index 2010

APPEALS - Competence - Grounds - Incompetence of all grounds - Effect on the appeal - Where all grounds are incompetent as in this case - The appeal is incompetent and liable to be struck out (H3) B.A.S.F. Nig. Ltd v. Faith Ent. Ltd. (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 275) 105; (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt.1183) 104

APPEALS - Competency - Where Notice and grounds of appeal - Are held to be competent - The records and brief of argument - Are deemed to be duly filed (H4) Gen. Elect. Coy. v. Akande (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3069; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 596

APPEALS - Conditions of appeal - Proof of compliance - Effect of registrar’s certificate - It raises a presumption of law - That there was compliance as certified by it - Which presumption has not been rebutted (H3) Ukiri v. Geco-Prakla (Nig.) Ltd. (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 285) 2383; (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1220) 544

APPEALS - Counterclaim - Dismissal - Propriety - Court of Appeal rightly dismissed appellants’ counterclaim - In view of respondents’ proof of their title to the land in dispute (H6) Obineche v. Akusobi (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 2057; (2010) 12 NWLR (Pt.1208) 383

APPEALS - Court of Appeal Rules - Dismissal under O. 3 r. 20(1) - Effect - Though the operative word in that provision is “dismissal”- It is without prejudice - To the right of a party to apply for re-listing under O. 3 r. 20(4) (H2) Oyegun v. Nzeribe (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 419

APPEALS - Court of Appeal Rules - Dismissal under O. 6 r. 10 - Effect on status of appeal - Such dismissal terminates the life of the appeal - Such that no court has jurisdiction to revive it (H4) First Bank v. T.S.A. Ind. Ltd. (2010) 7 KLR (pt. 285) 2383; (2010) 15 NWLR (Pt.1216) 247

APPEALS - Court of Appeal Rules - Dismissal under O. 6 r. 10 - Requirements - It must be shown that record of appeal had been entered - And time for filing brief had expired - And there is no extension of time ordered (H6) First Bank v. T.S.A. Ind. Ltd. (2010) 7 KLR (pt. 285) 2383; (2010) 15 NWLR (Pt.1216) 247

APPEALS - Court processes - Competency - Where processes for bringing an appeal are incompetent - The appeal itself is incompetent (H3) Oketade v. Adewunmi (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 288) 3235; (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1195) 63

APPEALS - Courts - Breach of fair hearing - Effect - Appellate court need not go into the reasons for the breach - It has no alternative but to allow the appeal - And treat it as though there had been no hearing at all (H2) Yesufu v. Adama (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 278) 1021; (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt.1188) 522

APPEALS - Courts - Error - Orders made contrary to findings - Correction on appeal - Court of Appeal gave order in favour of cross-appellants - Who had lost on the issue - The order having been made by omission - Supreme Court is in a position to rectify it (H5) Oyeneyin v. Akinkugbe (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 439; (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt.1184) 265

APPEALS - Courts - Exercise of discretion - Attitude of appellate court - It will not interfere with it - Once it is exercised judicially and judiciously - As a previous decision cannot be an authority for another in such matter (H3) Oyegun v. Nzeribe (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 2097

APPEALS - Courts - Finding of facts - Contrary to those by trial court - Propriety - The evidence on the records - Shows that the findings by trial court were perverse - And justifies the contrary findings by Court of Appeal (H6) Sapo v. Sunmonu (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1819; (2010) 11 NWLR (Pt.1205) 374

APPEALS - Courts - Jurisdiction - Absence of - Effect on appellate court - Where trial court has no jurisdiction to hear a matter - As in this case - Court of Appeal will be without jurisdiction (H8) Olofu v. Itodo (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3101; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 545

APPEALS - Courts - Statutory duty - To consider all issues raised - Failure to do same - Will lead to denial of fair hearing - Capable of nullifying the proceedings (H5) Samba Ltd. UBA Plc. (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 288) 3289; (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt.1221) 192

APPEALS - Courts - Submissions - Rulings on - Failure to rule on - Effect - Though every submission should be ruled upon - Failure to so rule will not affect judgment - If such a ruling will not have made a difference to the outcome of the case (H6) Odunukwe v. Ofomata (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 285) 2405; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 404

APPEALS - Courts - Trial - Fair hearing - Denial - Cross appellant was not given opportunity - To be heard in the normal course of trial (H3) Samba Ltd. UBA Plc. (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 288) 3289; (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt.1221) 192

APPEALS - Damages - Award by trial court - Interference on appeal - Basis - Appellate court will not interfere - Unless trial court acted under wrong principles of law - Or in misapprehension of facts - Or considered irrelevant matters (H4) Oyeneyin v. Akinkugbe (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 439; (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt.1184) 265

APPEALS - Damages - Quantum - Attitude of appellate courts - An appellate court will not interfere with it - Unless trial judge acted upon wrong principle of law - Or the amount was extremely high or low (H2) Adim v. Nig. Botling Co. Ltd. (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1401; (2010) 9 NWLR (Pt.1200) 543

APPEALS - Damages - Quantum - Interference by appellate court - Principles - It will only interfere where trial court acted on wrong principle of law - Or the amount awarded is ridiculously too high or too low (H1) Oduwole v. David West (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1795; (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt.1203) 598

APPEALS - Decision on points - Not appealed against - Binding effect - By operation of law such decision - As far as it relates to that point - Remains binding on the parties to the action (H2) Okonobor v. Edegbe & Sons Ltd. (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 725; (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt.1221) 181

APPEALS - Determination of - Rehearing - An appellate court is entitled to exercise - All powers of the trial court - By hearing on printed records - And reexamining of all evidence tendered - In the determination of an appeal (H8) Osun State INEC v. AC (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3137; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 273

APPEALS - Determination of - S. 15 of Court of Appeal Act - Applicability - It applies where inter alia, trial court has legal power over the matter - The issue at trial was capable of arising from grounds of appeal - And necessary materials are before the court (H6) Ezeigwe v. Nwawulu (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 535; (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt.1183) 159

APPEALS - Documents - Exhibit A1 - Weight - There is a concurrent finding that it lacks credibility - Which finding is supported by evidence - So there is no reason to warrant interference with the finding (H2) Okoye v. Obiaso (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 280) 1329; (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1195) 145

APPEALS - Documents - Exhibit A1 - Weight - There is a concurrent finding that it lacks credibility - Which finding is supported by evidence - So there is no reason to warrant interference with the finding (H2) Suberu v. The State (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 280) 1353; (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1197) 586

APPEALS - Evaluation - Finding of trial court - On election notice - Trial court’s finding on election notice - Was not only perverse - But was not based - On evidence in the record (H5) Osun State INEC v. AC (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3137; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 273

APPEALS - Evidence - Conditions of appeal - Noncompliance - Whether proved - The records show no evidence of noncompliance - Rather they show evidence of compliance - Via certificate of fulfillment issued by Court of Appeal registrar (H2) Ukiri v. Geco-Prakla (Nig.) Ltd. (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 285) 2383; (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1220) 544

APPEALS - Evidence - Contradictions in a party’s case - Effect on appeal - It is not every such contradiction that will affect the substance of the case - It is only such as have caused a miscarriage of justice (H5) Shurumo v. State (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 3021; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 73

APPEALS - Evidence - Evaluation - Duty of - Trial court enjoys the singular benefit - Of evaluating evidence - And appellate court can not interfere with findings - Except where same do not march with evidence or record (H1) Okonkwo v. Okonkwo (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 288) 3269; (2010) 14 NWLR (Pt.1213) 228

APPEALS - Evidence - Evaluation - Reevaluation on appeal - Basis - It is only when the trial court fails to comply with the requirements of evaluation - That the appeal court could interfere - Which was not the case herein (H4) Kayode Vent. Ltd. v. Min. of FCT (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 611; (2010) 7 NWLR (Pt.1192) 171

APPEALS - Evidence - Land law - Reevaluation - Propriety - Where trial court fails to make a finding - On a material issue of fact as in this case - Appellate court is correct to consider vital evidence adduced - In proof of radical title to land (H1) Olodo v. Josiah (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2971; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 653

APPEALS - Evidence - Records - Evaluation of - Propriety - Where trial court properly evaluated evidence - On record as in this case - Appellate court need not interfere with concurrent findings (H2) Okonkwo v. Okonkwo (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 288) 3269; (2010) 14 NWLR (Pt.1213) 228

APPEALS - Evidence - Reevaluation - Justification - Where trial court fails to properly evaluate the evidence before it - Appellate court is entitled to evaluate same - Provided it does not involve credibility of witnesses (H5) Ishola v. Falorunso (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 2009; (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1210) 169

APPEALS - Evidence - Reevaluation - Propriety - Where there is improper evaluation of evidence by trial court - As in the instant case - Appeal court has a right to reevaluate same - As done by Court of Appeal (H3) Hamza v. Kure (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 278) 921; (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt.1203) 630

APPEALS - Extension of time to appeal - Application - Crucial questions - The crucial question for the court to consider - Is whether the reason for failure to appeal within time - Could have been true and reasonable - As it will not be accepted if otherwise (H1) ANPP v. Albishir (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 481; (2010) 9 NWLR (Pt.1198) 118

APPEALS - Extension of time to appeal - Application - Duty of applicant - He must show good and substantial reasons for failing to appeal within time - And good cause why the appeal should be heard (H1) Federal Housing Authority v. Kalejaiye (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2911; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 147

APPEALS - Extension of time to appeal - Reason for failure to appeal in time - Sufficiency - Where reason is the election of alternative option - When applicant had option to appeal - Such reason is insufficient (H2) Federal Housing Authority v. Kalejaiye (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2911; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 147

APPEALS - Fair hearing - Complaint of breach - Propriety - Appellants who decided to stand by - And watch the outcome of the case at lower court - Can not complain of breach of fair hearing (H12) Osun State INEC v. AC (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3137; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 273

APPEALS - Findings - Interference - Where trial court failed - To consider and evaluate evidence of parties - Appellate court has right - To evaluate and make necessary findings thereon (H6) Osun State INEC v. AC (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3137; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 273

APPEALS - Findings of fact - Finding of constructive possession - Propriety - In view of the contrary finding by trial court - Which was not cross-appealed by respondent - Court of Appeal was wrong to have made that finding (H1) Sky Bank Plc. v. Bolanle (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 278) 979

APPEALS - Findings of fact - Interference - Limits - Appellate court should refrain - From coming to different findings - Unless it can show that those of trial court - Could not flow from evidence before it (H3) Omotayo v. Cooperative Supply Asso. (2010) 7 KLR (pt. 284) 2277; (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1218) 1

APPEALS - Findings of fact by trial court - Interference on appeal - Principles - It is not ordinarily interfered with - More so where it involves assessment of credibility of witnesses (H2) Teriba v. Adeyemo (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1583; (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1211) 242

APPEALS - Ground of appeal - Competence - Custom - Repugnancy rule - Newly raised before lower court - Having changed character of the parties’ pleadings and evidence - Is incompetent (H3) Ojiogu v. Ojiogu (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 279) 1113; (2010) 9 NWLR (Pt.1198) 1

APPEALS - Grounds - Basis - Propriety - It is not every holding by a lower court - That would give rise to a ground of appeal - Only that which is relevant - To determination of the issues before that court (H1) Chami v. UBA Plc. (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 507; (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt.1191) 474

APPEALS - Grounds - Error of law or misdirection - Manner of raising - Where a ground alleges either an error or a misdirection in law - The relevant passage in the judgment must be quoted - And full particulars given (H4) Okwuagbala v. Ikwueme (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2955; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 54

APPEALS - Grounds - Existence - Before Court of Appeal - Contrary to appellants’ contention - There was a ground of appeal before that court - Challenging the finding on proof made by trial court (H8) Ishola v. Falorunso (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 2009; (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1210) 169

APPEALS - Grounds - Failure to consider pending motion - Validity as a ground - It is a valid ground of appeal - As a court is bound to dispense every such motion - Before taking a final decision in a matter (H3) Akpan v. Bob (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1623; (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt.1223) 421

APPEALS - Grounds - Failure to state ground - While stating particulars - Effect - Such failure renders the particulars stated useless - As there must be a ground of appeal - Before particulars will follow (H5) Agala v. Okusin (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1421; (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt.1202) 412

APPEALS - Grounds - From which no issue is raised - Fate - Such ground is deemed abandoned - And liable to be struck out - This is the case with grounds 3-6 herein (H1) Ukiri v. Geco-Prakla (Nig.) Ltd. (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 285) 2383; (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1220) 544

APPEALS - Grounds - Nature - How determined - Appellation given by counsel is irrelevant - Ground and particulars must be examined - If it reveals a misunderstanding or misapplication of law - It is ground of law (H1) Odunukwe v. Ofomata (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 285) 2405; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 404

APPEALS - Grounds - Nature - How determined - Court is required to examine each ground with its particulars - If it reveals a misunderstanding of the law - Or misapplication of law to proven facts - It is a ground of law (H2) B.A.S.F. Nig. Ltd. v. Faith Ent. Ltd. (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 275) 1; (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt.1187) 34805

APPEALS - Grounds - Nature - Mixed law and fact - Where a ground questions how conflicting evidence was resolved - It is a ground of mixed law and fact - So also where it questions exercise of discretion (H2) Odunukwe v. Ofomata (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 285) 2405; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 404

APPEALS - Grounds - Nature - Whether of law - Where a ground raises an issue touching on jurisdiction - As does the sole ground herein - It is purely a ground of law (H1) Agip (Nig) Ltd. v. Agip Petroli Int’l (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 275) 1; (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt.1187) 348

APPEALS - Grounds - Nature - Whether of law - Where a ground raises an issue of legal interpretation of words - Or inferences drawn thereof - It is a ground of law (H6) Agip (Nig) Ltd. v. Agip Petroli Int’l (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 275) 1; (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt.1187) 348

APPEALS - Grounds - Not covered by formulated issues - Fate of - Such ground - Like the instant ground 3 - Is deemed to have been abandoned - Even where argument has been preferred on it (H1) Olaiya v. State (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 357; (2010) 3 NWLR (Pt.1181) 423

APPEALS - Grounds - Not related to decision appealed - Competence - Such ground of appeal - Like the sole ground herein - Being unrelated to the decision appealed against - Is incompetent and should be struck out (H3) Okonobor v. Edegbe & Sons Ltd. (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 725; (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt.1221) 181

APPEALS - Grounds - Relation to pleadings - They must be based on reasons for decision reached by lower court - Which should in turn be based on issues joined on the pleadings - And evidence in support thereof (H9) Chami v. UBA Plc. (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 507; (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt.1191) 474

APPEALS - Grounds - Text of judgment - Whether sole source - It is not the sole source - As a ground of appeal may also arise - From extrinsic factors like jurisdiction - Or some omission or commission by the court (H2) Akpan v. Bob (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1623; (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt.1223) 421

APPEALS - Grounds - Whether of law or fact - Where a ground does not question a lower court’s assessment of facts - But rather its wrong application of legal principles - It is not of facts but law (H1) Effiom v. CROSIEC (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1767; (2010) 14 NWLR (Pt.1213) 106

APPEALS - Grounds - Whether of law or facts - Basis - It is not based on the form of question it raises - But on the substance of the complaint against the lower court - And what appellate court is required to do (H3) First Bank v. T.S.A. Ind. Ltd. (2010) 7 KLR (pt. 285) 2383; (2010) 15 NWLR (Pt.1216) 247

APPEALS - Grounds of fact - Or mixed law and fact - Competence - Were the questions involve fact or mixed law and fact - Leave of court must be first sought and obtained - Else the grounds would be incompetent (H1) B.A.S.F. Nig. Ltd. v. Faith Ent. Ltd. (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 275) 1; (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt.1187) 34805

APPEALS - Grounds of mixed law and fact - Raised without leave - Fate - Where such a ground is raised without prior leave - It is incompetent and liable to be struck out (H2) Okwuagbala v. Ikwueme (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2955; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 54

APPEALS - Hearing notice - Proof of service - Effect of attendance in court - A party’s presence in court on the day a matter is slated - Is not necessarily a confirmation of service on him - There needs to be actual proof of service (H3) Olorunyolemi v. Akhagbe (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277)733; (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1195) 48

APPEALS - Interlocution applications - Application for dismissal - Propriety of hearing - The hearing on 5/6/01 was unjustifiable - As the hearing notice for it was dated 31/5/01- And there was an intervening weekend between the two dates (H2) Olorunyolemi v. Akhagbe (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277)733; (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1195) 48

APPEALS - Interlocutory - Parties - Duty to compile record - Under O. 7 of Supreme Court Rules - Compilation of primary record is the duty of appellant - But where he fails - Respondent has option of either doing so or asking for dismissal (H6) Dingyadi v. INEC (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 1877

APPEALS - Issue of illegality - Failure of court of Appeal to pronounce on - Propriety - The court was right not to have pronounced thereon - As it would have amounted to deciding a substantive matter - At the interlocutory stage (H7) Agip (Nig) Ltd. v. Agip Petroli Int’l (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 275) 1; (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt.1187) 348

APPEALS - Issues - Basis - Propriety - Issues must be distilled from grounds of appeal - Which grounds must attack the ratio of the judgment appealed against - Unlike issue 5 in the instant case (H2) Chami v. UBA Plc. (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 507; (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt.1191) 474

APPEALS - Issues - Competence - Effect of incompetent grounds - Any issue distilled from an incompetent ground - Is as well incompetent - And liable to be struck out (H5) Akpan v. Bob (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1623; (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt.1223) 421

APPEALS - Issues - Competence - Where an issue is neither raised before a court - Nor canvassed before it - Any comment it may make on such issue is an obiter dictum (H3) Nwadiogbu v. Anambra/Imo River Basin Dev. (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 286) 2661; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 364

APPEALS - Issues - Compression of issues - Liberty of courts - A court is at liberty to compress issues presented by parties - Or even reformulate issues for the determination of the appeal (H6) Ishola v. Falorunso (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 2009; (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1210) 169

APPEALS - Issues - Essence of - An issue is properly so called- When its resolution in favour of appellant - Should result in setting aside of the judgment appealed against (H1) Akomolafe v. Guardian Press Ltd. (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 275) 63; (2010) 3 NWLR (Pt.1181) 338

APPEALS - Issues - Exhibit 2 as contract under seal - Whether raised suo motu - Appellant is wrong to say that Court of Appeal raised that issue suo motu - For the record shows that it was respondent who raised it (H3) Chabasaya v. Anwasi (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1745; (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt.1201) 163

APPEALS - Issues - Formulation - Rule against proliferation - Counsel may formulate one issue per one ground of appeal - But he is not allowed to formulate two or more issues - Out of one ground of appeal (H1) Okwuagbala v. Ikwueme (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2955; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 54

APPEALS - Issues - Formulation by respondent - Limits - Where he neither cross-appealed nor filed a respondent’s notice - He is limited to formulating issues - From the grounds of appeal filed by appellant (H3) Chami v. UBA Plc. (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 507; (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt.1191) 474

APPEALS - Issues - Fresh issue of jurisdiction - Raised for the first time - Propriety - Though such issue can be raised at any stage - Being a point of law - It requires prior leave of court to be so raised (H1) Sapo v. Sunmonu (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1819; (2010) 11 NWLR (Pt.1205) 374

APPEALS - Issues - Freshness of - Issues from Court of Appeal decision - Predicated on s. 15 of Court of Appeal Act - As the exercise of its powers under section 15 - Makes that court a court of first instance - Such issues cannot be fresh (H1) Ezeigwe v. Nwawulu (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 535; (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt.1183) 159

APPEALS - Issues - Issue of joinder raised by appellant - Propriety - Before he can properly raise the issue - Appellant has to first question the holding - That the issue never properly arose before trial court (H6) Chami v. UBA Plc. (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 507; (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt.1191) 474

APPEALS - Issues - Issue of mandamus - Whether raised suo motu - Contrary to allegation of appellants - It was at the front burner - During the proceedings at High Court - As well as before Court of Appeal (H1) Amasike v. Reg. Gen. CAC (2010) 7 KLR (pt. 284) 2131; (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1211) 337

APPEALS - Issues - Issue on Exhibit D1 - Whether raised suo motu - Where an exhibit was in evidence before trial court - And an appellate court made its findings from its contents - It cannot be said it raised the issue suo motu (H1) Oshe v. Okin Biscuits Ltd. (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 279) 1137; (2010) 11 NWLR (Pt.1206) 482

APPEALS - Issues - Issue on substitution of candidate - Whether canvassed at trial - Contrary to contention of appellant herein - The issue was canvassed and decided on at trial (H8) Akpan v. Bob (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1623; (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt.1223) 421

