeh v. Okoli (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 723; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1141) 571

 

POLITICS - Political parties - Candidates - Sponsorship of - Appellant cannot exercise its right to field a candidate in the circumstances of this case - As the date & period for calling for nominations has elapsed (H7) Labour Party v. INEC (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 385; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1137) 315

 

POLITICS - Rerun elections - Meaning of - It means the same as fresh elections in place of that which is nullified - The Act need not use the word specifically (H4) Labour Party v. INEC (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 385; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1137) 315

 

POLITICS - S. 105 of 1999 Constitution - Whether or not there had been proclamations for the holdings of its first session - A House stands dissolved at expiration of four years from its first sitting (H3) Balonwu v. Governor of Anambra State (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 274) 2569; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1172) 13

 

POWER OF ATTORNEY - Legal practitioners - Power of Attorney - Clients - Whether petitioner is appellant’s client - Since the donors donated the power - In their capacity as representatives of petitioners’ community - Petitioner is appellant’s client (H2) Iteogu v. LPDC (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2383; (2009) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1171) 614

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Actions - Administrators of estates - Legal capacity - A person can neither sue or be sued as an administrator of an estate of a deceased person - Until he is granted the letters of administration - And his name must be stated on the writ (H2) Administrators Abacha’s Estate v. Eke-Spiff (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 197; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1139) 97

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Actions - Parties - Cause of action - Survival - Upon death of plaintiff - Where several plaintiffs jointly sue - For benefits accruing severally to them - The suit survives to surviving plaintiffs - Upon the death of any of the plaintiffs (H2) Olufeagba v. Abdur-Raheem (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 274) 2667; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 384

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Actions - Reliefs - Grant - Relationship with claim - It is when a claim succeeds - That granting of reliefs go with the success - Trial court erred in granting reliefs - Where appellant failed to prove his claim (H3) Osuji v. Ekeocha (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2033; (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1166) 81

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Affidavits - Reliance on affidavits - Not referred to by parties - Propriety - Where the contents appear damaging to a party’s case - Trial court should give him opportunity to react thereto - Before relying on it (H2) Oyewole v. Akande (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2119; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1163) 119

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Allegations of fraud - Manner of proving - It must be pleaded and proved beyond reasonable doubt - But it was neither pleaded in this case - Nor was evidence led thereon (H3) Olalomi Industries Ltd v. N.I.D.B. Ltd (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2001; (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1167) 266

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Appeals - Basis - Points not decided against appellant - An appeal presupposes the existence of a decision appealed against - There cannot be an appeal against what had not been decided - Against a party (H3) Olufeagba v. Abdur-Raheem (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 274) 2667; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 384

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Appeals - Damages - Reduction on appeal - Proper procedure - Appellate court should consider whether or not the amount awarded was so extremely high - As to make an entirely erroneous estimate - Before reducing it (H2) Usong v. Hanseatic Int. Ltd (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1425; (2009) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1153) 522

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Appeals - Grounds - Basis - Obiter dicta - An appeal cannot be brought against the obiter of a court - Except where such obiter is so linked with the ratio decidendi - To have radically influenced the ratio (H1) Balonwu v. Governor of Anambra State (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 274) 2569; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1172) 13

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Appeals - Grounds - Not based on decision of Court of Appeal - Can not be the basis of an appeal to the Supreme Court - As it does not deal directly with matters from the High Court (H1) Labour Party v. INEC (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 385; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1137) 315

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Appeals - Grounds - Propriety of - It is not a proper ground of appeal in criminal cases - To say that the verdict is against the weight of evidence (H4) Ebenehi v. State (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 575; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1138) 431

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Appeals - Initiation - Necessity for - Appeals are initiated by notices of appeal in which are stated valid grounds of appeal - Complaining against the decisions being appealed against (H4) Joel Okunrinboye Exp. Ltd v. Skye Bank Plc (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 477; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1138) 518

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Appeals - Issues - Competence - Issue (i) of appellant is incompetent - Because it complains against judgment of High Court - As Supreme Court does not deal directly with complaints against High Courts (H1) Shell Petroleum v. Edamkue (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2143; (2009) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1160) 1

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Appeals - Issues - Incompetence - Effect of - Where an issue as formulated does not arise from the grounds of appeal - It is incompetent and liable to be struck out - Or discountenanced in the determination of the appeal (H1) Onyekwelu v. Elf Petroleum (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 501; (2009) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1133) 181

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Appeals - Issues - Role of - Appeals are determined on issues arising from the grounds of appeal - But such issues need not be those formulated by the appellant - They may be those by the respondent or even by the court (H5) Joel Okunrinboye Exp. Ltd v. Skye Bank Plc (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 477; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1138) 518

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Appeals - Main & cross appeal - Issues - Sequence of resolution - Were there is a main appeal & a cross appeal - Issues in the main appeal are normally resolved first - Unless there is a jurisdictional issue raised in the cross appeal - In which case it takes precedence (H1) Adekoye v. N.S.P.M.C. Ltd (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 233; (2009) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1134) 322

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Appeals - Party’s case - Variation of on appeal - Propriety - It runs contrary to practice and procedure of our civil jurisprudence - Neither counsel nor litigant is permitted - To approbate and reprobate in the conduct of a case (H4) Osuji v. Ekeocha (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2033; (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1166) 81

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Appeals - Preliminary objections - Manner of raising - It may be set out in the brief of argument - But applicant must also file a formal notice thereof - And move same - Or it will be deemed waived (H4) Onwuka v. Ononuju (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1393; (2009) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1151) 174

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Appeals - Respondent’s notice - Resort to - Propriety - It is validly raised as applicant is not asking for reversal - Of findings of fact made against him (H8) Arisons Ltd v. Mil. Gov. Ogun State (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 268) 1483; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1163) 26

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Appeals - Validity - Crime - Academic issues - Where appellant has served out his sentence - The appeal becomes academic - And courts do not deal with academic matters (H1) Amanchukwu v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 287; (2009) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1144) 475

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Application to withdraw - Based on urgency - Need for affidavit of urgency - It should be filed to verify the facts of urgent nature of the matter - But appellant failed to do so (H8) Onwuka v. Ononuju (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1393; (2009) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1151) 174

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Case of a party - Estoppel - Standing by - Applicability - It is not the case of appellant that respondents stood by - When the earlier suits were being tried - So the doctrine of standing by is inapplicable (H6) Omiyale v. Macaulay (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 655; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1141) 597

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Court processes - Claims - On which filing fees are not paid - Proper order to make - If the default is that of the plaintiff & there is no appropriate remedial action - Or application to regularize the anomaly - The claim should be struck out (H2) Akpaji v. Udemba (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 263; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1138) 545

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Courts - Adjournments - Grant of - Relevant considerations - Court should consider applicant’s attitude in the course of the proceedings - As adjournments are not granted for the asking - Particularly under the undefended list where speed is the emphasis (H10) Joel Okunrinboye Exp. Ltd v. Skye Bank Plc (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 477; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1138) 518

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Courts - Constitution - Defects in - Effect - It renders the proceedings before the court a nullity - Such defect being extrinsic to the adjudication (H1) Our Line Ltd v. S.C.C. Ltd (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2083; (2009) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1170) 382

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Courts - Issues - Where irrelevant - Non-reference to it - Propriety - There is nothing wrong with it, considering that an appellate Court is entitled - To formulate its own issues - If it considers those of the parties irrelevant (H8) FMH v. Comet Shipping Agencies (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265) 859; (2009) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1145) 193

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Crime - Civil Actions - Whether crime is in issue - How determined - Crime is in issue when commission of crime - Alleged in the pleadings - Is the basis of the claim or defence (H1) A.S.E.S.A. v. Ekwenem (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1803; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1158) 410

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Decisions of court - Challenge through objection - Propriety - It is wrong to challenge decision of a court - Under the guise of preliminary objection - Since a court becomes functus officio - When it hands down a decision (H2) Tomtec Ltd v. FHA (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2471; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 358

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Discontinuance - Application to discontinue - Initiation of - During vacation - It must be brought either with the consent of the parties - Or by reason of some urgency (H7) Onwuka v. Ononuju (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1393; (2009) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1151) 174

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Election petitions - Grounds - Complaints - Whether known to law - A careful reading of grounds 2 & 3 together with their particulars - Shows complaints as falling within the grounds in s. 145 (a) - (b) of the Act (H3) Ojukwu v. Yar’adua (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 266) 1017; (2009) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1154) 50

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Election petitions - Preliminary objection - Propriety of - If a respondent feels strongly that the petition is patently unsustainable - He may raise it - And the tribunal has the jurisdiction to entertain it (H1) Ojukwu v. Yar’adua (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 266) 1017; (2009) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1154) 50

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Estoppel - Res judicata - Effect of plea - Where the principles of res judicata applies to conclude plaintiff’s case - It is of no use for plaintiff to lead further evidence in the case - Defendant may move the court to dismiss the case peremptorily (H3) Jimoh v. Akande (2009) 1 KLR (pt. 262) 39; (2009) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1135) 549

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Evidence - Admissions - Applicability - Failure to swear to further-affidavit where there is unchallenged counter-affidavit - Amounts to admission of the counter-affidavit (H1) Henry Stephens Eng. Ltd. v. S. A. Yakubu Ltd. (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1267; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1149) 416

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Evidence - Expert witness - Necessity of - Where the evidence already before the court sufficiently proves a party’s case without reliance on an expert opinion - The exercise of calling an expert witness may be avoided as unnecessary - As observed by the Court of Appeal (H3) Onyekwelu v. Elf Petroleum (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 501; (2009) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1133) 181