APPEALS - Issues - Leave - Question of repugnancy - Competence - Being a fresh issue raised on appeal - Without seeking and obtaining prior leave of court - The issue is incompetent (H5) Ojiogu v. Ojiogu (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 279) 1113; (2010) 9 NWLR (Pt.1198) 1

APPEALS - Issues - Not argued by appellant - Fate - Such issue is deemed abandoned by appellant - As is the case with the instant issue 2 - Dealing with reduction of costs awarded (H4) Adim v. Nig. Botling Co. Ltd. (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1401; (2010) 9 NWLR (Pt.1200) 543

APPEALS - Issues - Number - Rule against proliferation - It is improper for issues for determination to outnumber grounds of appeal - They may only be equal to or less than the grounds of appeal (H1) Teriba v. Adeyemo (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1583; (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1211) 242

APPEALS - Issues - Power of registrar to extend time - Propriety of issue - In view of Court of Appeal’s ruling restoring the appeal - And extending the time by implication - This issue does not arise for determination herein (H4) Ukiri v. Geco-Prakla (Nig.) Ltd. (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 285) 2383; (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1220) 544

APPEALS - Issues - Proliferation - Attitude of court - While counsel is permitted to formulate one issue out of one or more grounds of appeal - He cannot formulate more than one issue out of one ground of appeal (H1) Okonobor v. Edegbe & Sons Ltd. (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 725; (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt.1221) 181

APPEALS - Issues - Propriety - Complaint against jurisdiction - Such complaint can only be properly entertained where it is on an appeal against the judgment - Or against the assumption of jurisdiction by the trial court (H4) Federal Housing Authority v. Kalejaiye (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2911; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 147

APPEALS - Issues - Raised but not considered - Effect - As same have now been considered by Supreme Court - And found to be without merit - Failure to consider them at lower court did not occasion miscarriage of justice (H7) CBN v. Amao (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1715; (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1219) 271

APPEALS - Issues - Rule against fresh issues - Limit - Where the alleged fresh issue - Arises from specific findings of the court appealed from - It is not a fresh issue for which prior leave is required (H3) Adekeye v. Adesina (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2801; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 449

APPEALS - Issues - Striking out - Issue 2 of 1st respondent at lower court - Whether struck out - It is clear that issue 2 and arguments in support thereof - Was not struck out by the court - As contended by appellant herein (H7) Akpan v. Bob (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1623; (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt.1223) 421

APPEALS - Issues - Validity - Issue on substitution of candidate - Validity at lower court - It was valid as it was raised - Upon appropriate leave having been sought and obtained - By 5th respondent (H9) Akpan v. Bob (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1623; (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt.1223) 421

APPEALS - Issues raised - Duty of court to consider - Courts must consider all issues before it - Except the Supreme Court - Which can resolve an appeal - Based only on issues it deems fit (H4) Samba Ltd. UBA Plc. (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 288) 3289; (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt.1221) 192

APPEALS - Issues raised - Failure to relate to grounds - Whether fatal - Where briefs are properly filed and issues raised are not incompetent - The court will overlook such failure - In the process of doing substantial justice (H1) JSF Invest. Ltd v. Brawal Line Ltd (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 286) 2611; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 495

APPEALS - Judgments - Setting aside - On ground of error - Propriety - An error that could result in setting aside - Must be substantial - So as to affect the justice of the case (H1) Ohakim v. Agbaso (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 286) 2513; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 172

APPEALS - Judgments - Based on suo motu issues - Effect - It does not necessarily lead to a reversal of the decision - Unless it is shown that miscarriage of justice was occasioned thereby (H4) Effiom v. CROSIEC (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1767; (2010) 14 NWLR (Pt.1213) 106

APPEALS - Judgments - Basis - Exhibit C - Treatment by Court of Appeal - Contrary to appellant’s contention - Court of Appeal never held that trial court did not rely on the exhibit - But that its judgment would still be valid - In the absence of the exhibit (H4) Salisu v. Odumade (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 747; (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt.1190) 228

APPEALS - Judgments - Basis - Rejection of appellant’s case - Reason - Contrary to allegation of appellant - Court of Appeal rejected his case for lack of proof - And not for reason of being fair to trial judge (H3) Odunukwe v. Ofomata (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 285) 2405; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 404

APPEALS - Judgments - Basis of dismissal - Whether commencement procedure - Court of Appeal did not dismiss appellant’s appeal - Solely because it was brought by way of originating summons (H2) Amasike v. Reg. Gen. CAC (2010) 7 KLR (pt. 284) 2131; (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1211) 337

APPEALS - Judgments - Court of Appeal’s decision - Based on repugnancy - Propriety - The decision failed to consider the pleadings and evidence - As the principle of repugnancy was never contested on the pleadings and evidence (H2) Ojiogu v. Ojiogu (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 279) 1113; (2010) 9 NWLR (Pt.1198) 1

APPEALS - Judgments - Finality - Basis - Where appeal has been dismissed with cost - Which decision terminated the appeal - Such decision was final and not interlocutory (H5) Gen. Elect. Coy. v. Akande (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3069; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 596

APPEALS - Judgments - Findings of fact - Land in Exhibits B and B1 - Whether within the land in dispute - Contrary to argument of appellants - Court of Appeal found both land to be outside the land in dispute (H1) Okoye v. Obiaso (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 280) 1329; (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1195) 145

APPEALS - Judgments - Findings of fact - Land in Exhibits B and B1 - Whether within the land in dispute - Contrary to argument of appellants - Court of Appeal found both land to be outside the land in dispute (H1) Suberu v. The State (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 280) 1353; (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1197) 586

APPEALS - Judgments - Issues - Raising two issues - On cross appeal - Failure to determine one of the issues raised - Will affect competence of counter claim (H2) Samba Ltd. UBA Plc. (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 288) 3289; (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt.1221) 192

APPEALS - Judgments - Justice - Failure to make consequential orders - Effect - Though it is the ideal thing to make such order - Failure of a court to so do - Could not cause miscarriage of justice to the losing party (H2) Ishola v. Falorunso (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 2009; (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1210) 169

APPEALS - Judgments - Mistakes - Effect on appeal - It does not result in reversal - Unless it is fatal - In the sense that it occasioned substantial miscarriage of justice (H3) Amasike v. Reg. Gen. CAC (2010) 7 KLR (pt. 284) 2131; (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1211) 337

APPEALS - Judgments - Mistakes - Setting aside - Effect of mistakes - A mistake must have led to miscarriage of justice - Before it can result in the setting aside - Of a judgment appealed against (H2) Akomolafe v. Guardian Press Ltd. (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 275) 63; (2010) 3 NWLR (Pt.1181) 338

APPEALS - Judgments - Special damages - Claim for loss of profit - Refusal by Court of Appeal - Propriety - Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the claim - After it had held that the claim was particularised and proved (H1) Alade v. Alic (Nig) Ltd. (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2843; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 111

APPEALS - Judgments - Time to appeal - Validity - The period within which to appeal - For final decision is 90 days - And not 14 days meant for interlocutory appeals (H6) Gen. Elect. Coy. v. Akande (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3069; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 596

APPEALS - Judgments - Title & boundary dispute - Whether different - Court of Appeal was wrong in holding that only boundary dispute was in issue - And there is no distinction - Between boundary and land dispute (H1) Tanko v. Echendu (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3205; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1224) 253

APPEALS - Judicial precedents - Authority - Odofin v. Agu - Application for extension of time to appeal - The case is not an authority that every such application - Must contain the trinity prayers (H3) Ault & Wiborg Ltd. v. Nibel Ind. Ltd. (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 1853; (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1220) 619

APPEALS - Land matters - Findings of fact - Finding as to service by pasting - Whether perverse - In view of the evidence before the trial court - And believed by it - The finding is not perverse (H1) Okeowo v. A-G Ogun State (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 285) 2367; (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1219) 327

APPEALS - Leave - Court’s discretion - Appeal against - Leave is required to bring such an appeal - Else it is incompetent and liable to be struck out - As it cannot be brought as of right (H2) Oyegun v. Nzeribe (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 2097

APPEALS - Leave - Grounds - Whether of law or fact - The grounds in issue being of law - Leave is not required - Thus the Notice of Appeal is valid and competent (H3) Gen. Elect. Coy. v. Akande (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3069; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 596

APPEALS - Leave to amend processes - S. 16 of Court of Appeal Act - Limitation by Supreme Court - Basis - Based on the hierarchy of courts - And the doctrine of judicial precedent - Supreme Court may limit application of the section (H3) Ogunsola v. NICON (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 2083; (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1211) 225

APPEALS - Murder - Intent to kill - Whether proved - The finding that deceased was shot intentionally - Made by trial court and confirmed by Court of Appeal - Having not been shown to be perverse - Will not be interfered with (H1) Oludamilola v. State (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 278) 939; (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1197) 565

APPEALS - Notice - Filed prior to ruling but same date - Propriety - Appellate courts do not oppose such step - What they frown at - Is delay in filing of appeal (H1) First Bank v. T.S.A. Ind. Ltd. (2010) 7 KLR (pt. 285) 2383; (2010) 15 NWLR (Pt.1216) 247

APPEALS - Notice of appeal - Purpose - It is a statutory initiating process - Encapsulating complaints of appellant - Raised on valid grounds - Against the decision appealed (H1) Gen. Elect. Coy. v. Akande (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3069; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 596

APPEALS - Notice of objection - Manner of raising - Whether can be raised in the brief - There is nothing wrong in raising it in a party’s brief - As the essence of an objection is to give notice to appellant - Before date fixed for hearing (H3) Okwuagbala v. Ikwueme (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2955; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 54

APPEALS - Notices and Briefs - Endorsement in name of a firm - Effect on appeal - It makes the appeal incompetent - As such processes can only be endorsed - By a legal practitioner as such - Under the Legal Practitioners Act (H1) Adewunmi v. Oketade (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 278) 797

APPEALS - Notices of appeal - Multiple filing - Effect on competence - An appeal is not incompetent for being brought by more than one notice - It is open to appellant’s counsel to adopt one of the notices filed (H2) First Bank v. T.S.A. Ind. Ltd. (2010) 7 KLR (pt. 285) 2383; (2010) 15 NWLR (Pt.1216) 247

APPEALS - Order of court - Refusal to set aside - Trial court’s decision - Propriety - Court of Appeal acted properly - In view of its finding that trial court properly exercised its discretion - In the circumstance of the case (H3) Union Bank v. Astra Builders Ltd. (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 769; (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt.1186) 1

APPEALS - Orders of Court - Retrial order - Propriety - Where a mistrial happens - Not being such as to render a trial a nullity - And warrant the discharge of respondent - Retrial order is proper (H3) FRN v. Akubueze (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 1993; (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt.1223) 525

APPEALS - Particulars - Grounds of appeal - Competence - Effect of particulars - Where particulars in support of a ground - Are not related to the ground - Such ground is incompetent (H3) Federal Housing Authority v. Kalejaiye (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2911; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 147

APPEALS - Particulars - Grounds of appeal - Objection to specific particulars - Where other particulars exist to support the grounds - The objection will fail - As it can not affect validity of the grounds (H4) Adekeye v. Adesina (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2801; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 449

APPEALS - Parties - Argument - Effect of failure to counter a point argued by opponent - The point not so countered is deemed conceded - By the defaulting party (H1) Nwankwo v. Yar’adua (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 280) 1223; (2010) 12 NWLR (Pt.1209) 518

APPEALS - Parties - Death of a party - Failure of counsel to inform court - Effect - It is the duty of a counsel whose client is dead - To inform the court - If he fails to do so - What judgment is delivered eventually - Is valid and binding (H3) Sapo v. Sunmonu (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1819; (2010) 11 NWLR (Pt.1205) 374

APPEALS - Parties - Misjoinder - Effect - The defect of misjoinder or nonjoinder of parties - Does not vitiate an appeal - When there are living parties - Willing to prosecute the case (H7) Gen. Elect. Coy. v. Akande (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3069; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 596

APPEALS - Parties - Right of Appeal - A person cannot appeal against a decision - Unless it wrongfully deprives him of an entitlement - Or some thing which he had a right to demand (H2) Adekeye v. Adesina (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2801; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 449

APPEALS - Pending motions - Failure to notify court of - Effect - Where parties fail to notify court of a motion - And court fails to pronounce thereon - They cannot complain about the non-pronouncement on appeal (H4) Akpan v. Bob (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1623; (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt.1223) 421

APPEALS - Practice & Procedure - Cross-appeal by successful party - Propriety - Such cross-appeal serves no useful purpose - Appellate court may therefore ignore it (H5) Ukiri v. Geco-Prakla (Nig.) Ltd. (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 285) 2383; (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1220) 544

APPEALS - Practice & procedure - Parties - Exercise of right - Limited by rule of practice - Where exercise of a right is limited by a rule of practice - Such rule must be complied with - Unless it is waived (H2) Dingyadi v. INEC (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 1877

APPEALS - Preliminary objection - Propriety - Where issue in consideration is purely on law - Objection based on failure to obtain leave to appeal - Will fail (H1) Samba Ltd. UBA Plc. (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 288) 3289; (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt.1221) 192

APPEALS - Processes - Power to amend - Limits - Though a court ordinarily has power - To grant leave to amend processes - That power does not extend to occasions - Where the right of parties to amend - Is curtailed by a higher court’s order (H1) Ogunsola v. NICON (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 2083; (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1211) 225

APPEALS - Processes - Right of parties to amend - Curtailment - How done - In the absence of an express permission - Incorporated in a rehearing order - Parties cannot amend their processes at such rehearing (H2) Ogunsola v. NICON (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 2083; (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1211) 225

APPEALS - Purpose - It is a continuation of a suit - That complains against the decision of a trial or lower court - Absence of such decision - Makes an appeal impossible (H7) Osun State INEC v. AC (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3137; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 273

APPEALS - Records of proceedings - Binding effect - It is settled law that the contents of such records - Are binding on both the court and the parties (H2) Sapo v. Sunmonu (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1819; (2010) 11 NWLR (Pt.1205) 374

APPEALS - Records of proceedings - Whether complete on transmission - It is obvious from the depositions made - That the records were incomplete on transmission to Court of Appeal - As they were bereft of the exhibits at trial (H1) Olorunyolemi v. Akhagbe (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277)733; (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1195) 48

APPEALS - Rehearing - Propriety - Court of Appeal rightly exercised its power of rehearing - And rightly granted reliefs 2-5 dismissed by the trial court (H9) Osun State INEC v. AC (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3137; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 273

APPEALS - Respondents’ Notice - Relief thereon - Propriety of refusal - Since the relief was predicated on the writ being validly issued - It cannot be granted in view of the conclusion that the writ was not validly issued (H9) Agip (Nig) Ltd. v. Agip Petroli Int’l (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 275) 1; (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt.1187) 348

APPEALS - Respondent’s notice - Seeking variation - Necessity - It having been decided that 1st respondent is the legal winner of the election - Other reliefs naturally follow - It does not require the variation sought by the respondent’s notice (H7) Ezeigwe v. Nwawulu (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 535; (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt.1183) 159

APPEALS - Retrial - Fair hearing - Breach - Effect on proceedings - It renders the entire proceedings null and void - Necessitating a consequential order of retrial (H2) Pan Africa Int. v. Shoreline Ltd. (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 279) 1153; (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt.1189) 98

APPEALS - Right of appeal - Under s. 233 of 1999 Constitution - Propriety - Appeal could be as of right - Or with leave of Court - But failure to obtain leave where necessary - Will render such appeal incompetent (H2) Gen. Elect. Coy. v. Akande (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3069; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 596

APPEALS - Sentencing - Order sending appellants back to prison - Propriety - As the appeal was a complaint - Against their conviction and sentence - An order striking out the appeal necessitates an order sending them back to prison (H2) Idris v. COP (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 280) 1211; (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1210) 153

APPEALS - Supreme Court - Withdrawal without court order - Requirements - A document signed by or for all the parties - Signifying their consent to the withdrawal - Must be filed in the Court’s Registry (H1) Dingyadi v. INEC (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 1877

APPEALS - Time - Application for enlargement of - Requirements - Applicant must show good reasons for failure to appeal in time - And good cause why the appeal should be heard (H1) Oyegun v. Nzeribe (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 2097

APPEALS - Time - Application for extension of time - Trinity prayers - When needed - They become necessary where right of appeal is only with leave - And applicant had failed to appeal within time (H1) Ault & Wiborg Ltd. v. Nibel Ind. Ltd. (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 1853; (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1220) 619

APPEALS - Time - Failure to appeal within time - Plaintiff’s reasons - Veracity - Contrary to the assertions by 1st respondent - It is clear that he deliberately withdrew his initial appeal - In order to pursue his suit at Kaduna (H2) ANPP v. Albishir (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 481; (2010) 9 NWLR (Pt.1198) 118

APPEALS - Time to appeal - Power to extend - O. 7 r. 10 of Court of Appeal Rules - Limits - It only avails persons who through inadvertence - Are unable to promptly file appeal - It is not an alternative route to those - Who have tried and failed at other procedures (H3) ANPP v. Albishir (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 481; (2010) 9 NWLR (Pt.1198) 118

APPEALS - Title - Possession - Leases - Where lower court found that appellant leased the land to tenants - The act amounts to effective possession - And contrary holding is perverse (H9) Tanko v. Echendu (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3205; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1224) 253

APPEALS - Withdrawal - After exchange of briefs - Effect - After briefs have been exchanged - Whereby issues are crystallized - A withdrawal at that point must lead to dismissal - As an inflexible rule (H1) Young Motors Ltd. v. Okonkwo (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 279) 1191; (2010) 15 NWLR (Pt.1217) 524

APPEALS - Words & Phrases - “To allow an appeal” - Meaning - Where an appeal is allowed without conditions attached - It means judgment of lower court is set aside - And the reliefs it had refused are granted - Or vice versa (H1) Ishola v. Falorunso (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 2009; (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1210) 169

APPEALS - Words & Phrases - Grounds - Meaning - It is an error of law or facts - Alleged by appellant - As the defect in the judgment appealed against - Which he relies upon to set it aside (H1) Akpan v. Bob (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1623; (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt.1223) 421

ARMED ROBBERY - Attempt - Proof - Overt act to commit robbery - Whether proved - In view of unexplained presence of appellant and his friends - At P.W. 4’s room at night with arms - Overt act to commit robbery was proved (H2) Shurumo v. State (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 3021; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 73

ARMED ROBBERY - Attempted armed robbery - Conviction - Based on confession - Sustainability - Where a confessional statement is satisfactorily proved - Conviction founded on it without more - Is sustainable (H6) Shurumo v. State (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 3021; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 73

ARMED ROBBERY - Evidence - Burden of proof - Discharge - It is discharged if on the entire evidence adduced - The court is left with no doubt - That the accused committed the offence (H1) Afolalu v. The State (2010) 7 KLR (pt. 284) 2109; (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1220) 584

BANKING - Actions - Claim for interest - Justification - Whether pleaded - Plaintiffs did not plead any facts - In justification of their claim for interest (H2) Abacha v. UBA Plc. (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 467

BANKING - Actions - Claim for interest - Requirements - Claimant must not only plead the claim - But must also plead facts in support of the claim - Showing that the he is entitled to it (H1) Abacha v. UBA Plc. (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 467

BILLS OF LADING - Contracts - Terms - Applicability - Application of the terms of Hague Rules 1924 to this case is proper - As it is in accordance with the terms of the bills of lading - Being a contract between the parties (H4) JSF Invest. Ltd v. Brawal Line Ltd (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 286) 2611; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 495

BILLS OF LADING - Foreign jurisdictional clause - Binding nature of - Admiralty Jurisdiction Act 1991 - By virtue of the provisions of the Act - Element of courts discretion in deciding whether to uphold such clause - Has been removed (H5) JSF Invest. Ltd v. Brawal Line Ltd (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 286) 2611; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 495

CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA - Actions - Limitation period - Article 3 rule 6 of the convention discharges the carrier and the ship - From all liability after one year - From delivery of goods or the agreed date of delivery (H7) JSF Invest. Ltd v. Brawal Line Ltd (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 286) 2611; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 495

CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA - Contracts - Hague Rules 1924 - Effect of application - Where its provisions are applicable in a transaction - Parties are not permitted to contract out of the obligations imposed (H6) JSF Invest. Ltd v. Brawal Line Ltd (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 286) 2611; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 495

CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA - Foreign jurisdictional clause - Binding nature of - Admiralty Jurisdiction Act 1991 - By virtue of the provisions of the Act - Element of courts discretion in deciding whether to uphold such clause - Has been removed (H5) JSF Invest. Ltd v. Brawal Line Ltd (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 286) 2611; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 495

CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA - Inward shipments - Hague Rules 1924 - Applicability - Basis - It applies to contracts of shipment into Nigeria - By virtue of incorporation in a clause - Not as a matter of statute (H3) JSF Invest. Ltd v. Brawal Line Ltd (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 286) 2611; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 495