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Evidence - Taken in earlier proceedings - Relevancy - To later proceedings - It is irrelevant - Except for purpose of discrediting the particular witness - In cross examination - And for that purpose only (H4) Oguntayo v. Adelaja (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1957; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1163) 150

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Filing fees - Failure to pay - Effect - It does not raise issue of jurisdiction - It is a mere irregularity which when not taken timeously or when acquiesced in - Becomes incapable of affecting the proceedings in any way (H1) Akpaji v. Udemba (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 263; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1138) 545

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Filing fees - Under assessment - Liability for - A litigant or his counsel is not to be held liable - For the failure of the registrar to correctly or properly assess filing fees (H3) Akpaji v. Udemba (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 263; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1138) 545

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Joinder - Document not produced - S. 149 (d) Evidence Act - Respondent ought to have applied to join NPA as 2nd defendant - If indeed it delivered the goods to them - Failure to do so justifies the invocation of s. 149 (d) (H2) FMH v. Comet Shipping Agencies (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265) 859; (2009) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1145) 193

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Judgments - Foreign judgments - Enforcement - Applicable law - Where the foreign jurisdiction is the United Kingdom - The applicable law is still the Reciprocal Enforcement of judgment Act (Cap. 175 of 1958) (H1) Grosvenor Casinos Ltd. v. Halaoui (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1241; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1149) 309

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Judgments - Foreign Judgments - Enforcement under s. 3 of the Act - A judgment obtained in England can only be registered - For enforcement in Nigeria - If the judgment debtor had submitted to the jurisdiction of that court in England (H2) Grosvenor Casinos Ltd. v. Halaoui (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1241; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1149) 309

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Judicial precedents - Distinguishing - Evidence on facts not pleaded - Applicability of Anyanwu v. Iwuchukwu - The principle is totally inapplicable to the instant case as the fact of respondent’s rejection of the good supplied was properly pleaded - In line with the evidence led (H2) Onyekwelu v. Elf Petroleum (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 501; (2009) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1133) 181

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Limitation period - Computation of time - Starting point - In view the letters by appellant and the promise of respondent - To return the items in due course - It cannot be said that time began to run from 1984 (H2) Henry Stephens Eng. Ltd. v. S. A. Yakubu Ltd. (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1267; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1149) 416

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Mistake of counsel - Effect on client’s case - If the claim is dismissed for improper settling of Appellant’s pleadings - It would be punishing the respondents for the mistake of counsel - Which should not be (H5) Ekpemupolo v. Edremoda (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 589; (2009) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1142) 166

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Orders of Court - Leave to sue - Variation - By a court of equal jurisdiction - Such order does not constitute a decision of a judge - That cannot be varied by a judge of equal jurisdiction - Therefore it was properly varied (H6) Shell Petroleum v. Edamkue (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2143; (2009) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1160) 1

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Parties - Disputes - Amicable resolution - Attitude of court - It is one of the cardinal principles of our judicial system - To allow parties to amicably resolve disputes between them (H1) Star Paper Mill Ltd v. Adetunji (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2173; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1159) 647

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Parties - Joinder - Validity of - The general rule is that both plaintiff & defendant should be juristic or natural persons - Existing or living at the time the action is instituted (H1) Administrators Abacha’s Estate v. Eke-Spiff (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 197; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1139) 97

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Parties - Legal capacity - Right to challenge - Applicability of waiver - Such a right is so fundamental that it is not only for the benefit of supposed party - But also inures to the benefit of the public - Therefore it cannot be waived (H4) Administrators Abacha’s Estate v. Eke-Spiff (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 197; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1139) 97

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Parties - Representative capacity - Objection by appellant - Propriety - Appellant lacked locus standi to question same - As he is not a member of those being represented - Only such a member can challenge the representation (H5) Shell Petroleum v. Edamkue (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2143; (2009) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1160) 1

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Pleadings - Amended pleading - Status - Though such pleading no longer defines the issue to be tried - It does not cease to exist for all purposes - It is still part of the record (H7) A.S.E.S.A. v. Ekwenem (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1803; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1158) 410

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Pleadings - Averments - General traverse - Construction - The practice is to give it effect along with the whole tenor of other averments - It is not the practice to consider each paragraph of statement of defence in isolation (H6) Arisons Ltd v. Mil. Gov. Ogun State (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 268) 1483; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1163) 26

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Pleadings - Counter claim - Reply - Failure to file - Legal effect - Contrary to the statement of the Court of Appeal - Failure to file a reply is not deemed to be an admission of the counter claim (H4) Akpaji v. Udemba (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 263; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1138) 545

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Pleadings - Statement of defence - General traverse - Purpose of - It serves to salvage such a situation - Where a pleader may inadvertently fail to deny a fact - Thereby admitting what he did not intend to (H4) Arisons Ltd v. Mil. Gov. Ogun State (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 268) 1483; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1163) 26

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Pleadings - Statement of defence - General traverse - Effect - It has the same effect as specific denial - That is to put plaintiff to proof of the allegation in that paragraph (H5) Arisons Ltd v. Mil. Gov. Ogun State (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 268) 1483; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1163) 26

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Pleadings - Statement of defence - General traverse - Propriety - In respect of essential and material allegations in statement of claim - General traverse is not enough to controvert them - They must be specifically denied (H3) Bamgbegbin v. Oriare (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 268) 1525; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1158) 370

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Pre-action notice - Right to - Applicability of waiver - Right to be served with such notice - Is not within the category of rights which cannot be waived - Though it affects jurisdiction of court (H1) Feed & Food Farms Ltd v. NNPC (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 268) 1561

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Proceedings during vacation - Proof of urgency - Burden of - Appellant had the onus of proving urgency - But failed to discharge the burden (H9) Onwuka v. Ononuju (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1393; (2009) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1151) 174

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Processes - Filing - Requirements - It should be presented to the court’s registry for assessment - The notice of intention to defend was not so presented - Therefore it was not filed before the High Court of Plateau State (H2) Abia St. Trans. Corp. v. Quorum Consortium Ltd (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 266) 973; (2009) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1145) 1

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Proof - Amount received by appellant - Whether proved - Petitioner did prove by documentary evidence that it was as he averred - Appellant had the burden of proving he did not receive the full sum - Which he failed to discharge (H3) Iteogu v. LPDC (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2383; (2009) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1171) 614

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Reference of questions - Court of Appeal - Powers - The court to which the question goes - Is limited to deciding the question referred - The referring court must decide the substance of the case (H8) Labour Party v. INEC (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 385; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1137) 315

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Reliefs - Claim in the alternative - Implications - An alternative award is not an additional award - It is one that can be made instead of another - Appellant’s claims at trial did not envisage this (H6) Osuji v. Ekeocha (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2033; (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1166) 81

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Reliefs awarded - Challenge to - Propriety - Appellant never challenged award of N9.5 m to petitioner at the hearing - It is therefore too late for him to raise that issue at this stage (H4) Iteogu v. LPDC (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2383; (2009) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1171) 614

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Stay of execution - Special circumstance - Effect of reconditeness - Even if recondite point is raised - It is not enough as special circumstance and reconditeness must coexist - Which is not the case here (H7) NNPC v. Famfa Oil Ltd (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1647; (2009) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1156) 462

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Striking out order - Made upon withdrawal of an application - Challenge procedure - It is the duty of appellant to have appealed against it - If he disagrees with the order - As the order is a decision by Court of Appeal (H1) Tomtec Ltd v. FHA (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2471; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 358

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Submission of counsel - Alleging new facts - Propriety - A party cannot make out a case solely on address of counsel - But on facts pleaded and evidence adduced in support (H10) Oloruntoba-Oju v. Abdul-Raheem (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1673; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 83

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Terms of settlement - Adoption - Whether automatic - Courts have discretion as to whether or not - To adopt terms of settlement as their judgments - Particularly where such terms are vague (H3) Star Paper Mill Ltd v. Adetunji (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2173; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1159) 647

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Undefended list procedure - Intention to defend - Filed out of time without leave - Effect of - It is invalid and should be discountenanced by court - Towards maintaining speedy hearing of liquidated suits (H3) Joel Okunrinboye Exp. Ltd v. Skye Bank Plc (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 477; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1138) 518

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Undefended list procedure - Notice of intention to defend - Time within which to file - It must be filed before the return date or the defendant would be out of time - Requiring leave of court to file it subsequently (H2) Joel Okunrinboye Exp. Ltd v. Skye Bank Plc (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 477; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1138) 518

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Undefended list procedure - Notice of intention to defend - Validity - The notice together with an affidavit disclosing a defence - Must be duly assessed and filed - For it to be valid (H3) Abia St. Trans. Corp. v. Quorum Consortium Ltd (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 266) 973; (2009) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1145) 1

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Undefended list procedure - Return date - Meaning of - It is the date fixed for hearing of the action - Except the defendant files a notice of intention to defend - With an affidavit disclosing his defence to the action (H1) Joel Okunrinboye Exp. Ltd v. Skye Bank Plc (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 477; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1138) 518

 

PROPERTY LAW - Administration of estates - Multiple administrators - Execution of conveyance - One administrator can validly execute a conveyance - Provided it is done with the agreement of the other administrators (H3) Ohiaeri v. Yussuf (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 455; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1137) 207

 

PROPERTY LAW - Compulsory acquisition - Public purpose requirement - Import - It must be for public purpose or it is invalid - And a subsequent grant to a private person can never be construed as public purpose (H6) Ononuju v. A-G Anambra State (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1357; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1148) 182

 