CERTIORARI - Actions - Conditions precedent - Effect of Exhibits 9 and 10 - They are worthless documents - As they were not filed in due process of law - Nor were they of the appellant’s personal making (H3) Onyemaizu v. Ojiako (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 371; (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt.1185) 504

CERTIORARI - Actions - Initiating motion - Competency - Not having been initiated by due process of law - The instant motion is incompetent ab initio (H5) Onyemaizu v. Ojiako (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 371; (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt.1185) 504

CERTIORARI - Courts - Findings - Application for certiorari - Finding of abandonment - Propriety - The fact that appellants took no steps to have the application heard is glaringly clear - So the finding merely stated the obvious (H1) Idris v. COP (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 280) 1211; (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1210) 153

CERTIORARI - Jurisdiction - Hearing - Noncompliance with O. 37 r. 5(4) of High Court Rules of Anambra State - Such noncompliance erodes the court’s jurisdiction - It is not an irregularity that can be waived or cured (H2) Onyemaizu v. Ojiako (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 371; (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt.1185) 504

CERTIORARI - Time of hearing - O. 37 r. 5(4) of High Court Rules of Anambra State - Hearing can only be had - After an affidavit of verification of service - Has been filed as required by the rules (H1) Onyemaizu v. Ojiako (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 371; (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt.1185) 504

CHARGES - Application to prefer - Propriety of grant - Once prosecutor shows that an offence appears to have been committed - As required by the rules - The court should grant his application (H1) Attah v. State (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 279) 1039; (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt.1201) 190

CHARGES - Before FCT - In the name of F.R.N. - Whether defective - Charges can only be initiated in the High Court of F.C.T. - In the name of the Federal Republic of Nigeria - So it is not defective (H6) Nyame v. FRN (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 280) 1269; (2010) 7 NWLR (Pt.1193) 344

CHARGES - Contents - “Time” - Meaning - Time in section 202 of CPC Law of Kogi State - Refers to the day the offence was committed - Not to the hour of the day (H1) Shehu v. State (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 279) 1167; (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1195) 112

CHARGES - Leave to prefer - Application - Sufficiency of materials - Though no proof of evidence was filed and served on appellants - Prosecution did present sufficient materials - To enable the judge exercise his discretion (H1) Sunday v. Oformata (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 286) 2583

CHIEFTAINCY MATTERS - Customary law - Registered declaration - Effect - Where a declaration in respect of a recognized chieftaincy - Is validly made and registered - It shall be deemed to be the customary law - Regulating the chieftaincy (H7) Adekeye v. Adesina (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2801; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 449

CHIEFTAINCY MATTERS - Evidence - Findings of fact - Basis - Though estoppel was pleaded and testified to - It was not against the whole lineage of 1st respondent - So there was no basis for court of Appeal to have so held (H6) Adekeye v. Adesina (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2801; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 449

CHIEFTAINCY MATTERS - Evidence - Principle of rotation - Within Elemo Ruling House - Need for proof - Though Exhibit G2 recognized rotation - It was not within the constituting units of a ruling house - Such therefore needed to be pleaded and proved aliunde - But was not (H8) Adekeye v. Adesina (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2801; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 449

COMMERCIAL LAW - Judgment sum - Award in foreign currency - Propriety - Our courts have jurisdiction - To give judgment in foreign currency - On the strength of the Miliangos case - Which overruled the Havana case (H7) GMBH v. Tunji Ind. Ltd. (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1485; (2010) 11 NWLR (Pt.1206) 589

COMMERCIAL LAW - Judgment sum - Award in foreign currency - Rate of conversion - Applicable rate is that prevailing - At time of enforcing judgment - On the strength of the Miliangos case - Which overruled the Havana case (H7) GMBH v. Tunji Ind. Ltd. (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1485; (2010) 11 NWLR (Pt.1206) 589

COMMERCIAL LAW - Veil of incorporation - Lifting of - Propriety - It is proper to lift the veil where there is conspiracy to commit fraud - Or perpetration of fraud - Involving the company (H4) Alade v. Alic (Nig) Ltd. (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2843; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 111

COMMERCIAL LAW - Words & phrases - “Account stated” - Meaning - It means a balance - That parties to a transaction agree on - Either expressly or by implication (H6) GMBH v. Tunji Ind. Ltd. (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1485; (2010) 11 NWLR (Pt.1206) 589

COMPANY LAW - Actions - Jurisdiction of Federal High Court - Limit - Where the dispute is not on matters concerning the law - Regulating the operations of CAMA - It falls outside the exclusive jurisdiction of the court (H1) Godwin v. Okwey (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 285) 2299; (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1219) 309

COMPANY LAW - Company Proceedings Rule - Rule 2(1) - Whether directory - In view of the use of the word “shall” in the provision - The provision is mandatory not merely directory (H8) Agip (Nig) Ltd. v. Agip Petroli Int’l (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 275) 1; (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt.1187) 348

COMPANY LAW - Derivative actions - Commencement - Procedure - Minority shareholder having obtained requisite leave - Must come by way of originating summons on notice to the company (H4) Agip (Nig) Ltd. v. Agip Petroli Int’l (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 275) 1; (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt.1187) 348

COMPANY LAW - Derivative actions - Defect in commencement - Effect - Such defect nullifies the entire proceedings - Commencement by originating summons is condition precedent - To exercise of jurisdiction by court (H5) Agip (Nig) Ltd. v. Agip Petroli Int’l (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 275) 1; (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt.1187) 348

COMPANY LAW - Legal Practitioners - Names - Legal identity - Differences - While Olujimi and Akeredolu - Is a firm with corporate existence - Name of Legal Practitioner - Has no corporate connotation (H1) Oketade v. Adewunmi (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 288) 3235; (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1195) 63

COMPANY LAW - Registration - Part C of CAMA - Requirements - An application for registration under part C - Must comply with the provisions of part C - Which the instant applications failed to do (H6) Amasike v. Reg. Gen. CAC (2010) 7 KLR (pt. 284) 2131; (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1211) 337

COMPANY LAW - Removal of directors - Procedure - Effect of prior suspension - Such prior suspension does not deprive a director - Of his right to be notified of his impending removal - As the right is statutory (H3) Longe v. First Bank (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 279) 1067; (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt.1189) 1

COMPANY LAW - Removal of directors - Procedure - S. 266 (1) of CAMA - The subsection mandatorily requires - That the director must be given a notice - Of the meeting at which he will be removed (H2) Longe v. First Bank (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 279) 1067; (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt.1189) 1

COMPANY LAW - Reservation of names - S. 32 of CAMA - Nature of powers of CAC - The provision does not connote automatic reservation - But vests discretionary powers on CAC - To accept or reject the name applied for (H7) Amasike v. Reg. Gen. CAC (2010) 7 KLR (pt. 284) 2131; (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1211) 337

COMPANY LAW - Veil of incorporation - Lifting of - Propriety - It is proper to lift the veil where there is conspiracy to commit fraud - Or perpetration of fraud - Involving the company (H4) Alade v. Alic (Nig) Ltd. (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2843; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 111

COMPANY LAW - Words & phrases - “Directors” - Meaning under CAMA - They are those appointed by the company - To direct the business of the company - It does not matter that they are executive or non-executive (H5) Longe v. First Bank (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 279) 1067; (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt.1189) 1

COMPANY LAW - Words & phrases - Suspension from work - Meaning - It only means suspension from performance of ordinary duties - Attaching to ones office - It does not entail a diminution of his right under the law (H4) Longe v. First Bank (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 279) 1067; (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt.1189) 1

CONFLICT OF LAWS - Elections - Local Government Councils - State legislative powers - Limit - Osun State House of Assembly - Has no power to make laws - Contrary to that made by National Assembly (H3) Osun State INEC v. AC (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3137; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 273

CONFLICT OF LAWS - Elections - National and State Legislation - Inconsistency - Effect - Where S. 10 Osun State Electoral law - Is inconsistent with S. 31 Electoral Act - That law is null and void - To the extent of its inconsistency (H4) Osun State INEC v. AC (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3137; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 273

CONFLICT OF LAWS - Jurisdiction - State High Courts - Curtailment - The jurisdiction as conferred by the Constitution - Can only be curtailed by the Constitution itself - Not by an Act or law of the National or State House of Assembly (H3) NUEE v. Bureau of Pub. Enter. (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 691; (2010) 7 NWLR (Pt.1194) 538

CONFLICT OF LAWS - Statute - Conflict of laws - Where claims of damages exist in a statute - And the other statute does not incorporate provisions of the former statute - Each statute is independent on its tenor (H7) Cotecna Int’l Ltd. v. Churchgate Nig. Ltd. (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) p. 2871; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 346

CONFLICT OF LAWS - Trade Disputes (Amendment) Decree - By conferring exclusive jurisdiction - On National Industrial Court - It detracts from the powers of the State High Court under s. 272 of the Constitution - And as such is null and void (H5) NUEE v. Bureau of Pub. Enter. (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 691; (2010) 7 NWLR (Pt.1194) 538

CONSPIRACY - Proof - Conspiracy - Whether proved - Since there was a criminal purpose common to appellant and his friends - Who were at the house of P.W.4 on the day of the incident - There is sufficient proof of conspiracy (H3) Shurumo v. State (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 3021; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 73

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Appeals - Right of appeal - Under s. 233 of 1999 Constitution - Propriety - Appeal could be as of right - Or with leave of Court - But failure to obtain leave where necessary - Will render such appeal incompetent (H2) Gen. Elect. Coy. v. Akande (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3069; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 596

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Actions - Immunity clause - Effect - It suspends the right of action against those to whom it applies - Until the expiration of the tenure of their offices (H5) Hassan v. Aliyu (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 285) 2311; (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt.1223) 547

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Conflict of laws - Trade Disputes (Amendment) Decree - By conferring exclusive jurisdiction - On National Industrial Court - It detracts from the powers of the State High Court under s. 272 of the Constitution - And as such is null and void (H5) NUEE v. Bureau of Pub. Enter. (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 691; (2010) 7 NWLR (Pt.1194) 538

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Constitution - Interpretation - Manner of - The general principle is that it should be given an interpretation - Which would serve the interest of the constitution - And carry out its object and purpose (H5) Nyame v. FRN (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 280) 1269; (2010) 7 NWLR (Pt.1193) 344

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Courts - Access - Restrictive statutes - How construed - Any law which seeks to deprive a citizen of his right of access to court - Or any other constitutional right - Must be construed strictly by the courts (H5) Cotecna Int’l Ltd. v. Churchgate Nig. Ltd. (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) p. 2871; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 346

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Courts - Jurisdiction - Elections - Matters relating to - By S. 285 (2) of the 1999 Constitution - Such matters are within the exclusive jurisdiction of Election Tribunals (H8) Ohakim v. Agbaso (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 286) 2513; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 172

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Election petitions - Immunity clause - Applicability - Election petitions and election related proceedings - Are special proceedings - To which immunity clause does not apply (H6) Hassan v. Aliyu (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 285) 2311; (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt.1223) 547

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Election petitions - S. 246 (3) of 1999 Constitution - “Decision” - Meaning - It is a judicial determination - After consideration of the facts and law (H1) Ugwa v. Lekwauwa (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 3049; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 26

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Elections - Courts - Jurisdiction - Basis of - The Constitution confers exclusive jurisdiction - In concluded elections as in this case on tribunals - And pre-election matters on High Courts (H6) Olofu v. Itodo (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3101; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 545

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Elections - Local Government Councils - State legislative powers - Limit - Osun State House of Assembly - Has no power to make laws - Contrary to that made by National Assembly (H3) Osun State INEC v. AC (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3137; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 273

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Elections - National and State Legislation - Inconsistency - Effect - Where S. 10 Osun State Electoral law - Is inconsistent with S. 31 Electoral Act - That law is null and void - To the extent of its inconsistency (H4) Osun State INEC v. AC (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3137; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 273

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Fair hearing - Breach - Effect on judgment - Such judgment will not be allowed to stand on appeal - As the right to fair hearing is constitutional (H9) First Bank v. T.S.A. Ind. Ltd. (2010) 7 KLR (pt. 285) 2383; (2010) 15 NWLR (Pt.1216) 247

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Fair hearing - Observance - Yardstick for determining - It is not whether any injustice has been occasioned on any party - Due to want of hearing - It is whether an opportunity of hearing was afforded to the parties (H4) Union Bank v. Astra Builders Ltd. (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 769; (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt.1186) 1

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Fundamental rights - Right to freedom of association - S. 40 of the Constitution - Limits - The rights under the section are not absolute - But have to be exercised within the ambit of s. 45 of the Constitution (H7) NUEE v. Bureau of Pub. Enter. (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 691; (2010) 7 NWLR (Pt.1194) 538

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Jurisdiction - Federal High Court - S. 251(1)(r) of 1999 Constitution - Scope - Though it appears to give the court exclusive jurisdiction - Once Federal Government is a party - But facts and circumstances - Are the determinant factors (H2) Adatayo v. Ademola (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1375; (2010) 15 NWLR (Pt.1215) 169

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Jurisdiction - Exclusivity - Federal High Court - Subject matter of action - This court’s jurisdiction is not automatic in all matters - In which Federal Government is a party - Subject matter of action must also be recognized by s. 251 of the Constitution (H6) NUEE v. Bureau of Pub. Enter. (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 691; (2010) 7 NWLR (Pt.1194) 538

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Jurisdiction - F.C.T. High court - Crime - S. 257 of the Constitution - Scope - It confers jurisdiction on the court - To hear and determine criminal proceedings - At first instance and in appellate or supervisory capacity (H4) Nyame v. FRN (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 280) 1269; (2010) 7 NWLR (Pt.1193) 344

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Jurisdiction - Federal High Court - Effect of s. 230(1) of 1979 Constitution - Paragraphs (p) to (s) conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the court - In certain matters notwithstanding the nature of the claim (H2) Osakue v. Fed. Col. of Edu. Asaba (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 278) 953; (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt.1201) 1

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Jurisdiction - Federal High Court - S. 251(1)(r) of 1999 Constitution - Activation - It is activated only where the executive action of the Federal Government - Is being challenged by plaintiff (H3) Adatayo v. Ademola (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1375; (2010) 15 NWLR (Pt.1215) 169

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Jurisdiction - Source & purpose - Being conferred on courts by Constitution - It is fundamental to adjudication - As foundation on which courts exercise judicial powers (H1) Olofu v. Itodo (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3101; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 545

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Jurisdiction - State High Courts - Curtailment - Conflict of laws - The jurisdiction as conferred by the Constitution - Can only be curtailed by the Constitution itself - Not by an Act or law of the National or State House of Assembly (H3) NUEE v. Bureau of Pub. Enter. (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 691; (2010) 7 NWLR (Pt.1194) 538

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Jurisdiction - Supreme Court - Election petition appeals - Limit Supreme court does not have jurisdiction - Where appeal arises from Governorship and Legislative Houses Election Tribunal - Decision of Court of Appeal in respect thereof is final (H2) Ugwa v. Lekwauwa (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 3049; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 26

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - National Industrial Court - Status - Whether a Superior Court of Record - Notwithstanding the provisions of Decree No. 47 of 1992 - It remains a subordinate court to the High Court - As the Constitution does not recognize it as a superior court (H4) NUEE v. Bureau of Pub. Enter. (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 691; (2010) 7 NWLR (Pt.1194) 538

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Treaties - Domestic application - S. 12 of 1979 Constitution - Where a treaty qualifies as an existing law under the 1979 Constitution - It does not require further ratification - To apply domestically (H8) JSF Invest. Ltd v. Brawal Line Ltd (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 286) 2611; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 495

CONTEMPT OF COURT - Contempt charges - Invocation - Rationale - It is the need to vindicate the dignity of the court as an institution - Not to bolster the power or ego of the judge as an individual (H1) FRN v. Akubueze (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 1993; (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt.1223) 525

CONTRACTS - Actions - Admiralty - Limitation period - Article 3 rule 6 of the convention discharges the carrier and the ship - From all liability after one year - From delivery of goods or the agreed date of delivery (H7) JSF Invest. Ltd v. Brawal Line Ltd (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 286) 2611; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 495

CONTRACTS - Admiralty - Foreign jurisdictional clause - Binding nature of - Admiralty Jurisdiction Act 1991 - By virtue of the provisions of the Act - Element of courts discretion in deciding whether to uphold such clause - Has been removed (H5) JSF Invest. Ltd v. Brawal Line Ltd (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 286) 2611; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 495

CONTRACTS - Agency - Agent’s liability to third party - When to arise - One occasion for such liability of an agent - Is where he had exceeded the limit of his authority - And thereby injured a third party (H3) Cotecna Int’l Ltd. v. Churchgate Nig. Ltd. (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) p. 2871; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 346

CONTRACTS - Bills of lading - Terms - Applicability - Application of the terms of Hague Rules 1924 to this case is proper - As it is in accordance with the terms of the bills of lading - Being a contract between the parties (H4) JSF Invest. Ltd v. Brawal Line Ltd (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 286) 2611; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 495

CONTRACTS - Binding nature - Price of chemicals - Whether agreed - Contrary to the submission of respondent - There was a binding agreement as to the price of the chemicals - In respect of the agreement dated 7th Oct. 1994 (H1) Baliol Nig. Ltd. v. Navcon Nig. Ltd. (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1703; (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1220) 619

CONTRACTS - Breach - Liability for damages - Scope - It is not only the person in actual breach of contract that may be liable for damages - But also the person who masterminded the breach (H3) Alade v. Alic (Nig) Ltd. (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2843; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 111

CONTRACTS - Breach - Remedies - Propriety - Where breach has been established against a party - The appropriate remedy to which the innocent party is entitled - Is payment of compensation in form of damages (H3) Kayode Vent. Ltd. v. Min. of FCT (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 611; (2010) 7 NWLR (Pt.1192) 171

CONTRACTS - Breach - Termination - When amounts to breach - Where the process of termination does not fully comply - With the provisions of the agreement - It amounts to a breach of contract (H1) Kayode Vent. Ltd. v. Min. of FCT (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 611; (2010) 7 NWLR (Pt.1192) 171

CONTRACTS - Carriage of goods - Hague Rules 1924 - Effect of application - Where its provisions are applicable in a transaction - Parties are not permitted to contract out of the obligations imposed (H6) JSF Invest. Ltd v. Brawal Line Ltd (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 286) 2611; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 495

CONTRACTS - Carriage of goods by sea - Inward shipments - Hague Rules 1924 - Applicability - Basis - It applies to contracts of shipment into Nigeria - By virtue of incorporation in a clause - Not as a matter of statute (H3) JSF Invest. Ltd v. Brawal Line Ltd (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 286) 2611; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 495

CONTRACTS - Damages for breach - Quantum - Reduction from 30% claimed to 15% - Propriety - Trial judge acted properly - For where plaintiff claims more than he can prove - He is awarded a lesser sum (H6) Kayode Vent. Ltd. v. Min. of FCT (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 611; (2010) 7 NWLR (Pt.1192) 171

CONTRACTS - Enforceability - Failure to furnish consideration - Effect - A party who fails to furnish agreed consideration - Cannot enforce the contract - Indeed the innocent party may sue him for breach (H2) Chabasaya v. Anwasi (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1745; (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt.1201) 163

CONTRACTS - Enforceability - Tenancy law - Penalty clauses - Such clauses are unenforceable - Court cannot salvage obligations created by such clauses - By applying provisions of statutes - As it has no vires to make cases for parties (H6) Oyeneyin v. Akinkugbe (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 439; (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt.1184) 265

CONTRACTS - Guarantee - Definition - It is a written undertaking made by one person to another - To be responsible to that other - If a third person fails to perform a certain duty (H8) Chami v. UBA Plc. (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 507; (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt.1191) 474

CONTRACTS - Guarantees - Action to enforce - Effect of nonjoinder of principal debtor - The contract can be enforced against guarantor - Without the necessity of joining the principal debtor (H7) Chami v. UBA Plc. (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 507; (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt.1191) 474

CONTRACTS - Landlord & tenant - Termination of tenancy - Right of landlord - Extent - He has an unfettered right to terminate a tenancy - Subject to the conditions in the tenancy agreement (H3) Adewunmi v. Oketade (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 278) 797

CONTRACTS - Liquidated sum - Meaning - It means a fixed or ascertainable amount mutually agreed on by parties to contract - As payable on breach thereof - Which amount must be known prior to breach (H1) Nworah & Sons Ltd v. Akputa (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 278) 897; (2010) 9 NWLR (Pt.1200) 596