PROPERTY LAW - Customary Law - Family property - Disposition of - Where done by the head of family without consent of other family members - It is valid - Though it is voidable at the instance of those other family members (H4) Ohiaeri v. Yussuf (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 455; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1137) 207

 

PROPERTY LAW - Damages - Quantum - Claim for totally destroyed property - The measure of damages for such claim- Is the value of the property at the time of its destruction (H8) A.S.E.S.A. v. Ekwenem (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1803; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1158) 410

 

PROPERTY LAW - Damages - Quantum - Repairs of damaged property - The cost of repairs cannot be confined to the time damage occurred - It must take into consideration the current market situation (H9) A.S.E.S.A. v. Ekwenem (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1803; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1158) 410

 

PROPERTY LAW - Distribution of joint property - Order for - Propriety - Joint ownership was only canvassed by respondent as a defence - So court cannot predicate orders on it - In the absence of a counterclaim (H2) Osuji v. Ekeocha (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2033; (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1166) 81

 

PROPERTY LAW - Family land - Injunction against family members - Effect - In spite of the order of injunction on appellants - Overall interest of Akayepe family - Including appellants - Remains intact - Their complaint is therefore baseless (H4) Akayepe v. Akayepe (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1183; (2009) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1152) 217

 

PROPERTY LAW - Family land - Partitioning of - Proof - In view of the fact that both sections of Akayepe family took part in taking the loan for the building - And in letting out the shops - The finding that the land is not partitioned is justified (H5) Akayepe v. Akayepe (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1183; (2009) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1152) 217

 

PROPERTY LAW - Holders of land - Prior to Land Use Act - Effect of Act on their interests - Such land is properly vested in them - Not even government can deprive them of it - Unless by compulsory acquisition in accordance with the Act (H4) Ononuju v. A-G Anambra State (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1357; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1148) 182

 

PROPERTY LAW - Inheritance - Bini customary law - Inheritance of Igiogbe - Applicability - Before the custom can come into play it must be established - That the ownership of the house sought to be inherited thereunder - Was on a firm ground (H2) Ibrahim v. Osunde (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 341; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1137) 382

 

RES JUDICATA - Estoppel - Applicability of - As parties in the suits in which the earlier judgments were given - Are not same as in the instant suit - The plea is inapplicable (H1) Omiyale v. Macaulay (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 655; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1141) 597

 

RES JUDICATA - Estoppel - Ingredients - Privies to parties - Applicability - Respondents did not acquire title from plaintiffs in earlier suits - Therefore they could not be privies to the said plaintiffs (H2) Omiyale v. Macaulay (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 655; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1141) 597

 

RES JUDICATA - Estoppel - Privity of estate - A prior purchaser of land such as respondents - Cannot be estopped as being privy in estate - By a judgment obtained in an action against vendor - Commenced after the purchase (H3) Omiyale v. Macaulay (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 655; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1141) 597

 

RULES OF COURT - Appeals - Right of appeal - Requirement for leave - Supreme Court Rules, O. 2 r. 32 - As far as leave to appeal is concerned the power of the court to entertain it is as per s. 233 (3) of the Constitution - It cannot be altered by the rules of court (H1) Jimoh v. Akande (2009) 1 KLR (pt. 262) 39; (2009) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1135) 549

 

RULES OF COURT - Applicability - Right of appeal - Decisions under Failed Banks Decree - Provisions of the Decree are special in nature - Therefore while exercising jurisdiction thereunder - Court of Appeal could not resort to rules of court (H2) Uwagba v. FRN (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1439; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1163) 91

 

RULES OF COURT - High Court of Plateau State - Actions - Applicable rules - The Court is empowered to follow only provisions of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules of Plateau State - So those are the applicable rules (H1) Abia St. Trans. Corp. v. Quorum Consortium Ltd (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 266) 973; (2009) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1145) 1

 

RULES OF COURT - Judgment sum - Post judgment interest - Entitlement - Where rules of court provides for recovery of interest on judgment sum - It automatically carries interest at prescribed rate - Unless otherwise ordered (H5) G.K.F. Ltd v. NITEL (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1899; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1164) 344

 

RULES OF COURT - Proceedings during vacation - Propriety of - 0. 26 r. 9 (2) High Court Rules of Anambra State - Issue of want of jurisdiction cannot be a ground - For hearing application for discontinuance during vacation (H5) Onwuka v. Ononuju (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1393; (2009) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1151) 174

 

RULES OF COURT - Substantial justice - Technicalities - Though rules of court should be complied with by parties - It is in the interest of justice that technicalities must be shunned - And claims determined on merit (H4) Oloruntoba-Oju v. Abdul-Raheem (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1673; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 83

 

SALE OF GOODS - Contracts - Breach - Rejection of supplied goods - Both the terms of contract and provisions of sale of goods law - Empower a buyer to reject goods for nonconformity with specifications - Respondent was therefore not in breach (H5) Onyekwelu v. Elf Petroleum (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 501; (2009) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1133) 181

 

SIGNATURE - Genuineness of - Where in dispute - Court has power to compare the disputed one with an undisputed version - The alleged owner of the signature need not swear to any affidavit to deny it (H5) Tomtec Ltd v. FHA (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2471; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 358

 

SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE - Sale of land contract - Such contract attracts greater justification for a decree of specific performance - As the land may have a peculiar value (H6) Ohiaeri v. Yussuf (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 455; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1137) 207

 

STATUTES - Actions - Validity - Statute of Limitation - Plaintiff had until October 1992 to validly bring its suit - As the law provides for 6 Years from date of cause of action - Instant suit is therefore not statute barred (H3) Henry Stephens Eng. Ltd. v. S. A. Yakubu Ltd. (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1267; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1149) 416

 

STATUTES - Applicability - Kaduna State Civil Service - Retirements - Applicability of Civil Service (Reorganisation) Act - It is inapplicable because it is an Act - As such it applies only to the Federal Civil Service (H6) Abdullahi v. Mil. Admin. Kaduna State (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1767; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1165) 417

 

STATUTES - Civil Service (Reorganisation) Act, s. 5 - Scope of - Though it empowers Ministries to appoint, dismiss and discipline persons - That power does not extend to retirement of persons (H7) Abdullahi v. Mil. Admin. Kaduna State (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1767; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1165) 417

 

STATUTES - Company law - Securities & Investment - Investment & Securities Act - Duty on promoters’ agents - Respondents are mere registration agents in the PSPLS scheme - And the statute does not impose any duty on such agents in the exercise of their function as such (H1) Osigwe v. PSPLS Mgt. Consortium Ltd (2009) 1 KLR (pt. 262) 73; (2009) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1128) 378

 

STATUTES - Constitutional law - Interpretation - Principles of - There should be a liberal approach - An earlier section should not be interpreted - To make a later section moribund (H3) Shelim v. Gobang (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1719; (2009) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1156) 435

 

STATUTES - Constitutional law - Legislative powers - Robbery - Both the Federal and the State Government can legislate thereon - By virtue of s. 14 (2) (b) of the 1999 Constitution (H1) Tanko v. State (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 541; (2009) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1131) 430

 

STATUTES - Construction - Primary concern - Is the ascertainment of intention of legislature - So where the language is clear & explicit - The words of a statute must not be overruled by judges (H1) Agro Allied Dev. Ent. Ltd v. MV Northern Reefer (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1167; (2009) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1155) 255

 

STATUTES - Contracts - Statutory provisions - Waiver - Applicability - Statutory provisions cannot be waived - As no one is permitted to contract out or waive - A rule of public policy (H6) Olufeagba v. Abdur-Raheem (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 274) 2667; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 384

 

STATUTES - Decrees - Appeals - Right of - Applicability of Rules of Court - Decisions under Failed Banks Decree - Provisions of the Decree are special in nature - Therefore while exercising jurisdiction thereunder - Court of Appeal could not resort to rules of court (H2) Uwagba v. FRN (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1439; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1163) 91

 

STATUTES - Foreign laws & cases - Effect of - They are only persuasive in the interpretation of our constitution & statutes - They can not be relied on - To hold that decisions of our courts - Based on our statutes - Are not good laws (H1) Basinco Motors Ltd v. Woermann-Line (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1609; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 149

 

STATUTES - Interpretation - “Or” - Meaning - It is generally construed disjunctively - Not as implying similarity - Subject to certain circumstances when the intention of the legislature - Requires otherwise (H2) Da Kabirikim v. Emefor (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1867; (2009) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1162) 602

 

STATUTES - Interpretation - Principles - Ejusdem generis - Purport - It is that where general words follow enumeration of particular classes of things - They would be construed as applying only to things of same general class enumerated (H1) Da Kabirikim v. Emefor (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1867; (2009) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1162) 602

 

STATUTES - Investments - Illegality of - Trustee Investments Act, s. 2 - Purpose of - It is meant to safeguard investments against abuse of power - Not to make them illegal for ignoring the Provisions thereof (H3) Fasel Services Limited v. NPA (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265) 843; (2009) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1146) 400

 

STATUTES - Jurisdiction - Ouster provisions - Public Officers (Special Provisions) Act - Scope - It ousts the jurisdiction of the court from adjudicating on a suit - Filed by a dismissed public officer - So far as dismissal was purported to have been done under the Act (H1) Kalango v. Gov. Bayelsa State (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 365; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1139) 17

 

STATUTES - Letter of retirement - Basis of - Pension Act - The circular referred to by the letter made reference to the Act - Court of Appeal was wrong therefore to hold that the letter did not refer to the Act (H1) Abdullahi v. Mil. Admin. Kaduna State (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1767; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1165) 417

 