CONTRACTS - Partnership agreement - Breach - Accountability - Absence of - Where respondents made it impossible for parties - To know the financial situation of the partnership business - A fundamental breach is occasioned (H2) Alade v. Alic (Nig) Ltd. (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2843; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 111

CONTRACTS - Rescission by plaintiff - Proof - As defendant failed to tender the letter by which it claimed the agreement was rescinded - Trial court rightly held that it was not rescinded - Court of appeal was therefore wrong to hold otherwise (H3) Baliol Nig. Ltd. v. Navcon Nig. Ltd. (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1703; (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1220) 619

CONTRACTS - Statutes - Agency - Parties status - Federal Government agency - Where the terms of contract of service - Require service provider to exercise independent professional mandate - It makes it an independent contractor (H1) Cotecna Int’l Ltd. v. Churchgate Nig. Ltd. (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) p. 2871; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 346

CONTRACTS - Validity - Misrepresentation - Effect - Party guilty of misrepresentation - Cannot rely on it to repudiate the contract - As equity will not allow a person to benefit from his own wrong (H5) Teriba v. Adeyemo (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1583; (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1211) 242

CONTRACTS - Variation - By subsequent agreement - Requirements - The latter agreement must be written - If the original is of such a nature as required to be in writing - And must be under seal in the absence of consideration (H2) Baliol Nig. Ltd. v. Navcon Nig. Ltd. (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1703; (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1220) 619

CONTRACTS - Words & phrases - “Misrepresentation” - Ingredients - To constitute misrepresentation - The misrepresentor and the misrepresentee - Must be distinct from one another (H6) Teriba v. Adeyemo (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1583; (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1211) 242

CONVEYANCING - Deeds - Earlier deed of gift - Recited in Exhibit A - Effect - Having embodied the deed in its recital - Exhibit A has subsumed the contents of the deed - So the deed no longer has legal recognition (H3) Oyeneyin v. Akinkugbe (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 439; (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt.1184) 265

CONVEYANCING - Land law - Conferment of - Exhibit A and B - Efficacy of - Contrary to opinion of appellants - The exhibits are not void - But are legally viable documents conferring title (H2) Oyeneyin v. Akinkugbe (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 439; (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt.1184) 265

CONVEYANCING - Registration of titles - First registration - Opposition to application - Duty on objector - An objector has the burden of satisfying the registrar - That the land sought to be registered is a family land (H2) Jolasun v. Bamgboye (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2929; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 285

CONVEYANCING - Registration of titles - First registration - Proof required - An applicant for first registration must satisfy the registrar of his ownership - Through such evidence as is ordinarily required by conveyancers (H1) Jolasun v. Bamgboye (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2929; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 285

CONVEYANCING - Title - Grant of family land - Exhibits A and B - Validity - The exhibits are valid - Having been executed by the head and principal members - Of the grantor family - Contrary to allegation of appellants (H1) Oyeneyin v. Akinkugbe (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 439; (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt.1184) 265

CONVICTION - Alibi - Not investigated - Propriety of conviction - Where there is visual and positive identification of accused - At scene of crime - Believed by trial judge - Conviction is proper (H6) Attah v. State (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 279) 1039; (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt.1201) 190

CONVICTION - Appeals - Crime - Confessional statement - Rejection by Court of Appeal - Effect on conviction - Though the court rejected the written statement - It accepted the oral confession by appellant - And this is capable of supporting the conviction (H6) Moses Jua v. State (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 577; (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt.1184) 217

CONVICTION - Attempted armed robbery - Conviction - Based on confession - Sustainability - Where a confessional statement is satisfactorily proved - Conviction founded on it without more - Is sustainable (H6) Shurumo v. State (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 3021; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 73

CONVICTION - Basis - Conviction of appellants - Discharge of 7th accused - Propriety - Appellants and 7th accused did not have a common base for their defence - So the discharge of 7th accused cannot lead to discharge of appellants (H2) Nkebisi v. State (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 671; (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt.1188) 471

CONVICTION - Crime - Proof - Effect of suspicion - Suspicion however strong cannot take the place of legal proof - Nor can it found or lead to a conviction (H4) Shehu v. State (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 279) 1167; (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1195) 112

CONVICTION - Evidence - Murder - Sufficiency of one witness - The evidence of one witness can lead to conviction if believed - It is immaterial that the witness is related to the deceased (H1) Nkebisi v. State (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 671; (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt.1188) 471

CONVICTION - Murder - Corpus delicti - Effect of failure to produce - It is not the law that conviction cannot be secured - Where corpus delicti is not produced - The important thing is to show necessary nexus between accused and the killing of deceased (H5) Moses Jua v. State (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 577; (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt.1184) 217

CONVICTION - Sentencing - Order sending appellants back to prison - Propriety - As the appeal was a complaint - Against their conviction and sentence - An order striking out the appeal necessitates an order sending them back to prison (H2) Idris v. COP (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 280) 1211; (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1210) 153

COURT MARTIAL - Condonation - Effect on subsequent prosecution - Once an offence has been condoned - A subsequent trial for the same offence - Will amount to double jeopardy (H6) Nig. Army v. Aminun-Kano (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 287; (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt.1188) 429

COURT MARTIAL - Courts - Decisions - lack of jurisdiction - Effect - Where a court lacks competence to try a person - Whatever decision it arrives at on such person - Is a nullity (H7) Nig. Army v. Aminun-Kano (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 287; (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt.1188) 429

COURT MARTIAL - Crime - Condonation - Meaning - It is a victim’s express or implied forgiveness of an offence - By treating the offender as if there had been no offence (H1) Nig. Army v. Aminun-Kano (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 287; (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt.1188) 429

COURT MARTIAL - Words & phrase - Commanding officer - Meaning - It is the officer commanding the unit - To which the person in question is attached - As was PW8 to the respondent when he signed Exhibit P45 (H5) Nig. Army v. Aminun-Kano (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 287; (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt.1188) 429

COURT PROCESSES - Actions - Commencement procedure - Originating summons - Propriety - It is proper where the principal question is question of law - Or there is no substantial dispute of fact - Neither of which is the case herein (H4) Amasike v. Reg. Gen. CAC (2010) 7 KLR (pt. 284) 2131; (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1211) 337

COURT PROCESSES - Abuse - Characteristics - It may lie in both a proper or an improper use of judicial process - It includes the initiation of multiple actions on the same issues and subject matter - Against the same opponent (H7) Dingyadi v. INEC (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 1877

COURT PROCESSES - Appeals - Right of parties to amend - Curtailment - How done - In the absence of an express permission - Incorporated in a rehearing order - Parties cannot amend their processes at such rehearing (H2) Ogunsola v. NICON (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 2083; (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1211) 225

COURT PROCESSES - Appeals - Competency - Where processes for bringing an appeal are incompetent - The appeal itself is incompetent (H3) Oketade v. Adewunmi (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 288) 3235; (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1195) 63

COURT PROCESSES - Appeals - Notice of appeal - Purpose - It is a statutory initiating process - Encapsulating complaints of appellant - Raised on valid grounds - Against the decision appealed (H1) Gen. Elect. Coy. v. Akande (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3069; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 596

COURT PROCESSES - Appeals - Notices and Briefs - Endorsement in name of a firm - Effect on appeal - It makes the appeal incompetent - As such processes can only be endorsed - By a legal practitioner as such - Under the Legal Practitioners Act (H1) Adewunmi v. Oketade (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 278) 797

COURT PROCESSES - Appeals - Power to amend - Limits - Though a court ordinarily has power - To grant leave to amend processes - That power does not extend to occasions - Where the right of parties to amend - Is curtailed by a higher court’s order (H1) Ogunsola v. NICON (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 2083; (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1211) 225

COURT PROCESSES - Hearing notice - Proof of service - Effect of attendance in court - A party’s presence in court on the day a matter is slated - Is not necessarily a confirmation of service on him - There needs to be actual proof of service (H3) Olorunyolemi v. Akhagbe (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277)733; (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1195) 48

COURT PROCESSES - Notice of appeal - Grounds - Error of law or misdirection - Manner of raising - Where a ground alleges either an error or a misdirection in law - The relevant passage in the judgment must be quoted - And full particulars given (H4) Okwuagbala v. Ikwueme (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2955; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 54

COURT PROCESSES - Originating summons - Contents - FCT High Court Rules - O. 6 r. 3(1) requires it to contain either questions for determination - Or statement of reliefs claimed - The instant summons is therefore substantially compliant (H2) Anyawoko v. Okoye (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 275) 87; (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt.1188) 497

COURT PROCESSES - Originating summons - Not signed as required by the Rules - Effects - Such noncompliance amounts to mere irregularity - It has nothing to do with the jurisdiction of the court (H1) Anyawoko v. Okoye (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 275) 87; (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt.1188) 497

COURT PROCESSES - Respondents’ Notice - Relief thereon - Propriety of refusal - Since the relief was predicated on the writ being validly issued - It cannot be granted in view of the conclusion that the writ was not validly issued (H9) Agip (Nig) Ltd. v. Agip Petroli Int’l (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 275) 1; (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt.1187) 348

COURT PROCESSES - Rules of court - Noncompliance - Right to set aside suit - Waiver of - Application to set aside suit for irregularity - Shall not be allowed unless made within reasonable time - Before taking further step (H4) Anyawoko v. Okoye (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 275) 87; (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt.1188) 497

COURT PROCESSES - Service - Certiorari proceedings - Affidavits of service - Who should file - As held in Re-Appolos Udo - The filing of a verification affidavit is personal to the applicant - It is not for the bailiff (H4) Onyemaizu v. Ojiako (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 371; (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt.1185) 504

COURT PROCESSES - Service - Complaint against - Propriety - Such complaint against non or improper service - Can only be properly raised - By the party affected thereby (H3) Ohakim v. Agbaso (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 286) 2513; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 172

COURT PROCESSES - Service - Improper service - Effect on proceedings - It nullifies any order made against the party improperly served - As it denies him the opportunity to be heard in the proceedings (H8) First Bank v. T.S.A. Ind. Ltd. (2010) 7 KLR (pt. 285) 2383; (2010) 15 NWLR (Pt.1216) 247

COURT PROCESSES - Writ of summons - Service outside jurisdiction - Procedure - Prior leave of court must be sought and obtained - Before issuance of any writ meant to be served outside jurisdiction (H2) Agip (Nig) Ltd. v. Agip Petroli Inter. (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 275) 1; (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt.1187) 348

COURTS - Abuse of process - Characteristics - It may lie in both a proper or an improper use of judicial process - It includes the initiation of multiple actions on the same issues and subject matter - Against the same opponent (H7) Dingyadi v. INEC (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 1877

COURTS - Access - Restrictive statutes - How construed - Any law which seeks to deprive a citizen of his right of access to court - Or any other constitutional right - Must be construed strictly by the courts (H5) Cotecna Int’l Ltd. v. Churchgate Nig. Ltd. (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) p. 2871; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 346

COURTS - Accidents - Speed of appellant - Measured from Exhibit D1 - Propriety - It was not proper - As there was no evidence as to the condition of the road - Which is a factor in such measurement from skid marks (H2) Oshe v. Okin Biscuits Ltd. (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 279) 1137; (2010) 11 NWLR (Pt.1206) 482

COURTS - Actions - Court process - Failure to serve on 2nd respondent - Whether fatal - There was no obligation to serve it - As it was not a party to the action - As such non service on it is not fatal (H2) Bello v. INEC (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 278) 827; (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1196) 342

COURTS - Actions - Decisions - Estoppel by conduct - Applicability - Where a party knew of - But took no part in previous proceedings on a subject matter affecting him - He is bound by the decision therein (H4) Obineche v. Akusobi (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 2057; (2010) 12 NWLR (Pt.1208) 383

COURTS - Actions - How determined - In order to determine Jurisdiction - Court has to look at plaintiff’s statement of claim and not the defence (H2) Olofu v. Itodo (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3101; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 545

COURTS - Actions - Nonjoinder - Effect of - Where appellant was not joined at the proceedings - Which adversely affected him - Breach of his fundamental rights to fair hearing was occasioned - That rendered the action incompetent (H2) Okonta v. Philips (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3095; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 320

COURTS - Actions - Parties - Nonjoinder - Whether fatal - No cause shall be defeated by reason of nonjoinder - As the court may in every cause - Deal with the matter as regards the rights - Of parties actually before it (H5) Sapo v. Sunmonu (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1819; (2010) 11 NWLR (Pt.1205) 374

COURTS - Actions - Proper parties - Necessity of - Where proper parties are not before the court - It does not assume jurisdiction - And can not make order affecting parties not so joined (H1) Okonta v. Philips (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3095; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 320

COURTS - Actions - Transfers - S. 22 of Federal High Court Act - Limit - It will not avail the court - Where subject of action involves plots of land - Located in two or more states (H5) Adatayo v. Ademola (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1375; (2010) 15 NWLR (Pt.1215) 169

COURTS - Adjournments - Application for - Refusal by trial court - Propriety - In view of the evidence on record the refusal was proper - As applicants had already been given adequate opportunity to file their reply - But failed to do so (H2) Nwadiogbu v. Anambra/Imo River Basin Dev. (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 286) 2661; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 364

COURTS - Adjournments - Application for - Where case is for hearing - Duty on applicant - He must show sufficient reason why the case must be adjourned - Otherwise court must ensure hearing (H1) Nwadiogbu v. Anambra/Imo River Basin Dev. (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 286) 2661; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 364

COURTS - Admiralty - Foreign jurisdictional clause - Binding nature of - Admiralty Jurisdiction Act 1991 - By virtue of the provisions of the Act - Element of courts discretion in deciding whether to uphold such clause - Has been removed (H5) JSF Invest. Ltd v. Brawal Line Ltd (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 286) 2611; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 495

COURTS - Appeals - “To allow an appeal” - Meaning - Where an appeal is allowed without conditions attached - It means judgment of lower court is set aside - And the reliefs it had refused are granted - Or vice versa (H1) Ishola v. Falorunso (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 2009; (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1210) 169

COURTS - Appeals - Grounds - Basis - Propriety - It is not every holding by a lower court - That would give rise to a ground of appeal - Only that which is relevant - To determination of the issues before that court (H1) Chami v. UBA Plc. (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 507; (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt.1191) 474

COURTS - Appeals - Basis of dismissal - Whether commencement procedure - Court of Appeal did not dismiss appellant’s appeal - Solely because it was brought by way of originating summons (H2) Amasike v. Reg. Gen. CAC (2010) 7 KLR (pt. 284) 2131; (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1211) 337

COURTS - Appeals - Breach of fair hearing - Effect - Appellate court need not go into the reasons for the breach - It has no alternative but to allow the appeal - And treat it as though there had been no hearing at all (H2) Yesufu v. Adama (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 278) 1021; (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt.1188) 522

COURTS - Appeals - Briefs - Joint argument on issues - Severability - A court is at liberty to sever such argument - If doing so will meet the ends of justice (H6) Akpan v. Bob (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1623; (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt.1223) 421

COURTS - Appeals - Briefs - Reply - Effect of failure to consider - Where no new point is raised by respondent’s brief - Yet appellant files a reply brief - Court may rightly decline to take such reply brief into account in its decision (H1) Longe v. First Bank (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 279) 1067; (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt.1189) 1

COURTS - Appeals - Conditions of appeal - Proof of compliance - Effect of registrar’s certificate - It raises a presumption of law - That there was compliance as certified by it - Which presumption has not been rebutted (H3) Ukiri v. Geco-Prakla (Nig.) Ltd. (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 285) 2383; (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1220) 544

COURTS - Appeals - Court of Appeal Rules - Dismissal under O. 6 r. 10 - Effect on status of appeal - Such dismissal terminates the life of the appeal - Such that no court has jurisdiction to revive it (H4) First Bank v. T.S.A. Ind. Ltd. (2010) 7 KLR (pt. 285) 2383; (2010) 15 NWLR (Pt.1216) 247

COURTS - Appeals - Court of Appeal Rules - Dismissal under O. 6 r. 10 - Requirements - It must be shown that record of appeal had been entered - And time for filing brief had expired - And there is no extension of time ordered (H6) First Bank v. T.S.A. Ind. Ltd. (2010) 7 KLR (pt. 285) 2383; (2010) 15 NWLR (Pt.1216) 247

COURTS - Appeals - Determination of - Rehearing - An appellate court is entitled to exercise - All powers of the trial court - By hearing on printed records - And reexamining of all evidence tendered - In the determination of an appeal (H8) Osun State INEC v. AC (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3137; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 273

COURTS - Appeals - Evidence - Reevaluation - Justification - Where trial court fails to properly evaluate the evidence before it - Appellate court is entitled to evaluate same - Provided it does not involve credibility of witnesses (H5) Ishola v. Falorunso (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 2009; (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1210) 169

COURTS - Appeals - Extension of time to appeal - Application - Crucial questions - The crucial question for the court to consider - Is whether the reason for failure to appeal within time - Could have been true and reasonable - As it will not be accepted if otherwise (H1) ANPP v. Albishir (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 481; (2010) 9 NWLR (Pt.1198) 118

COURTS - Appeals - Finding of facts - Contrary to those by trial court - Propriety - The evidence on the records - Shows that the findings by trial court were perverse - And justifies the contrary findings by Court of Appeal (H6) Sapo v. Sunmonu (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1819; (2010) 11 NWLR (Pt.1205) 374

COURTS - Appeals - Finding of trial court - On election notice - Trial court’s finding on election notice - Was not only perverse - But was not based - On evidence in the record (H5) Osun State INEC v. AC (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3137; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 273

COURTS - Appeals - Findings - Interference - Where trial court failed - To consider and evaluate evidence of parties - Appellate court has right - To evaluate and make necessary findings thereon (H6) Osun State INEC v. AC (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3137; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 273

COURTS - Appeals - Findings of fact - Finding of constructive possession - Propriety - In view of the contrary finding by trial court - Which was not cross-appealed by respondent - Court of Appeal was wrong to have made that finding (H1) Sky Bank Plc. v. Bolanle (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 278) 979

COURTS - Appeals - Findings of fact - Interference - Limits - Appellate court should refrain - From coming to different findings - Unless it can show that those of trial court - Could not flow from evidence before it (H3) Omotayo v. Cooperative Supply Asso. (2010) 7 KLR (pt. 284) 2277; (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1218) 1

COURTS - Appeals - Findings of fact by trial court - Interference on appeal - Principles - It is not ordinarily interfered with - More so where it involves assessment of credibility of witnesses (H2) Teriba v. Adeyemo (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1583; (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1211) 242

COURTS - Appeals - Grounds - Failure to state ground - While stating particulars - Effect - Such failure renders the particulars stated useless - As there must be a ground of appeal - Before particulars will follow (H5) Agala v. Okusin (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1421; (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt.1202) 412

COURTS - Appeals - Grounds - Nature - How determined - Court is required to examine each ground with its particulars - If it reveals a misunderstanding of the law - Or misapplication of law to proven facts - It is a ground of law (H2) B.A.S.F. Nig. Ltd. v. Faith Ent. Ltd. (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 275) 1; (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt.1187) 34805

COURTS - Appeals - Grounds - Text of judgment - Whether sole source - It is not the sole source - As a ground of appeal may also arise - From extrinsic factors like jurisdiction - Or some omission or commission by the court (H2) Akpan v. Bob (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1623; (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt.1223) 421

COURTS - Appeals - Grounds - Whether of law or fact - Where a ground does not question a lower court’s assessment of facts - But rather its wrong application of legal principles - It is not of facts but law (H1) Effiom v. CROSIEC (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1767; (2010) 14 NWLR (Pt.1213) 106

COURTS - Appeals - Grounds - Whether of law or facts - Basis - It is not based on the form of question it raises - But on the substance of the complaint against the lower court - And what appellate court is required to do (H3) First Bank v. T.S.A. Ind. Ltd. (2010) 7 KLR (pt. 285) 2383; (2010) 15 NWLR (Pt.1216) 247

COURTS - Appeals - Grounds of appeal - Competence - Effect of particulars - Where particulars in support of a ground - Are not related to the ground - Such ground is incompetent (H3) Federal Housing Authority v. Kalejaiye (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2911; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 147

COURTS - Appeals - Issue of illegality - Failure of court of Appeal to pronounce on - Propriety - The court was right not to have pronounced thereon - As it would have amounted to deciding a substantive matter - At the interlocutory stage (H7) Agip (Nig) Ltd. v. Agip Petroli Int’l (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 275) 1; (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt.1187) 348

COURTS - Appeals - Issue on Exhibit D1 - Whether raised suo motu - Where an exhibit was in evidence before trial court - And an appellate court made its findings from its contents - It cannot be said it raised the issue suo motu (H1) Oshe v. Okin Biscuits Ltd. (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 279) 1137; (2010) 11 NWLR (Pt.1206) 482

COURTS - Appeals - Issue on substitution of candidate - Whether canvassed at trial - Contrary to contention of appellant herein - The issue was canvassed and decided on at trial (H8) Akpan v. Bob (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1623; (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt.1223) 421

COURTS - Appeals - Issues - Exhibit 2 as contract under seal - Whether raised suo motu - Appellant is wrong to say that Court of Appeal raised that issue suo motu - For the record shows that it was respondent who raised it (H3) Chabasaya v. Anwasi (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1745; (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt.1201) 163

COURTS - Appeals - Issues - Fresh issue of jurisdiction - Raised for the first time - Propriety - Though such issue can be raised at any stage - Being a point of law - It requires prior leave of court to be so raised (H1) Sapo v. Sunmonu (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1819; (2010) 11 NWLR (Pt.1205) 374

COURTS - Appeals - Issues - Freshness of - Issues from Court of Appeal decision - Predicated on s. 15 of Court of Appeal Act - As the exercise of its powers under section 15 - Makes that court a court of first instance - Such issues cannot be fresh (H1) Ezeigwe v. Nwawulu (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 535; (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt.1183) 159

COURTS - Appeals - Issues - Compression of issues - Liberty of courts - A court is at liberty to compress issues presented by parties - Or even reformulate issues for the determination of the appeal (H6) Ishola v. Falorunso (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 2009; (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1210) 169

COURTS - Appeals - Issues - Issue of mandamus - Whether raised suo motu - Contrary to allegation of appellants - It was at the front burner - During the proceedings at High Court - As well as before Court of Appeal (H1) Amasike v. Reg. Gen. CAC (2010) 7 KLR (pt. 284) 2131; (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1211) 337

COURTS - Appeals - Issues - Issues - Power of registrar to extend time - Propriety of issue - In view of Court of Appeal’s ruling restoring the appeal - And extending the time by implication - This issue does not arise for determination herein (H4) Ukiri v. Geco-Prakla (Nig.) Ltd. (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 285) 2383; (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1220) 544

COURTS - Appeals - Issues - Leave - Question of repugnancy - Competence - Being a fresh issue raised on appeal - Without seeking and obtaining prior leave of court - The issue is incompetent (H5) Ojiogu v. Ojiogu (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 279) 1113; (2010) 9 NWLR (Pt.1198) 1

COURTS - Appeals - Issues - Proliferation - Attitude of court - While counsel is permitted to formulate one issue out of one or more grounds of appeal - He cannot formulate more than one issue out of one ground of appeal (H1) Okonobor v. Edegbe & Sons Ltd. (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 725; (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt.1221) 181

COURTS - Appeals - Issues - Rule against fresh issues - Limit - Where the alleged fresh issue - Arises from specific findings of the court appealed from - It is not a fresh issue for which prior leave is required (H3) Adekeye v. Adesina (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2801; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 449

COURTS - Appeals - Issues - Validity - Issue on substitution of candidate - Validity at lower court - It was valid as it was raised - Upon appropriate leave having been sought and obtained - By 5th respondent (H9) Akpan v. Bob (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1623; (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt.1223) 421

COURTS - Appeals - Issues raised - Duty of court to consider - Courts must consider all issues before it - Except the Supreme Court - Which can resolve an appeal - Based only on issues it deems fit (H4) Samba Ltd. UBA Plc. (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 288) 3289; (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt.1221) 192

COURTS - Appeals - Issues raised - Failure to relate to grounds - Whether fatal - Where briefs are properly filed and issues raised are not incompetent - The court will overlook such failure - In the process of doing substantial justice (H1) JSF Invest. Ltd v. Brawal Line Ltd (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 286) 2611; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 495

COURTS - Appeals - Leave - Court’s discretion - Appeal against - Leave is required to bring such an appeal - Else it is incompetent and liable to be struck out - As it cannot be brought as of right (H2) Oyegun v. Nzeribe (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 2097

COURTS - Appeals - Leave to amend processes - S. 16 of Court of Appeal Act - Limitation by Supreme Court - Basis - Based on the hierarchy of courts - And the doctrine of judicial precedent - Supreme Court may limit application of the section (H3) Ogunsola v. NICON (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 2083; (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1211) 225

COURTS - Appeals - Notice - Filed prior to ruling but same date - Propriety - Appellate courts do not oppose such step - What they frown at - Is delay in filing of appeal (H1) First Bank v. T.S.A. Ind. Ltd. (2010) 7 KLR (pt. 285) 2383; (2010) 15 NWLR (Pt.1216) 247

COURTS - Appeals - Practice & Procedure - Cross-appeal by successful party - Propriety - Such cross-appeal serves no useful purpose - Appellate court may therefore ignore it (H5) Ukiri v. Geco-Prakla (Nig.) Ltd. (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 285) 2383; (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1220) 544

COURTS - Appeals - Quantum - Interference by appellate court - Principles - It will only interfere where trial court acted on wrong principle of law - Or the amount awarded is ridiculously too high or too low (H1) Oduwole v. David West (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1795; (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt.1203) 598

COURTS - Appeals - Records of proceedings - Binding effect - It is settled law that the contents of such records - Are binding on both the court and the parties (H2) Sapo v. Sunmonu (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1819; (2010) 11 NWLR (Pt.1205) 374

COURTS - Appeals - Rehearing - Propriety - Court of Appeal rightly exercised its power of rehearing - And rightly granted reliefs 2-5 dismissed by the trial court (H9) Osun State INEC v. AC (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3137; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 273

COURTS - Appeals - Retrial order - Propriety - Where a mistrial happens - Not being such as to render a trial a nullity - And warrant the discharge of respondent - Retrial order is proper (H3) FRN v. Akubueze (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 1993; (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt.1223) 525

COURTS - Appeals - Time - Failure to appeal within time - Plaintiff’s reasons - Veracity - Contrary to the assertions by 1st respondent - It is clear that he deliberately withdrew his initial appeal - In order to pursue his suit at Kaduna (H2) ANPP v. Albishir (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 481; (2010) 9 NWLR (Pt.1198) 118

COURTS - Appeals - Withdrawal - After exchange of briefs - Effect - After briefs have been exchanged - Whereby issues are crystallized - A withdrawal at that point must lead to dismissal - As an inflexible rule (H1) Young Motors Ltd. v. Okonkwo (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 279) 1191; (2010) 15 NWLR (Pt.1217) 524

COURTS - Application for demurrer - Reliance on exhibits - Propriety of - Where the exhibits have already been pleaded by plaintiff - Before being exhibited by defendants - It is proper for court to rely thereon (H2) JSF Invest. Ltd v. Brawal Line Ltd (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 286) 2611; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 495

COURTS - Attempted armed robbery - Conviction - Based on confession - Sustainability - Where a confessional statement is satisfactorily proved - Conviction founded on it without more - Is sustainable (H6) Shurumo v. State (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 3021; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 73

COURTS - Chieftaincy - Evidence - Findings of fact - Basis - Though estoppel was pleaded and testified to - It was not against the whole lineage of 1st respondent - So there was no basis for court of Appeal to have so held (H6) Adekeye v. Adesina (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2801; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 449

COURTS - Commercial law - Judgment sum - Award in foreign currency - Propriety - Our courts have jurisdiction - To give judgment in foreign currency - On the strength of the Miliangos case - Which overruled the Havana case (H7) GMBH v. Tunji Ind. Ltd. (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1485; (2010) 11 NWLR (Pt.1206) 589

COURTS - Conditions of appeal - Noncompliance - Whether proved - The records show no evidence of noncompliance - Rather they show evidence of compliance - Via certificate of fulfillment issued by Court of Appeal registrar (H2) Ukiri v. Geco-Prakla (Nig.) Ltd. (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 285) 2383; (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1220) 544

COURTS - Conflict of laws - Trade Disputes (Amendment) Decree - By conferring exclusive jurisdiction - On National Industrial Court - It detracts from the powers of the State High Court under s. 272 of the Constitution - And as such is null and void (H5) NUEE v. Bureau of Pub. Enter. (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 691; (2010) 7 NWLR (Pt.1194) 538

COURTS - Contempt charges - Invocation - Rationale - It is the need to vindicate the dignity of the court as an institution - Not to bolster the power or ego of the judge as an individual (H1) FRN v. Akubueze (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 1993; (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt.1223) 525

COURTS - Court of Appeal Rules - Dismissal under O. 3 r. 20(1) - Effect - Though the operative word in that provision is “dismissal”- It is without prejudice - To the right of a party to apply for re-listing under O. 3 r. 20(4) (H2) Oyegun v. Nzeribe (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 419

COURTS - Court processes - Service - Complaint against - Propriety - Such complaint against non or improper service - Can only be properly raised - By the party affected thereby (H3) Ohakim v. Agbaso (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 286) 2513; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 172

COURTS - Court processes - Writ of summons - Service outside jurisdiction - Procedure - Prior leave of court must be sought and obtained - Before issuance of any writ meant to be served outside jurisdiction (H2) Agip (Nig) Ltd. v. Agip Petroli Inter. (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 275) 1; (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt.1187) 348

COURTS - Crime - Initiation of trials - Irregularity - When to complain - Where there is irregularity in initiating criminal trial - Defence has a duty to object timeously - And not when the trial is concluded (H2) Attah v. State (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 279) 1039; (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt.1201) 190

COURTS - Criminal procedure - Alibi - Failure to investigate - Effect - Where the defence is properly raised - But the police fails to investigate it - It may warrant an invocation of s. 149 (d) of Evidence Act - Against the prosecution (H3) Shehu v. State (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 279) 1167; (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1195) 112

COURTS - Criminal procedure - Alibi - Disproof of - Where there is vital identification evidence of the accused - By prosecution witness - Believed by the court - It destroys the defence of alibi raised (H2) Afolalu v. The State (2010) 7 KLR (pt. 284) 2109; (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1220) 584

COURTS - Criminal procedure - Burden of proof - Discharge - It is discharged if on the entire evidence adduced - The court is left with no doubt - That the accused committed the offence (H1) Afolalu v. The State (2010) 7 KLR (pt. 284) 2109; (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1220) 584

COURTS - Criminal procedure - Prosecution witnesses - Discrepancies in evidence - Effect - It is not every such discrepancy that is fatal to prosecution’s case - It is only such as are crucial to the main issues in question (H3) Attah v. State (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 279) 1039; (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt.1201) 190

COURTS - Criminal procedure - Testimony of witnesses - Presumption of consistency - Where an accused person fails to contradict a witness’s testimony - Though he had opportunity to do so - The testimony is presumed to be consistent (H2) Sunday v. Oformata (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 286) 2583

COURTS - Criminal procedure - Venue of trial - How determined - It is by identifying offences charged and the elements thereof - With a view to ascertaining whether any element occurred - Where accused is being tried (H3) Nyame v. FRN (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 280) 1269; (2010) 7 NWLR (Pt.1193) 344

COURTS - Damages - Award by trial court - Interference on appeal - Basis - Appellate court will not interfere - Unless trial court acted under wrong principles of law - Or in misapprehension of facts - Or considered irrelevant matters (H4) Oyeneyin v. Akinkugbe (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 439; (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt.1184) 265

COURTS - Damages - Quantum - Attitude of appellate courts - An appellate court will not interfere with it - Unless trial judge acted upon wrong principle of law - Or the amount was extremely high or low (H2) Adim v. Nig. Botling Co. Ltd. (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1401; (2010) 9 NWLR (Pt.1200) 543

COURTS - Damages - Quantum - Reduction from 30% claimed to 15% - Propriety - Trial judge acted properly - For where plaintiff claims more than he can prove - He is awarded a lesser sum (H6) Kayode Vent. Ltd. v. Min. of FCT (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 611; (2010) 7 NWLR (Pt.1192) 171

COURTS - Decisions - lack of jurisdiction - Effect - Where a court lacks competence to try a person - Whatever decision it arrives at on such person - Is a nullity (H7) Nig. Army v. Aminun-Kano (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 287; (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt.1188) 429

COURTS - Duties - Pending applications - Determination - Courts have a duty to consider and determine all pending applications - Before determining an action or appeal in its finality (H3) Dingyadi v. INEC (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 1877

COURTS - Election matters - Common law remedies - Applicability - Election matters being statutory - Common law orders of certiorari etc. - Are not applicable thereto (H9) Ohakim v. Agbaso (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 286) 2513; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 172

COURTS - Elections - Jurisdiction - Basis of - The Constitution confers exclusive jurisdiction - In concluded elections as in this case on tribunals - And pre-election matters on High Courts (H6) Olofu v. Itodo (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3101; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 545

COURTS - Elections - Nomination - Issue before trial court - Whether merely on nomination - In view of the questions on which the court made pronouncements - The issue thereat transcends nomination - To issue of substitution (H10) Akpan v. Bob (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1623; (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt.1223) 421

COURTS - Erroneous finding - That both parties called evidence - Effect - Even if the finding was in error - It did not occasion miscarriage of justice (H4) Akomolafe v. Guardian Press Ltd. (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 275) 63; (2010) 3 NWLR (Pt.1181) 338

COURTS - Error - Orders made contrary to findings - Correction on appeal - Court of Appeal gave order in favour of cross-appellants - Who had lost on the issue - The order having been made by omission - Supreme Court is in a position to rectify it (H5) Oyeneyin v. Akinkugbe (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 439; (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt.1184) 265

COURTS - Evidence - “Prima facie” - Meaning - It means the nature of evidence which if accepted - Is sufficient to establish a fact - Unless rebutted (H5) GMBH v. Tunji Ind. Ltd. (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1485; (2010) 11 NWLR (Pt.1206) 589

COURTS - Evidence - Admissibility - Exhibit F - Challenge to - Propriety - As appellants failed to challenge - The application for leave to file same at trial court - They cannot challenge the exhibit on appeal without leave (H2) Obineche v. Akusobi (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 2057; (2010) 12 NWLR (Pt.1208) 383

COURTS - Evidence - Chieftaincy - Principle of rotation - Within Elemo Ruling House - Need for proof - Though Exhibit G2 recognized rotation - It was not within the constituting units of a ruling house - Such therefore needed to be pleaded and proved aliunde - But was not (H8) Adekeye v. Adesina (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2801; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 449

COURTS - Evidence - Criminal procedure - Contradictions alleged - Whether proved - There is no material contradiction in the evidence of prosecution - Such as to create doubts in its case (H5) Sunday v. Oformata (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 286) 2583

COURTS - Evidence - Evaluation - Duty of - Trial court enjoys the singular benefit - Of evaluating evidence - And appellate court can not interfere with findings - Except where same do not march with evidence or record (H1) Okonkwo v. Okonkwo (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 288) 3269; (2010) 14 NWLR (Pt.1213) 228

COURTS - Evidence - Evaluation - Duty on trial court - Whether discharged - Trial court has ably performed its duty of evaluation - And has properly ascribed probative value to the evidence led (H3) Sunday v. Oformata (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 286) 2583

COURTS - Evidence - Evaluation - Exhibit G - Discrepancies in statement of claim - Effect - They are irrelevant to the force of Exhibit G - As account stated - Since defendant did not join issue with plaintiff on them (H1) GMBH v. Tunji Ind. Ltd. (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1485; (2010) 11 NWLR (Pt.1206) 589

COURTS - Evidence - Evaluation - Reevaluation on appeal - Basis - It is only when the trial court fails to comply with the requirements of evaluation - That the appeal court could interfere - Which was not the case herein (H4) Kayode Vent. Ltd. v. Min. of FCT (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 611; (2010) 7 NWLR (Pt.1192) 171

COURTS - Evidence - Evaluation - Reliance on s. 129 of Evidence Act - Effect on judgment of trial court - Notwithstanding the reliance - Trial court still made correct findings of fact - Based on evidence of P. W. 4 and P.W. 5 (H2) Victino Ltd. v. Ojo (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 278) 1007; (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1197) 486

COURTS - Evidence - Exhibits P1 to 3 - Effect - All the documents tendered operated against the interest of appellants - In favour of respondents - Trial court was therefore right to prefer respondents’ evidence (H3) Nwokidu v. Okanu (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 323; (2010) 3 NWLR (Pt.1181) 362

COURTS - Evidence - Proof - Piece of evidence - Probative value - Once it is relevant and not successfully challenged - It has probative value - And ought to influence the judge - In the determination of the case (H1) Chabasaya v. Anwasi (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1745; (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt.1201) 163

COURTS - Evidence - Records - Evaluation of - Propriety - Where trial court properly evaluated evidence - On record as in this case - Appellate court need not interfere with concurrent findings (H2) Okonkwo v. Okonkwo (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 288) 3269; (2010) 14 NWLR (Pt.1213) 228

COURTS - Evidence - S. 149 (d) of Evidence Act - When to invoke - It is to be invoked not for failure to call a particular witness - But for failure to furnish a particular evidence (H4) Moses Jua v. State (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 577; (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt.1184) 217

COURTS - Evidence - Uncontradicted - Where such evidence is irrelevant to the claim - It will have no consequence on the judgment (H4) Agala v. Okusin (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1421; (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt.1202) 412

COURTS - Evidence - Weight - Evidence of PW1 - Whether conclusive - Trial judge reduced the efficacy of the weight of the evidence - When he stated that it should only be persuasive - Though unchallenged (H5) Kayode Vent. Ltd. v. Min. of FCT (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 611; (2010) 7 NWLR (Pt.1192) 171

COURTS - Exercise of discretion - Attitude of appellate court - It will not interfere with it - Once it is exercised judicially and judiciously - As a previous decision cannot be an authority for another in such matter (H3) Oyegun v. Nzeribe (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 2097

COURTS - Exercise of discretion - Factual basis - It is only upon known or undisputed facts that a court may exercise its discretion - Any exercise of discretion in absence of relevant facts - Cannot be regarded as judicially and judiciously done (H2) Union Bank v. Astra Builders Ltd. (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 769; (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt.1186) 1

COURTS - Exercise of discretion - Purport - It is an act based on ones personal judgment - In accordance with ones conscience - Free and unfettered by any external influence or suggestions (H1) Union Bank v. Astra Builders Ltd. (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 769; (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt.1186) 1

COURTS - Fair hearing - Breach - Correctness of decision - Effect - Once the right to fair hearing is violated - It is irrelevant whether the decision subsequently reached is correct (H1) Yesufu v. Adama (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 278) 1021; (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt.1188) 522

COURTS - Fair hearing - Breach - Effect on proceedings - It renders the entire proceedings null and void - Necessitating a consequential order of retrial (H2) Pan Africa Int. v. Shoreline Ltd. (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 279) 1153; (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt.1189) 98

COURTS - Fair hearing - Ingredients - It must include giving to a party or his counsel - Opportunity to present his case - In an atmosphere free from fear and intimidation (H2) FRN v. Akubueze (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 1993; (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt.1223) 525

COURTS - Fair hearing - Observance - Yardstick for determining - It is not whether any injustice has been occasioned on any party - Due to want of hearing - It is whether an opportunity of hearing was afforded to the parties (H4) Union Bank v. Astra Builders Ltd. (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 769; (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt.1186) 1

COURTS - Federal High Court - Declaratory relief - Granted on affidavit evidence - Propriety - It may be properly so granted - In view of the provisions of O. 46 of the Federal High Court Rules (H5) CBN v. Amao (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1715; (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1219) 271

COURTS - Federal High Court - Exclusive jurisdiction of - Subject matter of action - This court’s jurisdiction is not automatic in all matters - In which Federal Government is a party - Subject matter of action must also be recognized by s. 251 of the Constitution (H6) NUEE v. Bureau of Pub. Enter. (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 691; (2010) 7 NWLR (Pt.1194) 538

COURTS - Federal High Court - Rules of Court - Objection to noncompliance - When to raise - It has to be done within a reasonable time - After objector became aware of the noncompliance (H3) CBN v. Amao (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1715; (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1219) 271

COURTS - Federal High Court Rules - Noncompliance with form of instituting proceedings - Court has option vide O. 2 r .1 (1) - Of treating same as an irregularity - Which will not nullify the proceedings (H2) CBN v. Amao (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1715; (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1219) 271

COURTS - Findings - Application for certiorari - Finding of abandonment - Propriety - The fact that appellants took no steps to have the application heard is glaringly clear - So the finding merely stated the obvious (H1) Idris v. COP (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 280) 1211; (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1210) 153

COURTS - General damages - Quantum - Propriety - Having awarded all properly pleaded and proved special damages - It amounts to double compensation - To award N200,000.00 as general damages (H3) Adim v. Nig. Botling Co. Ltd. (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1401; (2010) 9 NWLR (Pt.1200) 543

COURTS - High Courts - Supervisory jurisdiction - Limits - It covers the civil and criminal proceedings - But is not stretched to cover election petitions or appeals (H1) Egharevba v. Eribo (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 278) 877; (2010) 9 NWLR (Pt.1199) 411