STATUTES - Master & servant - Allegation of misconduct - Applicability of Trade Dispute Act - Since respondents maintain that the termination - Was not based on participation in strike - The provisions of the Act are inapplicable (H8) Olufeagba v. Abdur-Raheem (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 274) 2667; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 384

 

STATUTES - Pre-action notice - NNPC Act, s. 12(2) - Applicability of waiver - The section could be waived in law - And respondent has waived it in this case (H3) Feed & Food Farms Ltd v. NNPC (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 268) 1561

 

STATUTES - Public Officers (Special Provision) Act - Notice of dismissal - Effect of non-conveyance - It is not the normal function of the Military Governor but that of the civil service commission - To convey such notice - Therefore it is of no moment that the instrument was not served on the appellant (H2) Kalango v. Gov. Bayelsa State (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 365; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1139) 17

 

STATUTES - Public Officers (Special Provisions ) Act - Delegation of duty - Propriety of - The appropriate authority may delegate to another person the duty to act on its behalf - It is enough that the action was done within the purview of the Act (H3) Kalango v. Gov. Bayelsa State (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 365; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1139) 17

 

STATUTES - Words & phrases - Subject to - Purport and effect - Whenever it is used in statute - It serves to make provisions of the section - Dependent and restricted in application - To the section to which it is subjected (H12) Oloruntoba-Oju v. Abdul-Raheem (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1673; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 83

 

STAY OF EXECUTION - Appeals - Presumption of correctness of judgment - Which applies subject to rebuttal on appeal - Avails in this case - To prevent depriving a party from reaping his fruit of success (H4) NNPC v. Famfa Oil Ltd (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1647; (2009) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1156) 462

 

STAY OF EXECUTION - Courts - Exercise of discretion by courts - Proper Manner - It must take into account competing rights of parties to justice - Else it has not been judicially & judiciously exercised (H2) NNPC v. Famfa Oil Ltd (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1647; (2009) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1156) 462

 

STAY OF EXECUTION - Grant of - Determinant factors - Courts should not grant stay unless there are special circumstances - Like likelihood of subject matter of proceedings being destroyed (H1) NNPC v. Famfa Oil Ltd (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1647; (2009) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1156) 462

 

STAY OF EXECUTION - Proof of special circumstances - Onus - It is on the party applying for stay pending appeal - To satisfy the court that in the peculiar circumstances - A refusal would be unjust (H3) NNPC v. Famfa Oil Ltd (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1647; (2009) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1156) 462

 

STAY OF EXECUTION - Reasonableness of - As the res in this matter is a depleting one - An order for stay will be against reason - Since the 1st respondent is the judgment creditor (H5) NNPC v. Famfa Oil Ltd (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1647; (2009) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1156) 462

 

STAY OF EXECUTION - Special circumstance - Effect of reconditeness - Even if recondite point is raised - It is not enough as special circumstance and reconditeness must coexist - Which is not the case here (H7) NNPC v. Famfa Oil Ltd (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1647; (2009) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1156) 462

 

STAY OF EXECUTION - Status of parties - Effect on the application - The fact that applicant is a Federal Government Agency - Does not give it any special status (H6) NNPC v. Famfa Oil Ltd (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1647; (2009) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1156) 462

 

SUCCESSION - Administration of estates - Administrators - Duties - It is wrong in law for administrator of estate or anybody claiming through him - To assimilate that property to his own - Equity will not even permit that under any guise (H3) Ibrahim v. Osunde (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 341; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1137) 382

 

SUCCESSION - Administration of estates - Administrators - Undue advantage - One cannot take advantage of his position as administrator - To facilitate the acquisition of the property by his son after his death - It is a wrong doing that will not be allowed (H4) Ibrahim v. Osunde (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 341; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1137) 382

 

SUCCESSION - Administration of estates - Multiple administrators - Execution of conveyance - One administrator can validly execute a conveyance - Provided it is done with the agreement of the other administrators (H3) Ohiaeri v. Yussuf (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 455; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1137) 207

 

SUCCESSION - Administrators of estates - Legal capacity - A person can neither sue or be sued as an administrator of an estate of a deceased person - Until he is granted the letters of administration - And his name must be stated on the writ (H2) Administrators Abacha’s Estate v. Eke-Spiff (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 197; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1139) 97

 

SUCCESSION - Inheritance - Bini customary law - Inheritance of Igiogbe - Applicability - Before the custom can come into play it must be established - That the ownership of the house sought to be inherited thereunder - Was on a firm ground (H2) Ibrahim v. Osunde (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 341; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1137) 382

 

SUPREME COURT - Appeals - Concurrent findings - Attitude of Supreme Court - Where such findings are borne out by evidence on record - They will not be disturbed by the court (H5) Akpaji v. Udemba (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 263; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1138) 545

 

SUPREME COURT - Appeals - Concurrent findings - Disturbance - Basis - They may only be disturbed where not supported by evidence - Or they were reached on application of wrong principles of law - Neither is the case herein (H1) Oshoboja v. Amida (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 272) 2275; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1172) 164

 

SUPREME COURT - Appeals - Judicial precedents - Overruling - Conditions for - Judgment to be overruled must be shown to be erroneous in law - Or given per incuriam, or contrary to public policy - None of which is the position with Emelogu case (H3) Tanko v. State (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 541; (2009) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1131) 430

 

SUPREME COURT - Concurrent findings of fact - Interference with - Unless shown to be perverse - Which is not the case herein - The Supreme Court will not interfere therewith (H6) Oguntayo v. Adelaja (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1957; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1163) 150

 

SUPREME COURT - Courts - Issues - Raised but not resolved - Propriety of - Except the Supreme Court, all Courts generally have the duty - To resolve all issues put before them (H7) FMH v. Comet Shipping Agencies (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265) 859; (2009) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1145) 193

 

SUPREME COURT - Evidence - Appeals - Concurrent findings - Attitude of Supreme Court - It will not interfere with such findings - Where such is not shown to be perverse (H2)

 

SUPREME COURT - Judicial precedents - Mandatory statutory provisions - Applicability of waiver - Principles - It appears Supreme Court put the position too wide in Menakaya case - In view of the court’s later decision in the case of Mobil (H3) Feed & Food Farms Ltd v. NNPC (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 268) 1561  

 

SUPREME COURT - Previous decisions - Overruling - Applicability - Though Supreme Court may over rule its previous decisions - Where a decision is based on statute - It requires statutory amendment to over rule it (H9) Basinco Motors Ltd v. Woermann-Line (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1609; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 149

 

TECHNICALITIES - Appeals - Briefs - Badly written - Duty of courts - Court should do its best to understand and resolve the issues arising therefrom on the merits - As courts are in favour of considering cases on merits rather than technicalities of law (H1) Anyaegwu v. Onuche (2009) 1 KLR (pt. 262) 1; (2009) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1129) 659

 

TECHNICALITIES - Courts - Justice - Though rules of court should be complied with by parties - It is in the interest of justice that technicalities must be shunned - And claims determined on merit (H4) Oloruntoba-Oju v. Abdul-Raheem (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1673; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 83

 

TECHNICALITIES - Election petitions - Applicability of technicalities - The intention of the Act is to do substantial justice - So any conclusion tending to bar a case from hearing on the merits - Ought not to be encouraged (H4) Hope Democratic Party (HDP) v. INEC (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 623; (2009) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1143) 297

 

TORTS - Negligence - Banking - Liability of appellant - Propriety of finding - In view of the evidence on record - Particularly the instructions from 1st respondent as per Exhibit C - The finding is proper as borne out from the records (H3) Diamond Bank Ltd v. Partnership Investment Co. Ltd (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 272) 2221; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1172) 67

 

TORTS - Negligence - Courts - Bills of lading - Notify party - Right of audience - He has no such right whether in contract or in negligence - Not even in an action for bailment (H7) Basinco Motors Ltd v. Woermann-Line (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1609; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 149

 

TORTS - Negligence - Definition - It is failure to exercise the standard of care - That a reasonably prudent person would have exercised - In a similar situation (H2) Diamond Bank Ltd v. Partnership Investment Co. Ltd (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 272) 2221; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1172) 67

 

TORTS - Special damages - Trespass - Proof - Court of Appeal was wrong to have held that there was no evidence in proof of special damages - On alleged ground that there was no trespass - There is evidence of both trespass and special damages (H5) Feed & Food Farms Ltd v. NNPC (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 268) 1561

 

TORTS - Trespass - Loss - Damages without proof of loss - Propriety - Because trespass is actionable per se - successful plaintiff is entitled to damages - Though he has sustained no loss (H9) Anyanwu v. Uzowuaka (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1829; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1159) 445

 

TORTS - Trespass - Subsequent act - By lawful entrant - Where a person having entered upon land under lawful authority - Abuses that authority - He becomes a trespasser ab initio - And plaintiff can claim in trespass without issuing quit notice (H8) Anyanwu v. Uzowuaka (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1829; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1159) 445

 

TRESPASS - Loss - Damages without proof of loss - Propriety - Because trespass is actionable per se - successful plaintiff is entitled to damages - Though he has sustained no loss (H9) Anyanwu v. Uzowuaka (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1829; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1159) 445

 

TRESPASS - Special damages - Proof - Court of Appeal was wrong to have held that there was no evidence in proof of special damages - On alleged ground that there was no trespass - There is evidence of both trespass and special damages (H5) Feed & Food Farms Ltd v. NNPC (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 268) 1561

 

TRESPASS - Subsequent act - By lawful entrant - Where a person having entered upon land under lawful authority - Abuses that authority - He becomes a trespasser ab initio - And plaintiff can claim in trespass without issuing quit notice (H8) Anyanwu v. Uzowuaka (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1829; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1159) 445