COURTS - Interlocutory applications - Refusal to hear pending motion - Effect - It amounts to a breach of fair hearing - Nullifies subsequent proceedings - And entitles injured party to have same set aside (H4) Dingyadi v. INEC (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 1877

COURTS - Issues - Suo motu resolution - Rule against - Limits - The rule that a court ought not to raise and resolve an issue - Without hearing the parties - Applies mainly to issues of fact (H5) Effiom v. CROSIEC (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1767; (2010) 14 NWLR (Pt.1213) 106

COURTS - Issues - Competence - Where an issue is neither raised before a court - Nor canvassed before it - Any comment it may make on such issue is an obiter dictum (H3) Nwadiogbu v. Anambra/Imo River Basin Dev. (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 286) 2661; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 364

COURTS - Issues - Nature - Need to be substantial - An issue ought to be such that its resolution by the court - Will determine the matter in controversy one way or the other (H1) CBN v. Amao (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1715; (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1219) 271

COURTS - Issues - Raising and resolution suo motu - Propriety - Its wrong for a court to raise an issue suo motu - And resolve a case on that basis - Without inviting the parties to address it on the issue (H1) Leaders Co. Ltd. v. Bamaiyi (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 286) 2647; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 329

COURTS - Judgment - Challenge - By persons interested - Option - They should apply to trial court for leave - To appeal against the judgment - As a person having interest in the matter (H3) Bello v. INEC (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 278) 827; (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1196) 342

COURTS - Judgments - Action for damages - Failure to make monetary award - Whether fatal - Such failure is at most an irregularity which could be cured - As it did not occasion a miscarriage of justice (H4) Baliol Nig. Ltd. v. Navcon Nig. Ltd. (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1703; (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1220) 619

COURTS - Judgments - Appeals - Issues - Raising two issues - On cross appeal - Failure to determine one of the issues raised - Will affect competence of counter claim (H2) Samba Ltd. UBA Plc. (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 288) 3289; (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt.1221) 192

COURTS - Judgments - Appeals - Special damages - Claim for loss of profit - Refusal by Court of Appeal - Propriety - Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the claim - After it had held that the claim was particularised and proved (H1) Alade v. Alic (Nig) Ltd. (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2843; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 111

COURTS - Judgments - Based on suo motu issues - Effect - It does not necessarily lead to a reversal of the decision - Unless it is shown that miscarriage of justice was occasioned thereby (H4) Effiom v. CROSIEC (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1767; (2010) 14 NWLR (Pt.1213) 106

COURTS - Judgments - Basis - Controversion - The basis of trial court’s judgment for respondents - Was its finding that the land in dispute adjoins that in PHC/36/72 - Which finding is crucial and unassailable (H1) Ibuluya v. Dikibo (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1519; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 627

COURTS - Judgments - Basis - Exhibit C - Treatment by Court of Appeal - Contrary to appellant’s contention - Court of Appeal never held that trial court did not rely on the exhibit - But that its judgment would still be valid - In the absence of the exhibit (H4) Salisu v. Odumade (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 747; (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt.1190) 228

COURTS - Judgments - Basis - Extraneous matters - Whether relied on - The court merely regarded certain naked facts - The existence of which none of the parties could deny - And neither party was prejudiced by the step (H9) Ishola v. Falorunso (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 2009; (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1210) 169

COURTS - Judgments - Complaints - Failure to consider some - Effect - It is inconsequential - For as long as the judge considered the most vital aspects of the application - There was no infringement of fair hearing (H2) Nasir v. Civil Serv. Com. Kano (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 651; (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt.1190) 253

COURTS - Judgments - Evidence - Analysis - Liberty of judges - Unless there are oral or documentary materials before the court - Worth the while of a judge to consider extensively - He may not be obliged to make such detailed analysis (H1) Nasir v. Civil Serv. Com. Kano (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 651; (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt.1190) 253

COURTS - Judgments - Forms - S. 269(1) of C.P.C. of Kano State - Compliance with - The judgments of trial court is in full compliance - With the provisions of the section - Contrary to submission of appellant’s counsel (H4) Attah v. State (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 279) 1039; (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt.1201) 190

COURTS - Judgments - Missing word - Held to be “fair” - Correctness - In view of the recorded findings by the trial judge - Court of Appeal was right - To have held that the missing word was “fair” (H5) Akomolafe v. Guardian Press Ltd. (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 275) 63; (2010) 3 NWLR (Pt.1181) 338

COURTS - Judgments - Mistakes - Effect on appeal - It does not result in reversal - Unless it is fatal - In the sense that it occasioned substantial miscarriage of justice (H3) Amasike v. Reg. Gen. CAC (2010) 7 KLR (pt. 284) 2131; (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1211) 337

COURTS - Judgments - Mistakes - Mistaken statements - How ascertained - A statement should not be read in isolation - But should be read along with paragraphs before and after it - To ascertain if it is a mistake (H3) Ibuluya v. Dikibo (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1519; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 627

COURTS - Judgments - Setting aside - On ground of error - Propriety - An error that could result in setting aside - Must be substantial - So as to affect the justice of the case (H1) Ohakim v. Agbaso (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 286) 2513; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 172

COURTS - Judgments - Use of words - Liberty of judges - Extent - They are at liberty to use any words they like - Provided they do not go outside the issue before them (H5) Amasike v. Reg. Gen. CAC (2010) 7 KLR (pt. 284) 2131; (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1211) 337

COURTS - Judicial bias - Allegation - Proof - Such allegation must be proved on some extra judicial factors - Else it is insufficient to disqualify a judge - From adjudicating a case properly before him (H1) Womiloju v. Anibire (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1605; (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt.1203) 545

COURTS - Judicial bias - Proof - Judge as former counsel of a party - Effect - It is not enough to disqualify him - Unless it is shown that his former role as counsel - Could pervert the course of justice (H2) Womiloju v. Anibire (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1605; (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt.1203) 545

COURTS - Judicial notice - Customs relied on - Proof - Need for - It is important that custom should be strictly proved - Unless the particular custom is such - That court should take judicial notice of (H1) Orlu v. Gogo-Abite (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 391; (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1196) 307

COURTS - Judicial precedents - Conflicting decisions of superior court - No discernible ratio - Option of lower courts - In such a case the lower court is free to choose between the decisions - Which appears to it correct (H3) Osakue v. Fed. Col. of Edu. Asaba (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 278) 953; (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt.1201) 1

COURTS - Judicial precedents - Conflicting judgments - Of Supreme Court - Option of lower courts - Where there are conflicting Supreme Court authorities - Lower courts are bound by the latter decision (H1) Osakue v. Fed. Col. of Edu. Asaba (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 278) 953; (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt.1201) 1

COURTS - Judicial precedents - Stare decisis - Decisions per incuriam - Binding nature - Lower court cannot refuse to be bound by decisions of higher courts - Even if such decisions are reached per incuriam (H4) Osakue v. Fed. Col. of Edu. Asaba (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 278) 953; (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt.1201) 1

COURTS - Jurisdiction - Federal High Court - S. 251(1)(r) of 1999 Constitution - Scope - Though it appears to give the court exclusive jurisdiction - Once Federal Government is a party - But facts and circumstances - Are the determinant factors (H2) Adatayo v. Ademola (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1375; (2010) 15 NWLR (Pt.1215) 169

COURTS - Jurisdiction - Absence of - Effect on appellate court - Where trial court has no jurisdiction to hear a matter - As in this case - Court of Appeal will be without jurisdiction (H8) Olofu v. Itodo (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3101; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 545

COURTS - Jurisdiction - Claims - As basis - The jurisdiction of a court to adjudicate on a matter - Is predicated upon the facts placed before it - Especially the phraseology of the plaintiff’s claim (H3) Egharevba v. Eribo (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 278) 877; (2010) 9 NWLR (Pt.1199) 411

COURTS - Jurisdiction - Derivative actions - Defect in commencement - Effect - Such defect nullifies the entire proceedings - Commencement by originating summons is condition precedent - To exercise of jurisdiction by court (H5) Agip (Nig) Ltd. v. Agip Petroli Int’l (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 275) 1; (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt.1187) 348

COURTS - Jurisdiction - Determination - Basis - It is to be determined on plaintiff’s statement of claim - Without any recourse to defendant’s statement of defence (H1) Adatayo v. Ademola (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1375; (2010) 15 NWLR (Pt.1215) 169

COURTS - Jurisdiction - Elections - Matters relating to - By S. 285 (2) of the 1999 Constitution - Such matters are within the exclusive jurisdiction of Election Tribunals (H8) Ohakim v. Agbaso (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 286) 2513; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 172

COURTS - Jurisdiction - F.C.T. High court - Crime - S. 257 of the Constitution - Scope - It confers jurisdiction on the court - To hear and determine criminal proceedings - At first instance and in appellate or supervisory capacity (H4) Nyame v. FRN (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 280) 1269; (2010) 7 NWLR (Pt.1193) 344

COURTS - Jurisdiction - F.C.T. High Court - Crime - Some of the elements of offences charged - Must occur in Abuja - Before the F.C.T. High court can assume jurisdiction (H2) Nyame v. FRN (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 280) 1269; (2010) 7 NWLR (Pt.1193) 344

COURTS - Jurisdiction - Federal High Court - Companies - Limit - Where the dispute is not on matters concerning the law - Regulating the operations of CAMA - It falls outside the exclusive jurisdiction of the court (H1) Godwin v. Okwey (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 285) 2299; (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1219) 309

COURTS - Jurisdiction - Federal High Court - Effect of s. 230(1) of 1979 Constitution - Paragraphs (p) to (s) conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the court - In certain matters notwithstanding the nature of the claim (H2) Osakue v. Fed. Col. of Edu. Asaba (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 278) 953; (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt.1201) 1

COURTS - Jurisdiction - Federal High Court - S. 251(1)(r) of 1999 Constitution - Activation - It is activated only where the executive action of the Federal Government - Is being challenged by plaintiff (H3) Adatayo v. Ademola (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1375; (2010) 15 NWLR (Pt.1215) 169

COURTS - Jurisdiction - Hearing - Noncompliance with O. 37 r. 5(4) of High Court Rules of Anambra State - Such noncompliance erodes the court’s jurisdiction - It is not an irregularity that can be waived or cured (H2) Onyemaizu v. Ojiako (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 371; (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt.1185) 504

COURTS - Jurisdiction - How activated - Failure of political party to comply with Electoral law - Confers jurisdiction on court - To protect rights of candidates - As to ensure order in the society (H5) Olofu v. Itodo (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3101; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 545

COURTS - Jurisdiction - Joinder of parties - Effect of nonjoinder - It does not affect jurisdiction of the court - Nor even the competence of the suit - As an application may be made during trial to join appropriate persons (H3) Anyawoko v. Okoye (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 275) 87; (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt.1188) 497

COURTS - Jurisdiction - Objection - In the middle of trial - Propriety - Since it concerned jurisdiction - The objection was properly raised - For such objection can be raised at any time before judgment (H3) Nasir v. Civil Serv. Com. Kano (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 651; (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt.1190) 253

COURTS - Jurisdiction - Source & purpose - Being conferred on courts by Constitution - It is fundamental to adjudication - As foundation on which courts exercise judicial powers (H1) Olofu v. Itodo (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3101; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 545

COURTS - Jurisdiction - State High Courts - Curtailment - Conflict of laws - The jurisdiction as conferred by the Constitution - Can only be curtailed by the Constitution itself - Not by an Act or law of the National or State House of Assembly (H3) NUEE v. Bureau of Pub. Enter. (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 691; (2010) 7 NWLR (Pt.1194) 538

COURTS - Land law - Actions - Original jurisdiction - Courts having - State High Courts have exclusive jurisdiction - Over urban lands - And shares jurisdiction with Area and Customary courts - Over rural lands (H4) Adatayo v. Ademola (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1375; (2010) 15 NWLR (Pt.1215) 169

COURTS - Land law - Declaration of title - Identity of land - Whether considered - Contrary to opinion of appellants - Trial court considered the issue - And found that both parties agree as to the land - From the pleadings and evidence led (H1) Nwokidu v. Okanu (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 323; (2010) 3 NWLR (Pt.1181) 362

COURTS - Land law - Evaluation - Traditional history - Credibility and demeanour are relevant but not strong points - Evidence of contemporary events supporting the history - Is more conclusive (H4) Odunukwe v. Ofomata (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 285) 2405; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 404

COURTS - Land law - Evidence - Appeals - Reevaluation - Propriety - Where trial court fails to make a finding - On a material issue of fact as in this case - Appellate court is correct to consider vital evidence adduced - In proof of radical title to land (H1) Olodo v. Josiah (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2971; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 653

COURTS - Land law - Title - Competing traditional evidence - Evaluation - Duty of court - Court has a duty to examine both evidence - To decide which is more probable - By testing each against the other evidence (H2) Nwokidu v. Okanu (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 323; (2010) 3 NWLR (Pt.1181) 362

COURTS - Land matters - Findings of fact - Finding as to service by pasting - Whether perverse - In view of the evidence before the trial court - And believed by it - The finding is not perverse (H1) Okeowo v. A-G Ogun State (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 285) 2367; (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1219) 327

COURTS - Master & servant - Retirement benefits - Claim - Onus of proof - Respondents who pleaded - That appellant was paid retirement benefits - Must prove same - (H2) Ekeagwu v. Nig. Army (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 288) 3251; (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1220) 419

COURTS - National Industrial Court - Status - Whether a Superior Court of Record - Notwithstanding the provisions of Decree No. 47 of 1992 - It remains a subordinate court to the High Court - As the Constitution does not recognize it as a superior court (H4) NUEE v. Bureau of Pub. Enter. (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 691; (2010) 7 NWLR (Pt.1194) 538

COURTS - Negligence - Damages - Basis of award - The general principle is that award of damages - Entirely depends on whether a party has established his case or not (H4) Hamza v. Kure (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 278) 921; (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt.1203) 630

COURTS - Orders - Words & Phrases - “Striking out”- Instances - Where an order of “dismissal” is made - Following a hearing not based on merit - It is in law a mere striking out - With an option to relist (H3) Panalpina Trans. Ltd. v. Olandeen Int’l (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2999; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 1

COURTS - Orders of court - Efficacy - Suo motu order - For service outside jurisdiction - As appellant never applied for such leave - That order in the circumstance - Does not amount to leave being granted (H3) Agip (Nig) Ltd. v. Agip Petroli Int’l (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 275) 1; (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt.1187) 348

COURTS - Orders of court - Order pending an event - Lapse of - Once the event has taken place - Such order lapses - It requires no order subsequent to the event - To set it aside (H5) Dingyadi v. INEC (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 1877

COURTS - Orders of court - Refusal to set aside - Trial court’s decision - Propriety - Court of Appeal acted properly - In view of its finding that trial court properly exercised its discretion - In the circumstance of the case (H3) Union Bank v. Astra Builders Ltd. (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 769; (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt.1186) 1

COURTS - Originating summons - Not signed as required by the Rules - Effects - Such noncompliance amounts to mere irregularity - It has nothing to do with the jurisdiction of the court (H1) Anyawoko v. Okoye (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 275) 87; (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt.1188) 497

COURTS - Pleadings - Averment - Not supported by evidence - Fate of - Such averment is deemed abandoned - And must be struck out by the court (H2) Kayode Vent. Ltd. v. Min. of FCT (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 611; (2010) 7 NWLR (Pt.1192) 171

COURTS - Pleadings - Binding nature of - A court is not permitted to go outside the pleadings and issues joined - But trial court did so in his determination of the case - When it held that exhibit 2 was a contract under seal (H4) Chabasaya v. Anwasi (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1745; (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt.1201) 163

COURTS - Pleadings - Binding nature of - Effect - Parties and the court are bound by pleadings filed in a matter - As such any evidence on facts not pleaded goes to no issue (H5) Adekeye v. Adesina (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2801; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 449

COURTS - Powers - Contract - Enforceability - Tenancy law - Penalty clauses - Such clauses are unenforceable - Court cannot salvage obligations created by such clauses - By applying provisions of statutes - As it has no vires to make cases for parties (H6) Oyeneyin v. Akinkugbe (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 439; (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt.1184) 265

COURTS - Processes - Service - Improper service - Effect on proceedings - It nullifies any order made against the party improperly served - As it denies him the opportunity to be heard in the proceedings (H8) First Bank v. T.S.A. Ind. Ltd. (2010) 7 KLR (pt. 285) 2383; (2010) 15 NWLR (Pt.1216) 247

COURTS - Proof - Onus - Whether misdirected - There is no trace of misdirection as to onus - As the findings of facts by trial judge- Were amply supported by evidence on record (H5) Orlu v. Gogo-Abite (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 391; (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1196) 307

COURTS - Proof - Where plaintiff fails to prove his case - Proper verdict - Judgment should be in favour of defendant - As it is plaintiff who failed to prove - That he is entitled to what he claims (H5) Nwokidu v. Okanu (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 323; (2010) 3 NWLR (Pt.1181) 362

COURTS - Records of proceedings - Binding effect - Courts are bound by their records - And must look into them at the time of writing their judgments (H2) Leaders Co. Ltd. v. Bamaiyi (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 286) 2647; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 329

COURTS - Rules of court - Court of Appeal Rules - O. 7 rr. 2 and 5 - Availability to parties - It is meant to aid the vigilant and not the sluggard - As such it must be invoked within reasonable time - To avail a party (H7) First Bank v. T.S.A. Ind. Ltd. (2010) 7 KLR (pt. 285) 2383; (2010) 15 NWLR (Pt.1216) 247

COURTS - Rules of court - Noncompliance - Attitude of courts - It is strict compliance thereto - That makes for quicker administration of justice - Courts shall always refuse to exercise their discretion - When their rules are not obeyed (H1) Oyegun v. Nzeribe (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 419

COURTS - Sentencing - Order sending appellants back to prison - Propriety - As the appeal was a complaint - Against their conviction and sentence - An order striking out the appeal necessitates an order sending them back to prison (H2) Idris v. COP (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 280) 1211; (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1210) 153

COURTS - Statutes - Interpretation - Principles - No court ought to be seen to defeat - The clear intendment of an enactment - By its interpretation of its provisions (H2) NSITF MGT. BOARD v. Klifco Nig. Ltd. (2010) 7 KLR (pt. 284) 2255; (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1211) 307

COURTS - Statutes - Interpretation - Fundamental principle - Literal interpretation should always be employed - Except when it is impossible - As the intention of a statute must be gathered - From the plain expression used therein (H3) Oyegun v. Nzeribe (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 419

COURTS - Statutes - Rules of construction - Several statutes - On same subject - Such statutes are construed together - So that the intention of the legislature is discovered - From the whole set of enactments (H4) Nig. Army v. Aminun-Kano (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 287; (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt.1188) 429

COURTS - Statutory duty - To consider all issues raised - Failure to do same - Will lead to denial of fair hearing - Capable of nullifying the proceedings (H5) Samba Ltd. UBA Plc. (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 288) 3289; (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt.1221) 192

COURTS - Submissions - Rulings on - Failure to rule on - Effect - Though every submission should be ruled upon - Failure to so rule will not affect judgment - If such a ruling will not have made a difference to the outcome of the case (H6) Odunukwe v. Ofomata (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 285) 2405; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 404

COURTS - Supreme Court - S. 22 of Supreme Court Act - Applicability - It can only be invoked where the lower courts had jurisdiction to do a thing - But neglected to do so (H8) Hassan v. Aliyu (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 285) 2311; (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt.1223) 547

COURTS - Tenancy - Quit notice - Refusal - Effect - Where a tenant refuses to quit - A court of law can on action by landlord - Force him out of the premises (H6) Oketade v. Adewunmi (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 288) 3235; (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1195) 63

COURTS - Title - Competing claims by the parties - Where in issue - Plaintiff succeeds on the strength of his case - Which the court is bound to consider first (H3) Tanko v. Echendu (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3205; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1224) 253

COURTS - Title - Finding - That appellants failed to prove title - Basis - Trial court considered all five ways of proving title - Before making the finding - Particularly the acts of long possession by respondents (H4) Nwokidu v. Okanu (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 323; (2010) 3 NWLR (Pt.1181) 362

COURTS - Title - Possession - Leases - Where lower court found that appellant leased the land to tenants - The act amounts to effective possession - And contrary holding is perverse (H9) Tanko v. Echendu (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3205; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1224) 253

COURTS - Trespass - Reliefs - Injunction - Propriety - Once a court has found for continuing trespass - It has jurisdiction to grant the equitable remedy of injunction - Notwithstanding that it was not claimed (H4) Omotayo v. Cooperative Supply Asso. (2010) 7 KLR (pt. 284) 2277; (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1218) 1

COURTS - Trial - Fair hearing - Denial - Cross appellant was not given opportunity - To be heard in the normal course of trial (H3) Samba Ltd. UBA Plc. (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 288) 3289; (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt.1221) 192

COURTS - Undefended list procedure - Affidavits - Purpose of filing - Is for the court to decide whether defendant has any defence - Not that the case may be heard on affidavit evidence (H1) Imoniyame Holdings Ltd. v. Soneb Ent. Ltd. (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 275) 1; (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt.1185) 561

COURTS - Undefended list procedure - Duty of court - Where defence is disclosed - Court is to transfer case to general cause list - And not to enter judgment for defendant (H3) Imoniyame Holdings Ltd. v. Soneb Ent. Ltd. (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 275) 1; (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt.1185) 561

COURTS - Words & phrases - “Functus officio” - Meaning - A court becomes functus officio in a matter - When it fulfills its function in respect thereof - And so lacks the potency to revisit it (H5) First Bank v. T.S.A. Ind. Ltd. (2010) 7 KLR (pt. 285) 2383; (2010) 15 NWLR (Pt.1216) 247

COURTS - Words & phrases - Judgment on the merits - Meaning - It is one obtained where the case has been argued - And the court has decided - Which party is in the right (H4) Oyegun v. Nzeribe (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 419

CRIMINAL LAW - Defences - Accident - Propriety of being raised now - As it was neither raised at trial court - Nor at Court of Appeal - It is a fresh issue before Supreme Court - And may only be properly raised with leave (H2) Edoho v. State (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1453; (2010) 14 NWLR (Pt.1214) 651

CRIMINAL LAW - Defences - Insanity - Conflict - Pleas of insanity and provocation presuppose the doing of the alleged act - Any argument suggesting the contrary - Is irreconcilable and untenable (H1) Edoho v. State (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1453; (2010) 14 NWLR (Pt.1214) 651

CRIMINAL LAW - Defences - Insanity - Onus of proof - An accused person who pleads insanity - Has the onus of proving same - As every man is presumed to be sane - Until the contrary is proved (H5) Edoho v. State (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1453; (2010) 14 NWLR (Pt.1214) 651

CRIMINAL LAW - Judgments - Forms - S. 269(1) of C.P.C. of Kano State - Compliance with - The judgments of trial court is in full compliance - With the provisions of the section - Contrary to submission of appellant’s counsel (H4) Attah v. State (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 279) 1039; (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt.1201) 190

CRIMINAL LAW - Murder - Defences - Insanity vide witchcraft - Whether proved - The account of the incident - Given by appellant - Is more of feigning mental illness - And his evidence of witchcraft has no credence (H6) Edoho v. State (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1453; (2010) 14 NWLR (Pt.1214) 651

CRIMINAL LAW - Murder - Defences - Provocation - Ingredients - For provocation to constitute a defence to an act - There must have been actual and reasonable loss of self-control - During which the act was done - In proportion to the provocation (H4) Edoho v. State (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1453; (2010) 14 NWLR (Pt.1214) 651

CRIMINAL LAW - Murder - Intent to kill - Whether proved - The finding that deceased was shot intentionally - Made by trial court and confirmed by Court of Appeal - Having not been shown to be perverse - Will not be interfered with (H1) Oludamilola v. State (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 278) 939; (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1197) 565

CRIMINAL LAW - Words & phrases - Condonation - Meaning - It is a victim’s express or implied forgiveness of an offence - By treating the offender as if there had been no offence (H1) Nig. Army v. Aminun-Kano (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 287; (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt.1188) 429

CRIMINAL LAW - Words & phrases - Warning - Meaning - It connotes a mild punishment which paves way - Where occasion demands - To the avalanche of full wrath - Where the offence is repeated by the offender (H2) Nig. Army v. Aminun-Kano (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 287; (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt.1188) 429

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Alibi - Disproof of - Where there is vital identification evidence of the accused - By prosecution witness - Believed by the court - It destroys the defence of alibi raised (H2) Afolalu v. The State (2010) 7 KLR (pt. 284) 2109; (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1220) 584

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Alibi - Failure to investigate - Effect - It may cast doubt on the prosecution’s case - But where accused is identified at scene of crime by eye witnesses - His alibi is demolished if the judge believes the witnesses (H2) Olaiya v. State (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 357; (2010) 3 NWLR (Pt.1181) 423

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Alibi - Failure to investigate - Effect - Where the defence is properly raised - But the police fails to investigate it - It may warrant an invocation of s. 149 (d) of Evidence Act - Against the prosecution (H3) Shehu v. State (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 279) 1167; (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1195) 112

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Alibi - Failure to investigate - Effect on prosecution’s case - Notwithstanding such failure to investigate - If prosecution leads positive evidence fixing accused person to scene of crime - The alibi will collapse (H6) Sunday v. Oformata (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 286) 2583

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Alibi - Not investigated - Propriety of conviction - Where there is visual and positive identification of accused - At scene of crime - Believed by trial judge - Conviction is proper (H6) Attah v. State (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 279) 1039; (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt.1201) 190

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Appeals - Confessional statement - Rejection by Court of Appeal - Effect on conviction - Though the court rejected the written statement - It accepted the oral confession by appellant - And this is capable of supporting the conviction (H6) Moses Jua v. State (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 577; (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt.1184) 217

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Attempted armed robbery - Conviction - Based on confession - Sustainability - Where a confessional statement is satisfactorily proved - Conviction founded on it without more - Is sustainable (H6) Shurumo v. State (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 3021; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 73

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Calling of witnesses - Duty on prosecution - The prosecution is duty bound to call such number of witnesses - As is necessary to prove the offences charged (H4) Sunday v. Oformata (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 286) 2583

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Charges - Application to prefer - Propriety of grant - Once prosecutor shows that an offence appears to have been committed - As required by the rules - The court should grant his application (H1) Attah v. State (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 279) 1039; (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt.1201) 190

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Charges - Before FCT - In the name of F.R.N. - Whether defective - Charges can only be initiated in the High Court of F.C.T. - In the name of the Federal Republic of Nigeria - So it is not defective (H6) Nyame v. FRN (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 280) 1269; (2010) 7 NWLR (Pt.1193) 344

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Charges - Contents - Time” - Meaning - Time in section 202 of CPC Law of Kogi State - Refers to the day the offence was committed - Not to the hour of the day (H1) Shehu v. State (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 279) 1167; (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1195) 112

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Charges - Leave to prefer - Application - Sufficiency of materials - Though no proof of evidence was filed and served on appellants - Prosecution did present sufficient materials - To enable the judge exercise his discretion (H1) Sunday v. Oformata (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 286) 2583

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Conviction of appellants - Discharge of 7th accused - Propriety - Appellants and 7th accused did not have a common base for their defence - So the discharge of 7th accused cannot lead to discharge of appellants (H2) Nkebisi v. State (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 671; (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt.1188) 471

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Court martial - Condonation - Effect on subsequent prosecution - Once an offence has been condoned - A subsequent trial for the same offence - Will amount to double jeopardy (H6) Nig. Army v. Aminun-Kano (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 287; (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt.1188) 429

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Defences - Alibi - Manner of raising - Once an accused person discloses his whereabouts - At the material time to the police - Demand for further particulars would amount to requiring him to prove his innocence (H2) Shehu v. State (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 279) 1167; (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1195) 112

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Evidence - Burden of proof - Discharge - It is discharged if on the entire evidence adduced - The court is left with no doubt - That the accused committed the offence (H1) Afolalu v. The State (2010) 7 KLR (pt. 284) 2109; (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1220) 584

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Evidence - Contradictions alleged - Whether proved - There is no material contradiction in the evidence of prosecution - Such as to create doubts in its case (H5) Sunday v. Oformata (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 286) 2583

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Evidence - Cross examination - Objective - The main objective is to destroy the case of the prosecution - And make the court believe that accused did not commit the offence - But cross examination of PW1 failed in this regard (H2) Moses Jua v. State (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 577; (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt.1184) 217

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Evidence - Failure to call native doctor as witness - Effect on prosecution’s case - There was no relevance in calling the native doctor to testify for prosecution - Appellants ought to have called him if they required his testimony (H3) Nkebisi v. State (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 671; (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt.1188) 471

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Evidence - Identification parade - Dispensing with - Where the accused person and the prosecution witness knew themselves - Before the alleged crime - There is no need for an identification parade (H7) Sunday v. Oformata (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 286) 2583

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Evidence - Murder - Conviction - Sufficiency of one witness - The evidence of one witness can lead to conviction if believed - It is immaterial that the witness is related to the deceased (H1) Nkebisi v. State (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 671; (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt.1188) 471

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Evidence - Proof - Effect of suspicion - Suspicion however strong cannot take the place of legal proof - Nor can it found or lead to a conviction (H4) Shehu v. State (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 279) 1167; (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1195) 112

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Identification parade - Relevancy - Where the prosecution witnesses knew the accused person - Before the commission of the crime - Identification parade is unnecessary (H7) Attah v. State (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 279) 1039; (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt.1201) 190

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Initiation of trials - Irregularity - When to complain - Where there is irregularity in initiating criminal trial - Defence has a duty to object timeously - And not when the trial is concluded (H2) Attah v. State (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 279) 1039; (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt.1201) 190

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Jurisdiction - F.C.T. High Court - Crime - Some of the elements of offences charged - Must occur in Abuja - Before the F.C.T. High court can assume jurisdiction (H2) Nyame v. FRN (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 280) 1269; (2010) 7 NWLR (Pt.1193) 344

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Jurisdiction - F.C.T. High court - Crime - S. 257 of the Constitution - Scope - It confers jurisdiction on the court - To hear and determine criminal proceedings - At first instance and in appellate or supervisory capacity (H4) Nyame v. FRN (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 280) 1269; (2010) 7 NWLR (Pt.1193) 344

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Murder - Conviction - Corpus delicti - Effect of failure to produce - It is not the law that conviction cannot be secured - Where corpus delicti is not produced - The important thing is to show necessary nexus between accused and the killing of deceased (H5) Moses Jua v. State (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 577; (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt.1184) 217

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Murder - Proof - Accused last seen with deceased - Effect - While such evidence per se may not be proof of culpability - It can support and corroborate other acts of accused - Resulting in death of deceased (H3) Moses Jua v. State (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 577; (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt.1184) 217

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Murder - Proof of cause of death - Testimony of medical officer - Whether it must be viva voce - It is not mandatory - Production of a certificate signed by him may suffice (H3) Edoho v. State (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1453; (2010) 14 NWLR (Pt.1214) 651

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Murder - Tainted witnesses - P.W.s 2 to 4 - Whether tainted - A witness is tainted where he is an accomplice - Or has some personal purpose to serve by his evidence - None of P.W.s 2 to 4 has been shown as such (H3) Olaiya v. State (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 357; (2010) 3 NWLR (Pt.1181) 423

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Proof - Conspiracy - Whether proved - Since there was a criminal purpose common to appellant and his friends - Who were at the house of P.W.4 on the day of the incident - There is sufficient proof of conspiracy (H3) Shurumo v. State (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 3021; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 73

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Proof - Duty on prosecution - Though prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt - It is not bound to call every person at scene of crime - To testify before the court (H4) Shurumo v. State (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 3021; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 73

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Proof - Overt act to commit robbery - Whether proved - In view of unexplained presence of appellant and his friends - At P.W. 4’s room at night with arms - Overt act to commit robbery was proved (H2) Shurumo v. State (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 3021; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 73

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Proof - Reasonable doubt - Meaning - Reasonable doubt which will justify an acquittal - Is a doubt based on reason - Arising from evidence or lack of it (H1) Moses Jua v. State (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 577; (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt.1184) 217

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Prosecution witnesses - Discrepancies in evidence - Effect - It is not every such discrepancy that is fatal to prosecution’s case - It is only such as are crucial to the main issues in question (H3) Attah v. State (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 279) 1039; (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt.1201) 190

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Prosecution witnesses - Previous statements - Duty of defence to demand - It is the duty of defence to demand them - If he requires them - Else he cannot complain that they were withheld (H5) Attah v. State (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 279) 1039; (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt.1201) 190

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Testimony of witnesses - Presumption of consistency - Where an accused person fails to contradict a witness’s testimony - Though he had opportunity to do so - The testimony is presumed to be consistent (H2) Sunday v. Oformata (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 286) 2583

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Venue of trial - How determined - It is by identifying offences charged and the elements thereof - With a view to ascertaining whether any element occurred - Where accused is being tried (H3) Nyame v. FRN (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 280) 1269; (2010) 7 NWLR (Pt.1193) 344

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Words & phrases - Prima-facie case” - Meaning - It only means that there is ground for proceeding - It is not same as proof - Which comes when the court has to rule - On the guilt of accused (H1) Nyame v. FRN (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 280) 1269; (2010) 7 NWLR (Pt.1193) 344

CROSS EXAMINATION - Elicited facts - Evidence for adverse party - Such facts may be relied on by an adverse party - Provided they were pleaded by the party concerned (H3) Akomolafe v. Guardian Press Ltd. (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 275) 63; (2010) 3 NWLR (Pt.1181) 338

CROSS EXAMINATION - Objective - Crime - The main objective is to destroy the case of the prosecution - And make the court believe that accused did not commit the offence - But cross examination of PW1 failed in this regard (H2) Moses Jua v. State (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 577; (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt.1184) 217

CUSTOMARY LAW - Appeals - Court of Appeal’s decision - Based on repugnancy - Propriety - The decision failed to consider the pleadings and evidence - As the principle of repugnancy was never contested on the pleadings and evidence (H2) Ojiogu v. Ojiogu (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 279) 1113; (2010) 9 NWLR (Pt.1198) 1

CUSTOMARY LAW - Chieftaincy matters - Registered declaration - Effect - Where a declaration in respect of a recognized chieftaincy - Is validly made and registered - It shall be deemed to be the customary law - Regulating the chieftaincy (H7) Adekeye v. Adesina (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2801; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 449

CUSTOMARY LAW - Customs relied on - Proof - Need for - It is important that custom should be strictly proved - Unless the particular custom is such - That court should take judicial notice of (H1) Orlu v. Gogo-Abite (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 391; (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1196) 307

CUSTOMARY LAW - Evidence - Chieftaincy - Principle of rotation - Within Elemo Ruling House - Need for proof - Though Exhibit G2 recognized rotation - It was not within the constituting units of a ruling house - Such therefore needed to be pleaded and proved aliunde - But was not (H8) Adekeye v. Adesina (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2801; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 449

CUSTOMARY LAW - Evidence - Proof - Limit of ownership of waterfront - Whether proved - Appellants who pleaded the custom - Had the onus of proving same by evidence - But failed to discharge the onus (H2) Ibuluya v. Dikibo (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1519; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 627

CUSTOMARY LAW - Family property - Sale - Validity - Sale by member without consent of family head is void - But sale by the head without consent of principal members is only voidable (H3) Teriba v. Adeyemo (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1583; (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1211) 242

CUSTOMARY LAW - Headship of family - Qualification - For purposes of land transaction - The eldest member of a family is by virtue of that fact - Head of the family - Whether or not he is a mogaji (H4) Teriba v. Adeyemo (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1583; (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1211) 242

CUSTOMARY LAW - Land law - Common property - Exclusive ownership - Burden of proof - Where parties agree that the land was common property originally - The onus rests on the party now claiming exclusive ownership to prove same (H3) Olodo v. Josiah (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2971; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 653

CUSTOMARY LAW - Pleadings - Principle of - Custom - Repugnancy rule is not averred in this case - Parties are bound by their pleadings - And evidence contrary to pleadings - Goes to no issue (H1) Ojiogu v. Ojiogu (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 279) 1113; (2010) 9 NWLR (Pt.1198) 1

DAMAGES - Appeals - Quantum - Interference by appellate court - Principles - It will only interfere where trial court acted on wrong principle of law - Or the amount awarded is ridiculously too high or too low (H1) Oduwole v. David West (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1795; (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt.1203) 598

DAMAGES - Award by trial court - Interference on appeal - Basis - Appellate court will not interfere - Unless trial court acted under wrong principles of law - Or in misapprehension of facts - Or considered irrelevant matters (H4) Oyeneyin v. Akinkugbe (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 439; (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt.1184) 265

DAMAGES - Awards - General damages - Quantum - Propriety - Having awarded all properly pleaded and proved special damages - It amounts to double compensation - To award N200,000.00 as general damages (H3) Adim v. Nig. Botling Co. Ltd. (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1401; (2010) 9 NWLR (Pt.1200) 543

DAMAGES - Basis of award - The general principle is that award of damages - Entirely depends on whether a party has established his case or not (H4) Hamza v. Kure (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 278) 921; (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt.1203) 630

DAMAGES - Breach of contracts - Scope of Liability - It is not only the person in actual breach of contract that may be liable for damages - But also the person who masterminded the breach (H3) Alade v. Alic (Nig) Ltd. (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2843; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 111

DAMAGES - Contracts - Breach - Remedies - Propriety - Where breach has been established against a party - The appropriate remedy to which the innocent party is entitled - Is payment of compensation in form of damages (H3) Kayode Vent. Ltd. v. Min. of FCT (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 611; (2010) 7 NWLR (Pt.1192) 171

DAMAGES - Contracts - Liquidated sum - Meaning - It means a fixed or ascertainable amount mutually agreed on by parties to contract - As payable on breach thereof - Which amount must be known prior to breach (H1) Nworah & Sons Ltd v. Akputa (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 278) 897; (2010) 9 NWLR (Pt.1200) 596

DAMAGES - General - Quantum - Propriety - N500,000.00 awarded by Court of Appeal is excessive - As plaintiff has been adequately compensated - By the sum awarded as special damages (H4) Kopek Const. Ltd. v. Ekisola (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 247; (2010) 3 NWLR (Pt.1182) 618

DAMAGES - General and special - Distinction - General damages are natural consequences of the act complained of - But special damages do not follow in the ordinary course (H3) Kopek Const. Ltd. v. Ekisola (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 247; (2010) 3 NWLR (Pt.1182) 618

DAMAGES - General damages - Quantum - Propriety of N20,000.00 - In view of the evidence of hospitalization - Of appellant and his family members - The sum is reasonable (H6) Adim v. Nig. Botling Co. Ltd. (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1401; (2010) 9 NWLR (Pt.1200) 543

DAMAGES - Judgments - Action for damages - Failure to make monetary award - Whether fatal - Such failure is at most an irregularity which could be cured - As it did not occasion a miscarriage of justice (H4) Baliol Nig. Ltd. v. Navcon Nig. Ltd. (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1703; (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1220) 619

DAMAGES - Judgments - Appeals - Special damages - Claim for loss of profit - Refusal by Court of Appeal - Propriety - Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the claim - After it had held that the claim was particularised and proved (H1) Alade v. Alic (Nig) Ltd. (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2843; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 111

DAMAGES - Libel - Assessment of damages - Factors to consider - Some of the factors to be considered - Are the social standing of plaintiff - And the rate of inflation (H3) Oduwole v. David West (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1795; (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt.1203) 598

DAMAGES - Libel - Quantum of damages - Propriety - Though assessment is usually subjective - An award must be adequate to assuage for the injury to the plaintiff’s reputation (H2) Oduwole v. David West (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1795; (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt.1203) 598

DAMAGES - Proof - Special damages - Whether proved - Evidence of PW4 which was not challenged by defendant - Clearly established the plaintiff’s claim for over N11.4m - Which is special damages - Though called general damages by trial court (H4) Kopek Const. Ltd. v. Ekisola (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 247; (2010) 3 NWLR (Pt.1182) 618

DAMAGES - Quantum - Appeals - Attitude of appellate courts - An appellate court will not interfere with it - Unless trial judge acted upon wrong principle of law - Or the amount was extremely high or low (H2) Adim v. Nig. Botling Co. Ltd. (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1401; (2010) 9 NWLR (Pt.1200) 543

DAMAGES - Quantum - Reduction from 30% claimed to 15% - Propriety - Trial judge acted properly - For where plaintiff claims more than he can prove - He is awarded a lesser sum (H6) Kayode Vent. Ltd. v. Min. of FCT (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 611; (2010) 7 NWLR (Pt.1192) 171

DAMAGES - Torts - Special damages - Claim for - Requirements - It must be specially pleaded and particularized in the pleading - And adequate evidence given - Which plaintiff failed to do in this case (H1) Adim v. Nig. Botling Co. Ltd. (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1401; (2010) 9 NWLR (Pt.1200) 543

DAMAGES - Torts - Special damages - Quantum - Proof of excessiveness - Though cross-appellants alleged excessiveness - They offered no evidence in support of the allegation (H5) Adim v. Nig. Botling Co. Ltd. (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1401; (2010) 9 NWLR (Pt.1200) 543