 

TRIBUNALS - Judgments - Mistakes - Power of court to amend - Extent - There is inherent jurisdiction vested in courts or tribunals to amend their rulings - To take care of accidental slips - Exercise of this power does not depend on application being in writing (H3) Osigwe v. PSPLS Mgt. Consortium Ltd (2009) 1 KLR (pt. 262) 73; (2009) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1128) 378

 

UNDEFENDED SUITS - Undefended list procedure - Adjournments - Grant of - Relevant considerations - Court should consider applicant’s attitude in the course of the proceedings - As adjournments are not granted for the asking - Particularly under the undefended list where speed is the emphasis (H10) Joel Okunrinboye Exp. Ltd v. Skye Bank Plc (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 477; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1138) 518

 

UNDEFENDED SUITS - Undefended list procedure - Fair hearing - Applicability of - The procedure recognises fair hearing by reserving to the defendant the right to file a notice to defend - It is a different matter where defendant fails to utilize the right (H8) Joel Okunrinboye Exp. Ltd v. Skye Bank Plc (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 477; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1138) 518

 

UNDEFENDED SUITS - Undefended list procedure - Intention to defend - Filed out of time without leave - Effect of - It is invalid and should be discountenanced by court - Towards maintaining speedy hearing of liquidated suits (H3) Joel Okunrinboye Exp. Ltd v. Skye Bank Plc (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 477; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1138) 518

 

UNDEFENDED SUITS - Undefended list procedure - Notice of intention to defend - Time within which to file - It must be filed before the return date or the defendant would be out of time - Requiring leave of court to file it subsequently (H2) Joel Okunrinboye Exp. Ltd v. Skye Bank Plc (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 477; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1138) 518

 

UNDEFENDED SUITS - Undefended list procedure - Notice of intention to defend - Validity - The notice together with an affidavit disclosing a defence - Must be duly assessed and filed - For it to be valid (H3) Abia St. Trans. Corp. v. Quorum Consortium Ltd (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 266) 973; (2009) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1145) 1

 

UNDEFENDED SUITS - Undefended list procedure - Return date - Meaning of - It is the date fixed for hearing of the action - Except the defendant files a notice of intention to defend - With an affidavit disclosing his defence to the action (H1) Joel Okunrinboye Exp. Ltd v. Skye Bank Plc (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 477; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1138) 518

 

WAIVER - Evidence - Admissibility - Objection - Applicability of waiver - Where a counsel or party consents to admissibility of a document - Or regularity of a procedure - The consent amount to a waiver of his right - To subsequently object thereto (H3) Shell Petroleum v. Edamkue (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2143; (2009) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1160) 1

 

WAIVER - Judicial precedents - Mandatory statutory provisions - Applicability of waiver - Principles - It appears Supreme Court put the position too wide in Menakaya case - In view of the court’s later decision in the case of Mobil (H3) Feed & Food Farms Ltd v. NNPC (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 268) 1561

 

WAIVER - Jurisdiction - Matters affecting - Categorization - For purpose of waiver - They should be categorized into those affecting the public and those affecting the parties - The former cannot in law be waived - But the latter can be waived (H2) Feed & Food Farms Ltd v. NNPC (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 268) 1561

 

WAIVER - Parties - Legal capacity - Right to challenge - Applicability of waiver - Such a right is so fundamental that it is not only for the benefit of supposed party - But also inures to the benefit of the public - Therefore it cannot be waived (H4) Administrators Abacha’s Estate v. Eke-Spiff (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 197; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1139) 97

 

WAIVER - Pre-action notice - NNPC Act, s. 12(2) - Applicability of waiver - The section could be waived in law - And respondent has waived it in this case (H3) Feed & Food Farms Ltd v. NNPC (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 268) 1561

 

WAIVER - Pre-action notice - Right to - Applicability of waiver - Right to be served with such notice - Is not within the category of rights which cannot be waived - Though it affects jurisdiction of court (H1) Feed & Food Farms Ltd v. NNPC (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 268) 1561

 

WAIVER - Termination of employment - Procedure - Waiver - The claim of respondents that applicants waived their rights under the Act - Is of no moment - As s.15 (1) or 15(3) applies to all termination of senior staff employment (H13) Oloruntoba-Oju v. Abdul-Raheem (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1673; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 83

 

WORDS & PHRASES “Or” - Meaning - It is generally construed disjunctively - Not as implying similarity - Subject to certain circumstances when the intention of the legislature - Requires otherwise (H2) Da Kabirikim v. Emefor (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1867; (2009) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1162) 602

 

WORDS & PHRASES - Allottee & customary tenant - Difference - Though both exercise occupational rights over land - The allottee’s interest in family land cannot be forfeited - Unlike that of the customary tenant (H7) Dim v. Enemuo (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 266) 1117; (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1149) 353

 

WORDS & PHRASES - Armed robbery - Meaning - Ingredients - It simply means stealing plus violence - Used or threatened - From the evidence on record - These were established (H7) Tanko v. State (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 541; (2009) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1131) 430

 

WORDS & PHRASES - Bill of lading - Meaning - It is a writing signed on behalf of the owner of a ship - In which goods are embarked - Acknowledging receipt thereof - And undertaking to deliver them - Subject to conditions therein (H2) Basinco Motors Ltd v. Woermann-Line (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1609; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 149

 

WORDS & PHRASES - Bills of lading - Notify party - Meaning of - It is the party whose name and address appear in a bill - Who is to be notified of the arrival of the goods at the discharge port (H3) Basinco Motors Ltd v. Woermann-Line (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1609; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 149

 

WORDS & PHRASES - Concur - Meaning - S. 2, Administration of Estate Law, Lagos State - Concurrence in the context is not synonymous with the word execution - It simply means agreement (H2) Ohiaeri v. Yussuf (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 455; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1137) 207

 

WORDS & PHRASES - Consent judgment - Meaning - It is a contract between parties - Whereby rights are created between them - In substitution for order of consideration - Of abandonment of the claims in court (H2) Star Paper Mill Ltd v. Adetunji (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2173; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1159) 647

 

WORDS & PHRASES - Damages - Meaning - It is the pecuniary compensation obtainable by successful party - In an action for wrong - Which is either a tort or a breach of contract (H5) A.S.E.S.A. v. Ekwenem (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1803; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1158) 410

 

WORDS & PHRASES - Ejusdem generis - Purport - It is that where general words follow enumeration of particular classes of things - They would be construed as applying only to things of same general class enumerated (H1) Da Kabirikim v. Emefor (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1867; (2009) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1162) 602

 

WORDS & PHRASES - Federal government agency - Concept of - Any enterprise in which the federal government owns controlling shares or interest - Is part of the public service of the federation - Therefore it is an agency of the federal government (H2) Adekoye v. N.S.P.M.C. Ltd (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 233; (2009) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1134) 322

 

WORDS & PHRASES - Fresh points on appeal - Meaning - It means an issue not canvassed and pronounced upon - At the lower court - Like the issue of validity of appointment of project manager - It can only be raised with leave (H1) Olalomi Industries Ltd v. N.I.D.B. Ltd (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 271) 2001; (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1167) 266

 

WORDS & PHRASES - Grounds of Appeal - Vagueness - Manners of - It may arise where what is stated is uncertain - Or complaint is not defined in relation to subject matter - Or particulars are irrelevant to the grounds (H3) Oloruntoba-Oju v. Abdul-Raheem (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1673; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 83

 

WORDS & PHRASES - Illegal contract - Purport of - Where a Statute declares a contract not only void - But also imposes a penalty for violation - The contract is illegal ab initio (H2) Fasel Services Limited v. NPA (2009) 4 KLR (pt. 265) 843; (2009) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1146) 400

 

WORDS & PHRASES - Legal practitioners - Disciplinary Committee - Propriety of punishment - Infamous conduct - Though respondent did not use the word ‘infamous’ - It is clear it did find appellant liable for infamous conduct - Punishment was therefore proper (H5) Iteogu v. LPDC (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2383; (2009) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1171) 614

 

WORDS & PHRASES - Miscarriage of justice - Meaning & applicability - It simply means failure of justice - No elements of miscarriage of justice have been disclosed in the present case (H3) Akayepe v. Akayepe (2009) 5 KLR (pt. 267) 1183; (2009) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1152) 217

 

WORDS & PHRASES - Negligence - Definition - It is failure to exercise the standard of care - That a reasonably prudent person would have exercised - In a similar situation (H2) Diamond Bank Ltd v. Partnership Investment Co. Ltd (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 272) 2221; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1172) 67

 

WORDS & PHRASES - Privity of contract - Purport of - It portrays that generally a contract affects the parties thereto - And cannot be enforced by or against a person - Who is not a party to it (H6) Basinco Motors Ltd v. Woermann-Line (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1609; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 149

 

WORDS & PHRASES - Rerun elections - Meaning of - It means the same as fresh elections in place of that which is nullified - The Act need not use the word specifically (H4) Labour Party v. INEC (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 385; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1137) 315

 

WORDS & PHRASES - ‘Shall’ - Kaduna State Civil Service - Retirement - Proper age - Under s. 9 (1) of Pensions and Gratuities Law - It is sixty years - As the use of the word ‘shall’ therein is mandatory (H5) Abdullahi v. Mil. Admin. Kaduna State (2009) 7 KLR (pt. 270) 1767; (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1165) 417

 

WORDS & PHRASES - Subject to - Purport and effect - Whenever it is used in statute - It serves to make provisions of the section - Dependent and restricted in application - To the section to which it is subjected (H12) Oloruntoba-Oju v. Abdul-Raheem (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 269) 1673; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 83

 

WORDS & PHRASES - Undefended list procedure - Return date - Meaning of - It is the date fixed for hearing of the action - Except the defendant files a notice of intention to defend - With an affidavit disclosing his defence to the action (H1) Joel Okunrinboye Exp. Ltd v. Skye Bank Plc (2009) 2 KLR (pt. 263) 477; (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1138) 518

 

WRIT OF SUMMONS - Pleadings - Statement of claim - Claim ‘’as per writ of summons” - Effect - It incorporates the writ of summons in the statement of claim - Making the writ a part of the statement of claim (H4) Ekpemupolo v. Edremoda (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 589; (2009) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1142) 166

 

 

 

 

 

 

COMPREHENSIVE INDEX TO SELECTED NOVEL COURT OF APPEAL CASES

 

ACCIDENTS - Proof - Corroboration - Position of lorry - Respondents adduced no evidence - To show that it obstructed the road - Whereas Exhibit S corroborates appellants’ evidence - That it was parked off the road (H3) Onwughalu v. Uche (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 268) 1585 CA

 

ACTIONS - Claims - Grant of relief not claimed - Propriety of - It is wrong for a court to grant an order - Which is not claimed by the party in whose favour the order is made (H5) First Bank v. Akparabong Comm. Bank (2009) 1 KLR (pt. 262) 1; (2009) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1129) 65945 CA

 

ACTIONS - Consolidation of suits - Effect - It is only done for convenience and does not fuse the consolidated cases - So evidence given in respect of one - Does not ipso facto become evidence given in the other (H12) Orji v. Ugochukwu (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2493 CA

 

ACTIONS - Damages - Quantum - Award in excess of claim - Propriety - It is patently wrong in law - As it amounts to making a different case - From what is placed before the court by parties (H5) Onwughalu v. Uche (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 268) 1585 CA

 

ACTIONS - Election petitions - Validity of - Where result has not been announced - Announcement of election result is a condition precedent - To validity of an election petition (H5) Orji v. Ugochukwu (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2493 CA

 

APPEALS - Appellant’s brief - Failure to file - Effect - Where appellant fails to file his brief - The grounds of appeal are deemed abandoned (H1) Orji v. Ugochukwu (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2493 CA

 

APPEALS - Briefs - Respondent’s brief - Omission of - A respondent who has neither filed a cross-appeal nor a respondent’s notice - Will not be allowed to file a brief or proffer oral argument attacking the decision being appealed against (H2) Alpha Properties Ltd v. NDIC (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 755 CA

 

APPEALS - Election petitions - Interlocutory appeals - Applicability - Election petition matters are sui generis - In that the only right of appeal cognisable is from the final decision of the tribunal - This rules out interlocutory appeals (H2) Orji v. Ugochukwu (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2493 CA

 

APPEALS - Findings - Setting aside of - Though an appellate court will not ordinarily interfere with a finding - It would set it aside - Where it is not borne out of proper evaluation of evidence (H4) Onwughalu v. Uche (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 268) 1585 CA

 

APPEALS - Grounds - Particulars - Manners of stipulating - There are variant ways of portraying particulars of error - Whether it is styled ‘’When’’ instead of particulars of error - It serves the same purpose (H4) Orji v. Ugochukwu (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2493 CA

 

APPEALS - Grounds of appeal - Validity of - A ground by an appellant - That complains against a decision which does not affect him or his interest - Is incompetent and so are any issues formulated therefrom (H2) First Bank v. Akparabong Comm. Bank (2009) 1 KLR (pt. 262) 1; (2009) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1129) 65945 CA

 

APPEALS - Issues - Fresh issue on appeal - What constitutes - A preliminary objection - Is not synonymous with raising a new issue on appeal (H1) First Bank v. Akparabong Comm. Bank (2009) 1 KLR (pt. 262) 1; (2009) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1129) 65945 CA

 

APPEALS - Right of - Consent judgments - Party wrongly affected - By terms of settlement adopted as consent judgment - Which terms he is not signatory to - May appeal against the consent judgment with leave of court (H1) Alpha Properties Ltd v. NDIC (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 755 CA

 

CONSENT JUDGMENTS - Appeals - Party wrongly affected - By terms of settlement adopted as consent judgment - Which terms he is not signatory to - May appeal against the consent judgment with leave of court (H1) Alpha Properties Ltd v. NDIC (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 755 CA

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Public service - Scope - By the provision of section 318 of 1999 Constitution - Political appointees are not public servants for purpose of section 182 (9) of 1999 Constitution (H8) Orji v. Ugochukwu (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2493 CA

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Secret society - Oath taking - Effect - Though oath taking is one of the aspects of the constitutional definition of secret society - There are several other constituents - That must coexist with it to make for a secret society (H10) Orji v. Ugochukwu (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2493 CA

 

CORROBORATION - Accidents - Proof - Corroboration - Position of lorry - Respondents adduced no evidence - To show that it obstructed the road - Whereas Exhibit S corroborates appellants’ evidence - That it was parked off the road (H3) Onwughalu v. Uche (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 268) 1585 CA

 

COURTS - Actions - Claims - Grant of relief not claimed - Propriety of - It is wrong for a court to grant an order - Which is not claimed by the party in whose favour the order is made (H5) First Bank v. Akparabong Comm. Bank (2009) 1 KLR (pt. 262) 1; (2009) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1129) 65945 CA

 

COURTS - Appellate court - Findings - Setting aside of - Though an appellate court will not ordinarily interfere with a finding - It would set it aside - Where it is not borne out of proper evaluation of evidence (H4) Onwughalu v. Uche (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 268) 1585 CA

 

COURTS - Consent judgments - Party wrongly affected - By terms of settlement adopted as consent judgment - Which terms he is not signatory to - May appeal against the consent judgment with leave of court (H1) Alpha Properties Ltd v. NDIC (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 755 CA

 

COURTS - Damages - Quantum - Award in excess of claim - Propriety - It is patently wrong in law - As it amounts to making a different case - From what is placed before the court by parties (H5) Onwughalu v. Uche (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 268) 1585 CA

 

COURTS - Decisions - Nature of - Whether final or interlocutory - A trial court’s decision on wrongful admission of evidence - Is part of the main trial - Not an interlocutory decision (H3) Orji v. Ugochukwu (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2493 CA

 

COURTS - Error - Pleadings - Averments - Legal status - They are matters to be proved or disproved in the substantive hearing - They do not constitute evidence in themselves - Trial judge was therefore wrong to have relied on pleadings in making the interlocutory order (H4) First Bank v. Akparabong Comm. Bank (2009) 1 KLR (pt. 262) 1; (2009) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1129) 65945 CA

 

COURTS - Evidence - Witnesses - Testimony - Partial acceptance - Propriety - It is not the law that a tribunal cannot accept part of the evidence of a witness - While rejecting part (H1) INEC v. Oshiomhole (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 272) 2317 CA

 

COURTS - Interlocutory proceedings - Issues - Touching on substantive suit - Treatment by the Court - It is wrong for a court to decide in limine - At interlocutory stage issues for determination in the substantive suit (H3) First Bank v. Akparabong Comm. Bank (2009) 1 KLR (pt. 262) 1; (2009) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1129) 65945 CA

 

COURTS - Judgments - Propriety of - Judgment given in favour of defendant - Who led no evidence - Is proper where plaintiff failed to call evidence on all materials facts - Or where plaintiff’s evidence is destroyed via cross examination (H14) Orji v. Ugochukwu (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2493 CA

 

CROSS EXAMINATION - Judgments - Propriety of - Judgment given in favour of defendant - Who led no evidence - Is proper where plaintiff failed to call evidence on all materials facts - Or where plaintiff’s evidence is destroyed via cross examination (H14) Orji v. Ugochukwu (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2493 CA

 

DAMAGES - Quantum - Award in excess of claim - Propriety - It is patently wrong in law - As it amounts to making a different case - From what is placed before the court by parties (H5) Onwughalu v. Uche (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 268) 1585 CA

 

DOCUMENTS - Evidence - Evaluation - Documents viz-a-viz oral evidence - Relative weight - The best evidence is documentary evidence - It is more reliable than oral evidence - So tribunal was right to have given it greater weight (H5) INEC v. Oshiomhole (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 272) 2317 CA

 

DOCUMENTS - Evidence - Evaluation - Right and duty of tribunal - Once a document is received in evidence before a tribunal - It has a duty to evaluate the document’s probative value - And the right to use the document as it sees fit (H3) INEC v. Oshiomhole (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 272) 2317 CA

 

DOCUMENTS - Evidence - Subpoena to tender documents - Effect - It is expected that the person subpoenaed must produce entire document commanded once - Else any subsequent production of document will appear suspicious (H4) INEC v. Oshiomhole (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 272) 2317 CA

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Allegation of multiple voting - Whether pleaded - The allegation was clearly pleaded - Just as it was proved - Contrary to the contention of appellants (H8) INEC v. Oshiomhole (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 272) 2317 CA

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Breach of procedure - Effect - Election tribunal is of such a special nature - That a slight default in procedure - Could result in fatal consequences for the petition (H6) Orji v. Ugochukwu (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2493 CA

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Evidence - Evaluation - Documents viz-a-viz oral evidence - Relative weight - The best evidence is documentary evidence - It is more reliable than oral evidence - So tribunal was right to have given it greater weight (H5) INEC v. Oshiomhole (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 272) 2317 CA

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Evidence - Proof - Expunging of Exhibit 110 - Effect - Even if the exhibit and all other inadmissible exhibits are expunged - The case of petitioners is proved - As the standard of proof required of them - Is on a preponderance of accepted evidence (H6) INEC v. Oshiomhole (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 272) 2317 CA

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Evidence - Subpoena to tender documents - Effect - It is expected that the person subpoenaed must produce entire document commanded once - Else any subsequent production of document will appear suspicious (H4) INEC v. Oshiomhole (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 272) 2317 CA

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Interlocutory appeals - Applicability - Election petition matters are sui generis - In that the only right of appeal cognisable is from the final decision of the tribunal - This rules out interlocutory appeals (H2) Orji v. Ugochukwu (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2493 CA

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Judgments - Basis - Decision of tribunal - Rejecting unmarked ballot papers - Tribunal relied on s. 67 of Electoral Act - Which provides for rejection of such ballot papers - Though the chart was used as a guide - It was not the basis of the rejection (H10) INEC v. Oshiomhole (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 272) 2317 CA

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Judgments - Nullification of election - Whether done by tribunal - Tribunal did not nullify any part of the election - It merely deducted invalid votes from valid votes cast - And gave judgment accordingly (H11) INEC v. Oshiomhole (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 272) 2317 CA

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Onus of proof - Shifting of - Effect - In view of the differences in dates on the Exhibits - Onus shifted to appellants to explain the sequence of dates - Tribunal was therefore right to accept petitioners’ evidence - When appellants failed to discharge the onus (H7) INEC v. Oshiomhole (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 272) 2317 CA

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Practice & procedure - Use of charts by tribunal - Propriety - It is proper for tribunals to use charts - In so far as the chart does not introduce extraneous evidence - But merely highlights evidence led at trial (H9) INEC v. Oshiomhole (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 272) 2317 CA

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Tribunals - Findings of fact - Consequential reliefs - After holding that appellants scored majority of vote cast - It was perverse for the tribunal to return 1st respondent as a winner in the election (13) Orji v. Ugochukwu (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2493 CA

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Tribunals - Jurisdiction - It is limited to determination of whether a person is validly elected - It does not extend to investigation of pre-election matters (H11) Orji v. Ugochukwu (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2493 CA

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Validity of - Where result has not been announced - Announcement of election result is a condition precedent - To validity of an election petition (H5) Orji v. Ugochukwu (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2493 CA

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Witnesses - Admissibility - As PW5 was listed during front loading - As required by the rules - Petitioner will not be allowed to bring him at the reply stage - When respondent could no longer reply to their assertions (H9) Orji v. Ugochukwu (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2493 CA

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Witnesses - Status of PW47 - Whether petitioners’ witness for admission purposes - PW47 is the head of operation of INEC in Edo State - Who was delegated to tender documents in INEC’s custody - He came to do just that (H2) INEC v. Oshiomhole (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 272) 2317 CA

 

EVIDENCE - Witnesses - Testimony - Partial acceptance - Propriety - It is not the law that a tribunal cannot accept part of the evidence of a witness - While rejecting part (H1) INEC v. Oshiomhole (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 272) 2317 CA

 

EVIDENCE - Accidents - Proof - Corroboration - Position of lorry - Respondents adduced no evidence - To show that it obstructed the road - Whereas Exhibit S corroborates appellants’ evidence - That it was parked off the road (H3) Onwughalu v. Uche (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 268) 1585 CA

 

EVIDENCE - Decision of courts - Nature of - Whether final or interlocutory - A trial court’s decision on wrongful admission of evidence - Is part of the main trial - Not an interlocutory decision (H3) Orji v. Ugochukwu (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2493 CA

 

EVIDENCE - Documents - Evaluation - Right and duty of tribunal - Once a document is received in evidence before a tribunal - It has a duty to evaluate the document’s probative value - And the right to use the document as it sees fit (H3) INEC v. Oshiomhole (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 272) 2317 CA

 

EVIDENCE - Election petitions - Use of charts by tribunal - Propriety - It is proper for tribunals to use charts - In so far as the chart does not introduce extraneous evidence - But merely highlights evidence led at trial (H9) INEC v. Oshiomhole (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 272) 2317 CA

 

EVIDENCE - Election petitions - Witnesses - Admissibility - As PW5 was listed during front loading - As required by the rules - Petitioner will not be allowed to bring him at the reply stage - When respondent could no longer reply to their assertions (H9) Orji v. Ugochukwu (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2493 CA

 

EVIDENCE - Evaluation - Documents viz-a-viz oral evidence - Relative weight - The best evidence is documentary evidence - It is more reliable than oral evidence - So tribunal was right to have given it greater weight (H5) INEC v. Oshiomhole (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 272) 2317 CA

 

EVIDENCE - Evaluation - Findings - Setting aside of - Though an appellate court will not ordinarily interfere with a finding - It would set it aside - Where it is not borne out of proper evaluation of evidence (H4) Onwughalu v. Uche (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 268) 1585 CA

 

EVIDENCE - Hearsay - Effect - Hearsay evidence has no probative value - It should be regarded as inadmissible evidence - And should be expunged if admitted in error (H7) Orji v. Ugochukwu (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2493 CA

 

EVIDENCE - Judgments - Propriety of - Judgment given in favour of defendant - Who led no evidence - Is proper where plaintiff failed to call evidence on all materials facts - Or where plaintiff’s evidence is destroyed via cross examination (H14) Orji v. Ugochukwu (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2493 CA

 

EVIDENCE - Onus of proof - Shifting of - Effect - In view of the differences in dates on the Exhibits - Onus shifted to appellants to explain the sequence of dates - Tribunal was therefore right to accept petitioners’ evidence - When appellants failed to discharge the onus (H7) INEC v. Oshiomhole (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 272) 2317 CA

 

EVIDENCE - Pleadings - Averments - Legal status - They are matters to be proved or disproved in the substantive hearing - They do not constitute evidence in themselves - Trial judge was therefore wrong to have relied on pleadings in making the interlocutory order (H4) First Bank v. Akparabong Comm. Bank (2009) 1 KLR (pt. 262) 1; (2009) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1129) 65945 CA

 

EVIDENCE - Practice & procedure - Consolidation of suits - Effect - It is only done for convenience and does not fuse the consolidated cases - So evidence given in respect of one - Does not ipso facto become evidence given in the other (H12) Orji v. Ugochukwu (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2493 CA

 

EVIDENCE - Proof - Election petition - Allegation of multiple voting - Whether pleaded - The allegation was clearly pleaded - Just as it was proved - Contrary to the contention of appellants (H8) INEC v. Oshiomhole (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 272) 2317 CA

 

EVIDENCE - Proof - Expunging of Exhibit 110 - Effect - Even if the exhibit and all other inadmissible exhibits are expunged - The case of petitioners is proved - As the standard of proof required of them - Is on a preponderance of accepted evidence (H6) INEC v. Oshiomhole (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 272) 2317 CA

 

EVIDENCE - Proof - Secret society - Oath taking - Effect - Though oath taking is one of the aspects of the constitutional definition of secret society - There are several other constituents - That must coexist with it to make for a secret society (H10) Orji v. Ugochukwu (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2493 CA

 

EVIDENCE - Proof - Sufficiency of witnesses - Though respondents were not bound to call a host of witnesses - To prove their claim - In view of the burden on them - It would have been prudent to do so (H2) Onwughalu v. Uche (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 268) 1585 CA

 

EVIDENCE - Subpoena to tender documents - Effect - It is expected that the person subpoenaed must produce entire document commanded once - Else any subsequent production of document will appear suspicious (H4) INEC v. Oshiomhole (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 272) 2317 CA

 

EVIDENCE - Witnesses - Status of PW47 - Whether petitioners’ witness for admission purposes - PW47 is the head of operation of INEC in Edo State - Who was delegated to tender documents in INEC’s custody - He came to do just that (H2) INEC v. Oshiomhole (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 272) 2317 CA

 

INTERLOCUTORY PROCEEDINGS - Issues - Touching on substantive suit - Treatment by the Court - It is wrong for a court to decide in limine - At interlocutory stage issues for determination in the substantive suit (H3) First Bank v. Akparabong Comm. Bank (2009) 1 KLR (pt. 262) 1; (2009) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1129) 65945 CA

 

INTERLOCUTORY PROCEEDINGS - Pleadings - Averments - Legal status - They are matters to be proved or disproved in the substantive hearing - They do not constitute evidence in themselves - Trial judge was therefore wrong to have relied on pleadings in making the interlocutory order (H4) First Bank v. Akparabong Comm. Bank (2009) 1 KLR (pt. 262) 1; (2009) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1129) 65945 CA

 

JUDGMENTS - Appeals - Grounds - Particulars - Manners of stipulating - There are variant ways of portraying particulars of error - Whether it is styled ‘’When’’ instead of particulars of error - It serves the same purpose (H4) Orji v. Ugochukwu (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2493 CA

 

JUDGMENTS - Attack on - Appeals - Briefs - Respondent’s brief - Omission of - A respondent who has neither filed a cross-appeal nor a respondent’s notice - Will not be allowed to file a brief or proffer oral argument attacking the decision being appealed against (H2) Alpha Properties Ltd v. NDIC (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 755 CA

 

JUDGMENTS - Basis - Decision of tribunal - Rejecting unmarked ballot papers - Tribunal relied on s. 67 of Electoral Act - Which provides for rejection of such ballot papers - Though the chart was used as a guide - It was not the basis of the rejection (H10) INEC v. Oshiomhole (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 272) 2317 CA

 

JUDGMENTS - Consent judgments - Party wrongly affected - By terms of settlement adopted as consent judgment - Which terms he is not signatory to - May appeal against the consent judgment with leave of court (H1) Alpha Properties Ltd v. NDIC (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 755 CA

 

JUDGMENTS - Decision of courts - Nature of - Whether final or interlocutory - A trial court’s decision on wrongful admission of evidence - Is part of the main trial - Not an interlocutory decision (H3) Orji v. Ugochukwu (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2493 CA

 

JUDGMENTS - Election petitions - Nullification of election - Whether done by tribunal - Tribunal did not nullify any part of the election - It merely deducted invalid votes from valid votes cast - And gave judgment accordingly (H11) INEC v. Oshiomhole (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 272) 2317 CA

 

JUDGMENTS - Evidence - Hearsay evidence has no probative value - It should be regarded as inadmissible evidence - And should be expunged if admitted in error (H7) Orji v. Ugochukwu (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2493 CA

 

JUDGMENTS - Propriety of - Judgment given in favour of defendant - Who led no evidence - Is proper where plaintiff failed to call evidence on all materials facts - Or where plaintiff’s evidence is destroyed via cross examination (H14) Orji v. Ugochukwu (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2493 CA

 

JUDGMENTS - Tribunals - Election petitions - Findings of fact - Consequential reliefs - After holding that appellants scored majority of vote cast - It was perverse for the tribunal to return 1st respondent as a winner in the election (13) Orji v. Ugochukwu (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2493 CA

 

JURISDICTION - Tribunals - Election petitions - It is limited to determination of whether a person is validly elected - It does not extend to investigation of pre-election matters (H11) Orji v. Ugochukwu (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2493 CA

 

NEGLIGENCE - Torts - Definition - It is the omission to do something - Which a reasonable man would do - Or doing something which a reasonable man would not do (H1) Onwughalu v. Uche (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 268) 1585 CA

 

ORDERS OF COURT - Claims - Grant of relief not claimed - Propriety of - It is wrong for a court to grant an order - Which is not claimed by the party in whose favour the order is made (H5) First Bank v. Akparabong Comm. Bank (2009) 1 KLR (pt. 262) 1; (2009) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1129) 65945 CA

 

PARTIES - Claims - Grant of relief not claimed - Propriety of - It is wrong for a court to grant an order - Which is not claimed by the party in whose favour the order is made (H5) First Bank v. Akparabong Comm. Bank (2009) 1 KLR (pt. 262) 1; (2009) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1129) 65945 CA

 

PARTIES - Consent judgments - Party wrongly affected - By terms of settlement adopted as consent judgment - Which terms he is not signatory to - May appeal against the consent judgment with leave of court (H1) Alpha Properties Ltd v. NDIC (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 755 CA

 

PARTIES - Damages - Quantum - Award in excess of claim - Propriety - It is patently wrong in law - As it amounts to making a different case - From what is placed before the court by parties (H5) Onwughalu v. Uche (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 268) 1585 CA

 

PARTIES - Evidence - Proof - Sufficiency of witnesses - Though respondents were not bound to call a host of witnesses - To prove their claim - In view of the burden on them - It would have been prudent to do so (H2) Onwughalu v. Uche (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 268) 1585 CA

 

PARTIES - Evidence - Witnesses - Status of PW47 - Whether petitioners’ witness for admission purposes - PW47 is the head of operation of INEC in Edo State - Who was delegated to tender documents in INEC’s custody - He came to do just that (H2) INEC v. Oshiomhole (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 272) 2317 CA

 

PLEADINGS - Averments - Legal status - They are matters to be proved or disproved in the substantive hearing - They do not constitute evidence in themselves - Trial judge was therefore wrong to have relied on pleadings in making the interlocutory order (H4) First Bank v. Akparabong Comm. Bank (2009) 1 KLR (pt. 262) 1; (2009) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1129) 65945 CA

 

PLEADINGS - Election petition - Allegation of multiple voting - Whether pleaded - The allegation was clearly pleaded - Just as it was proved - Contrary to the contention of appellants (H8) INEC v. Oshiomhole (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 272) 2317 CA

 

POLITICS - Constitutional Law - Public service - Scope - By the provision of section 318 of 1999 Constitution - Political appointees are not public servants for purpose of section 182 (9) of 1999 Constitution (H8) Orji v. Ugochukwu (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2493 CA

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Evidence - Witnesses - Testimony - Partial acceptance - Propriety - It is not the law that a tribunal cannot accept part of the evidence of a witness - While rejecting part (H1) INEC v. Oshiomhole (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 272) 2317 CA

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Appeals - Briefs - Respondent’s brief - Omission of - A respondent who has neither filed a cross-appeal nor a respondent’s notice - Will not be allowed to file a brief or proffer oral argument attacking the decision being appealed against (H2) Alpha Properties Ltd v. NDIC (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 755 CA

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Appeals - Grounds of appeal - Validity of - A ground by an appellant - That complains against a decision which does not affect him or his interest - Is incompetent and so are any issues formulated therefrom (H2) First Bank v. Akparabong Comm. Bank (2009) 1 KLR (pt. 262) 1; (2009) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1129) 65945 CA

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Appeals - Issues - Fresh issue on appeal - What constitutes - A preliminary objection - Is not synonymous with raising a new issue on appeal (H1) First Bank v. Akparabong Comm. Bank (2009) 1 KLR (pt. 262) 1; (2009) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1129) 65945 CA

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Consolidation of suits - Effect - It is only done for convenience and does not fuse the consolidated cases - So evidence given in respect of one - Does not ipso facto become evidence given in the other (H12) Orji v. Ugochukwu (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2493 CA

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Election petitions - Breach of procedure - Effect - Election tribunal is of such a special nature - That a slight default in procedure - Could result in fatal consequences for the petition (H6) Orji v. Ugochukwu (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2493 CA

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Election petitions - Use of charts by tribunal - Propriety - It is proper for tribunals to use charts - In so far as the chart does not introduce extraneous evidence - But merely highlights evidence led at trial (H9) INEC v. Oshiomhole (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 272) 2317 CA

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Election petitions - Witnesses - Admissibility - As PW5 was listed during front loading - As required by the rules - Petitioner will not be allowed to bring him at the reply stage - When respondent could no longer reply to their assertions (H9) Orji v. Ugochukwu (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2493 CA

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Evidence - Proof - Sufficiency of witnesses - Though respondents were not bound to call a host of witnesses - To prove their claim - In view of the burden on them - It would have been prudent to do so (H2) Onwughalu v. Uche (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 268) 1585 CA

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Issues - Touching on substantive suit - Treatment by the Court - It is wrong for a court to decide in limine - At interlocutory stage issues for determination in the substantive suit (H3) First Bank v. Akparabong Comm. Bank (2009) 1 KLR (pt. 262) 1; (2009) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1129) 65945 CA

 

SECRET SOCIETY - Oath taking - Effect - Though oath taking is one of the aspects of the constitutional definition of secret society - There are several other constituents - That must coexist with it to make for a secret society (H10) Orji v. Ugochukwu (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2493 CA

 

SIGNATURE - Consent judgments - Party wrongly affected - By terms of settlement adopted as consent judgment - Which terms he is not signatory to - May appeal against the consent judgment with leave of court (H1) Alpha Properties Ltd v. NDIC (2009) 3 KLR (pt. 264) 755 CA

 

TORTS - Negligence - Definition - It is the omission to do something - Which a reasonable man would do - Or doing something which a reasonable man would not do (H1) Onwughalu v. Uche (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 268) 1585 CA

 

TRIBUNALS - Election petitions - Breach of procedure - Effect - Election tribunal is of such a special nature - That a slight default in procedure - Could result in fatal consequences for the petition (H6) Orji v. Ugochukwu (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2493 CA

 

TRIBUNALS - Election petitions - Findings of fact - Consequential reliefs - After holding that appellants scored majority of vote cast - It was perverse for the tribunal to return 1st respondent as a winner in the election (13) Orji v. Ugochukwu (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2493 CA

 

TRIBUNALS - Election petitions - Jurisdiction - It is limited to determination of whether a person is validly elected - It does not extend to investigation of pre-election matters (H11) Orji v. Ugochukwu (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2493 CA

 

TRIBUNALS - Evidence - Documents - Evaluation - Right and duty of tribunal - Once a document is received in evidence before a tribunal - It has a duty to evaluate the document’s probative value - And the right to use the document as it sees fit (H3) INEC v. Oshiomhole (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 272) 2317 CA

 

WORDS & PHRASES - Negligence - Definition - It is the omission to do something - Which a reasonable man would do - Or doing something which a reasonable man would not do (H1) Onwughalu v. Uche (2009) 6 KLR (pt. 268) 1585 CA

 

WORDS & PHRASES - Public service - Scope - By the provision of section 318 of 1999 Constitution - Political appointees are not public servants for purpose of section 182 (9) of 1999 Constitution (H8) Orji v. Ugochukwu (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2493 CA

 

WORDS & PHRASES - Secret society - Oath taking - Effect - Though oath taking is one of the aspects of the constitutional definition of secret society - There are several other constituents - That must coexist with it to make for a secret society (H10) Orji v. Ugochukwu (2009) 12 KLR (pt. 273) 2493 CA

 

 

 

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

 

 

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2009 DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER TO NOVEL CA DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER TO NOVEL CA DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER TO NOVEL CA DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER TO NOVEL CA DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER TO NOVEL CA DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER TO NOVEL CA DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER TO NOVEL CA DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER TO NOVEL CA DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER TO NOVEL CA DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER TO NOVEL CA DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER TO NOVEL CA DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER TO NOVEL CA DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER TO NOVEL CA DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER TO NOVEL CA DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER TO NOVEL CA DECISIONS

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER TO NOVEL CA DECISIONS