DEEDS - Conveyancing - Deeds - Earlier deed of gift - Recited in Exhibit A - Effect - Having embodied the deed in its recital - Exhibit A has subsumed the contents of the deed - So the deed no longer has legal recognition (H3) Oyeneyin v. Akinkugbe (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 439; (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt.1184) 265

DOCUMENTS - Admissibility - Right to challenge - Limits - When an exhibit is tendered and admitted - Without any objection from counsel - Such counsel may lose the right to challenge the admission on appeal (H1) Shurumo v. State (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 3021; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 73

DOCUMENTS - Conveyances - Title - Grant of family land - Exhibits A and B - Validity - The exhibits are valid - Having been executed by the head and principal members - Of the grantor family - Contrary to allegation of appellants (H1) Oyeneyin v. Akinkugbe (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 439; (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt.1184) 265

DOCUMENTS - Evidence - Admissibility - Principles - The governing principles are whether the document is pleaded - Whether it is relevant - And whether it is admissible in law (H4) Okoye v. Obiaso (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 280) 1329; (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1195) 145

DOCUMENTS - Evidence - Admissibility - Principles - The governing principles are whether the document is pleaded - Whether it is relevant - And whether it is admissible in law (H4) Suberu v. The State (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 280) 1353; (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1197) 586

DOCUMENTS - Evidence - Conclusiveness - Exhibit G - Effect as account stated - It precludes the parties from reopening the transactions - Which have informed its preparation and execution (H4) GMBH v. Tunji Ind. Ltd. (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1485; (2010) 11 NWLR (Pt.1206) 589

DOCUMENTS - Evidence - Conflicting documents - From the same source - Effect - As is the case with Exhibits MEU-4 and EA-2 - They both cancel out each other - Leaving the party alleging the fact in issue - With the initial burden of proof (H2) Effiom v. CROSIEC (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1767; (2010) 14 NWLR (Pt.1213) 106

DOCUMENTS - Evidence - Exhibit A1 - Weight - There is a concurrent finding that it lacks credibility - Which finding is supported by evidence - So there is no reason to warrant interference with the finding (H2) Okoye v. Obiaso (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 280) 1329; (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1195) 145

DOCUMENTS - Evidence - Exhibit A1 - Weight - There is a concurrent finding that it lacks credibility - Which finding is supported by evidence - So there is no reason to warrant interference with the finding (H2) Suberu v. The State (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 280) 1353; (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1197) 586

DOCUMENTS - Evidence - Exhibits P1 to 3 - Effect - All the documents tendered operated against the interest of appellants - In favour of respondents - Trial court was therefore right to prefer respondents’ evidence (H3) Nwokidu v. Okanu (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 323; (2010) 3 NWLR (Pt.1181) 362

DOCUMENTS - Evidence - Proof - Nonreceipt of machine - Failure to tender letter - Defendant’s failure to tender the letter - By which he conveyed his nonreceipt - Entitles plaintiff to invoke s. 149 (d) of Evidence Act (H2) GMBH v. Tunji Ind. Ltd. (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1485; (2010) 11 NWLR (Pt.1206) 589

DOCUMENTS - Evidence - Proof by concession - Exhibit H1 - Whether conceding title - In the light of the contents of other material exhibits - Tendered in evidence - There is no concession of title by Exhibit H1 - As claimed by appellants (H3) Salisu v. Odumade (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 747; (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt.1190) 228

DOCUMENTS - Evidence - Signed by an illiterate - And third party claims - While the writer of such document cannot take advantage thereunder - Persons other than the writer can do so (H4) Orlu v. Gogo-Abite (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 391; (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1196) 307

DOCUMENTS - Exhibits - Application for demurrer - Reliance on exhibits - Propriety of - Where the exhibits have already been pleaded by plaintiff - Before being exhibited by defendants - It is proper for court to rely thereon (H2) JSF Invest. Ltd v. Brawal Line Ltd (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 286) 2611; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 495

DOCUMENTS - Interpretation - Role of context - A passage is best interpreted by reference - To what precedes and what follows it - In order to read the mind of the maker (H1) Nig. Army v. Aminun-Kano (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 287; (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt.1188) 429

DOCUMENTS - Land law - Conferment of - Exhibit A and B - Efficacy of - Contrary to opinion of appellants - The exhibits are not void - But are legally viable documents conferring title (H2) Oyeneyin v. Akinkugbe (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 439; (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt.1184) 265

DOCUMENTS - Title - Succession - Proof by documents - Appellant could have proved title by production of title documents - But he had no documents to depict - That the property had been legally assigned to him (H2) Orlu v. Gogo-Abite (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 391; (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1196) 307

DOCUMENTS - Value - Certiorari proceedings - Conditions precedent - Effect of Exhibits 9 and 10 - They are worthless documents - As they were not filed in due process of law - Nor were they of the appellant’s personal making (H3) Onyemaizu v. Ojiako (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 371; (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt.1185) 504

DOCUMENTS - Words & phrases - Interpretation - Inspection agent - Federal Government Department or agency - The fact of calling appellant inspection agent - Does not make it agent of federal government - Terms used in documents should be given their ordinary meaning - To ascertain the intention of parties (H2) Cotecna Int’l Ltd. v. Churchgate Nig. Ltd. (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) p. 2871; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 346

ELECTION PETITIONS - High Courts - Supervisory jurisdiction - Limits - It covers the civil and criminal proceedings - But is not stretched to cover election petitions or appeals (H1) Egharevba v. Eribo (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 278) 877; (2010) 9 NWLR (Pt.1199) 411

ELECTION PETITIONS - Immunity clause - Applicability - Election petitions and election related proceedings - Are special proceedings - To which immunity clause does not apply (H6) Hassan v. Aliyu (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 285) 2311; (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt.1223) 547

ELECTION PETITIONS - Jurisdiction - Supreme Court - Election petition appeals - Limit - Supreme court does not have jurisdiction - Where appeal arises from Governorship and Legislative Houses Election Tribunal - Decision of Court of Appeal in respect thereof is final (H2) Ugwa v. Lekwauwa (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 3049; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 26

ELECTION PETITIONS - Jurisdiction - Tribunals - Hearing of motions outside pre-hearing session - Validity - Any such hearing is done without jurisdiction - And is consequently null and void - Under paragraph 6(1) of Practice Directions 2007 (H4) Nwankwo v. Yar’adua (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 280) 1223; (2010) 12 NWLR (Pt.1209) 518

ELECTION PETITIONS - Motions - When to hear - Practice directions 2007 - The tribunal can only hear motions - At the pre-hearing session - Not when it sits as a tribunal - To hear petitions (H2) Nwankwo v. Yar’adua (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 280) 1223; (2010) 12 NWLR (Pt.1209) 518

ELECTION PETITIONS - Nature - Civil suit with difference - Election petition is a proceeding which is sui generis - Not to be treated as ordinary civil suit in court - For an election legislation creates a special jurisdiction (H2) Egharevba v. Eribo (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 278) 877; (2010) 9 NWLR (Pt.1199) 411

ELECTION PETITIONS - Words & phrases - “Decision” - Meaning - It is a judicial determination - After consideration of the facts and law (H1) Ugwa v. Lekwauwa (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 3049; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 26

ELECTIONS - Actions - Commencement - Need for promptness - Time is of the essence in election-related matters - So an aggrieved party must promptly commence action - Or his right of action may abate (H7) Hassan v. Aliyu (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 285) 2311; (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt.1223) 547

ELECTIONS - Appeals - Issue on substitution of candidate - Whether canvassed at trial - Contrary to contention of appellant herein - The issue was canvassed and decided on at trial (H8) Akpan v. Bob (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1623; (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt.1223) 421

ELECTIONS - Appeals - Issues - Validity - Issue on substitution of candidate - Validity at lower court - It was valid as it was raised - Upon appropriate leave having been sought and obtained - By 5th respondent (H9) Akpan v. Bob (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1623; (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt.1223) 421

ELECTIONS - Candidature - Disqualification - On grounds of indictment - Propriety - Indictment is not enough for disqualification - It must be shown that the person was convicted - By a court or other tribunal (H3) Effiom v. CROSIEC (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1767; (2010) 14 NWLR (Pt.1213) 106

ELECTIONS - Courts - Jurisdiction - Basis of - The Constitution confers exclusive jurisdiction - In concluded elections as in this case on tribunals - And pre-election matters on High Courts (H6) Olofu v. Itodo (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3101; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 545

ELECTIONS - Evidence - Facts - Conflicts - Existence of - Since the question to be decided is the candidate - Sought to be substituted by the party - There is no conflict in relation to relevant facts of the case (H3) Ezeigwe v. Nwawulu (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 535; (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt.1183) 159

ELECTIONS - Judicial precedents - Consequential orders - Amaechi v. INEC - Applicability - Court of Appeal was right in granting consequential orders - To give effect to reliefs 1-5 - By setting the election aside (H11) Osun State INEC v. AC (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3137; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 273

ELECTIONS - Legislative powers - Of Local Government Councils - S. 121 Electoral Act & para 11 of 2nd Schedule to 1999 Constitution - Confer powers to National Assembly - To make laws regulating Local Government Elections (H2) Osun State INEC v. AC (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3137; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 273

ELECTIONS - Local Government Councils - State legislative powers - Limit - Osun State House of Assembly - Has no power to make laws - Contrary to that made by National Assembly (H3) Osun State INEC v. AC (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3137; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 273

ELECTIONS - Matters relating to - Common law remedies - Applicability - Election matters being statutory - Common law orders of certiorari etc. - Are not applicable thereto (H9) Ohakim v. Agbaso (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 286) 2513; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 172

ELECTIONS - Matters relating to - Courts - Jurisdiction - By S. 285 (2) of the 1999 Constitution - Such matters are within the exclusive jurisdiction of Election Tribunals (H8) Ohakim v. Agbaso (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 286) 2513; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 172

ELECTIONS - National and State Legislation - Inconsistency - Effect - Where S. 10 Osun State Electoral law - Is inconsistent with S. 31 Electoral Act - That law is null and void - To the extent of its inconsistency (H4) Osun State INEC v. AC (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3137; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 273

ELECTIONS - Nomination - Issue before trial court - Whether merely on nomination - In view of the questions on which the court made pronouncements - The issue thereat transcends nomination - To issue of substitution (H10) Akpan v. Bob (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1623; (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt.1223) 421

ELECTIONS - Political parties - Substitution of candidates - Cogency of reasons - As exhibit 2 does not say that 1st respondent - Was involved in any of the allegations made therein - There is no cogent reason given for his substitution (H5) Ezeigwe v. Nwawulu (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 535; (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt.1183) 159

ELECTIONS - Political parties - Substitution of candidates - Whether within time - In view of the date of the letters of substitution viz-a-viz the date of the elections - The substitution was done within time - Contrary to the holding of Court of Appeal (H4) Ezeigwe v. Nwawulu (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 535; (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt.1183) 159

ELECTIONS - Post election matters - Propriety - Where respondent alleged undue return of candidate - Such is post election matter - As confirmed by the reliefs sought in his originating summon (H7) Olofu v. Itodo (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3101; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 545

ELECTIONS - Pre election matters - Substitution of candidate - Propriety - Only political party can nominate candidate for election - But in event of substitution of such candidate - Party must fulfil certain conditions (H3) Olofu v. Itodo (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3101; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 545

ELECTIONS - Procedure - Marginal notes - Purpose - Ss. 31. 121 & 122 Electoral Act & para 11 of 2nd Schedule to 1999 Constitution - Deal with the procedure - As shown by the marginal notes to the sections (H1) Osun State INEC v. AC (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3137; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 273

ELECTIONS - Statutes - Interpretation - Of the word ‘may’ - In s. 23 of Kogi State Local Government Election Law, 2004 - By appellant as not being mandatory is wrong - For same does not relate to time within which to substitute candidates (H4) Olofu v. Itodo (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3101; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 545

EQUITY - Trespass - Reliefs - Injunction - Propriety - Once a court has found for continuing trespass - It has jurisdiction to grant the equitable remedy of injunction - Notwithstanding that it was not claimed (H4) Omotayo v. Cooperative Supply Asso. (2010) 7 KLR (pt. 284) 2277; (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1218) 1

EQUITY - Validity of contracts - Misrepresentation - Effect - Party guilty of misrepresentation - Cannot rely on it to repudiate the contract - As equity will not allow a person to benefit from his own wrong (H5) Teriba v. Adeyemo (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1583; (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1211) 242

ESTOPPEL - Chieftaincy - Findings of fact - Basis - Though estoppel was pleaded and testified to - It was not against the whole lineage of 1st respondent - So there was no basis for court of Appeal to have so held (H6) Adekeye v. Adesina (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2801; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 449

ESTOPPEL - Res judicata - Applicability - As both parties and subject matter - Are same in past and present suit - Appellants are misguided in litigating the matter afresh - As it has been determined by the judgment in the prior suit (H1) Alapo v. Agbokere (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 278) 811; (2010) 9 NWLR (Pt.1198) 30

ESTOPPEL - Res judicata - Rationale - Whether based on rightness of judgment - The rationale for the doctrine is not because the judgment is right - But that there needs be an end to litigation (H2) Alapo v. Agbokere (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 278) 811; (2010) 9 NWLR (Pt.1198) 30

EVIDENCE - Accidents - Speed of appellant - Measured from Exhibit D1 - Propriety - It was not proper - As there was no evidence as to the condition of the road - Which is a factor in such measurement from skid marks (H2) Oshe v. Okin Biscuits Ltd. (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 279) 1137; (2010) 11 NWLR (Pt.1206) 482

EVIDENCE - Actions - Decisions - Estoppel by conduct - Applicability - Where a party knew of - But took no part in previous proceedings on a subject matter affecting him - He is bound by the decision therein (H4) Obineche v. Akusobi (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 2057; (2010) 12 NWLR (Pt.1208) 383

EVIDENCE - Actions - Proof - Where defence offered no evidence - In such case the burden placed on plaintiff is minimal - He can use the unchallenged evidence - To establish his case (H4) Chami v. UBA Plc. (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 507; (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt.1191) 474

EVIDENCE - Adjournments - Application for - Refusal by trial court - Propriety - In view of the evidence on record the refusal was proper - As applicants had already been given adequate opportunity to file their reply - But failed to do so (H2) Nwadiogbu v. Anambra/Imo River Basin Dev. (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 286) 2661; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 364

EVIDENCE - Admissibility - Exhibit F - Challenge to - Propriety - As appellants failed to challenge - The application for leave to file same at trial court - They cannot challenge the exhibit on appeal without leave (H2) Obineche v. Akusobi (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 2057; (2010) 12 NWLR (Pt.1208) 383

EVIDENCE - Alibi - Failure to investigate - Effect - It may cast doubt on the prosecution’s case - But where accused is identified at scene of crime by eye witnesses - His alibi is demolished if the judge believes the witnesses (H2) Olaiya v. State (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 357; (2010) 3 NWLR (Pt.1181) 423

EVIDENCE - Alibi - Failure to investigate - Effect on prosecution’s case - Notwithstanding such failure to investigate - If prosecution leads positive evidence fixing accused person to scene of crime - The alibi will collapse (H6) Sunday v. Oformata (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 286) 2583

EVIDENCE - Appeal - Court of Appeal’s decision - Based on repugnancy - Propriety - The decision failed to consider the pleadings and evidence - As the principle of repugnancy was never contested on the pleadings and evidence (H2) Ojiogu v. Ojiogu (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 279) 1113; (2010) 9 NWLR (Pt.1198) 1

EVIDENCE - Appeals - Application for enlargement of time - Reason for delay - Sufficiency - Where reason is inability to obtain copy of judgment - Applicant must spell out when and how he applied for it - And what obstacles faced (H1) Min. of Petroleum v. Expo-Shipping Line (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1557; (2010) 12 NWLR (Pt.1208) 261

EVIDENCE - Appeals - Conditions of appeal - Proof of compliance - Effect of registrar’s certificate - It raises a presumption of law - That there was compliance as certified by it - Which presumption has not been rebutted (H3) Ukiri v. Geco-Prakla (Nig.) Ltd. (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 285) 2383; (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1220) 544

EVIDENCE - Appeals - Crime - Confessional statement - Rejection by Court of Appeal - Effect on conviction - Though the court rejected the written statement - It accepted the oral confession by appellant - And this is capable of supporting the conviction (H6) Moses Jua v. State (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 577; (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt.1184) 217

EVIDENCE - Appeals - Finding of trial court - On election notice - Trial court’s finding on election notice - Was not only perverse - But was not based - On evidence in the record (H5) Osun State INEC v. AC (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3137; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 273

EVIDENCE - Appeals - Grounds - Existence - Before Court of Appeal - Contrary to appellants’ contention - There was a ground of appeal before that court - Challenging the finding on proof made by trial court (H8) Ishola v. Falorunso (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 2009; (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1210) 169

EVIDENCE - Appeals - Grounds - Relation to pleadings - They must be based on reasons for decision reached by lower court - Which should in turn be based on issues joined on the pleadings - And evidence in support thereof (H9) Chami v. UBA Plc. (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 507; (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt.1191) 474

EVIDENCE - Appeals - Reevaluation - Justification - Where trial court fails to properly evaluate the evidence before it - Appellate court is entitled to evaluate same - Provided it does not involve credibility of witnesses (H5) Ishola v. Falorunso (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 2009; (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1210) 169

EVIDENCE - Appeals - Reevaluation - Propriety - Where there is improper evaluation of evidence by trial court - As in the instant case - Appeal court has a right to reevaluate same - As done by Court of Appeal (H3) Hamza v. Kure (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 278) 921; (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt.1203) 630

EVIDENCE - Application for demurrer - Reliance on exhibits - Propriety of - Where the exhibits have already been pleaded by plaintiff - Before being exhibited by defendants - It is proper for court to rely thereon (H2) JSF Invest. Ltd v. Brawal Line Ltd (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 286) 2611; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 495

EVIDENCE - Charges - Leave to prefer - Application - Sufficiency of materials - Though no proof of evidence was filed and served on appellants - Prosecution did present sufficient materials - To enable the judge exercise his discretion (H1) Sunday v. Oformata (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 286) 2583

EVIDENCE - Chieftaincy - Findings of fact - Basis - Though estoppel was pleaded and testified to - It was not against the whole lineage of 1st respondent - So there was no basis for court of Appeal to have so held (H6) Adekeye v. Adesina (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2801; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 449

EVIDENCE - Chieftaincy - Principle of rotation - Within Elemo Ruling House - Need for proof - Though Exhibit G2 recognized rotation - It was not within the constituting units of a ruling house - Such therefore needed to be pleaded and proved aliunde - But was not (H8) Adekeye v. Adesina (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2801; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 449

EVIDENCE - Compulsory a acquisition of land - Findings of fact - Finding as to service by pasting - Whether perverse - In view of the evidence before the trial court - And believed by it - The finding is not perverse (H1) Okeowo v. A-G Ogun State (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 285) 2367; (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1219) 327

EVIDENCE - Conclusiveness - Exhibit G - Effect as account stated - It precludes the parties from reopening the transactions - Which have informed its preparation and execution (H4) GMBH v. Tunji Ind. Ltd. (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1485; (2010) 11 NWLR (Pt.1206) 589

EVIDENCE - Conditions of appeal - Noncompliance - Whether proved - The records show no evidence of noncompliance - Rather they show evidence of compliance - Via certificate of fulfillment issued by Court of Appeal registrar (H2) Ukiri v. Geco-Prakla (Nig.) Ltd. (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 285) 2383; (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1220) 544

EVIDENCE - Conflicting documents - From the same source - Effect - As is the case with Exhibits MEU-4 and EA-2 - They both cancel out each other - Leaving the party alleging the fact in issue - With the initial burden of proof (H2) Effiom v. CROSIEC (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1767; (2010) 14 NWLR (Pt.1213) 106

EVIDENCE - Contracts - Rescission by plaintiff - Proof - As defendant failed to tender the letter by which it claimed the agreement was rescinded - Trial court rightly held that it was not rescinded - Court of appeal was therefore wrong to hold otherwise (H3) Baliol Nig. Ltd. v. Navcon Nig. Ltd. (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1703; (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1220) 619

EVIDENCE - Contradictions in a party’s case - Effect on appeal - It is not every such contradiction that will affect the substance of the case - It is only such as have caused a miscarriage of justice (H5) Shurumo v. State (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 3021; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 73

EVIDENCE - Courts - Erroneous finding - That both parties called evidence - Effect - Even if the finding was in error - It did not occasion miscarriage of justice (H4) Akomolafe v. Guardian Press Ltd. (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 275) 63; (2010) 3 NWLR (Pt.1181) 338

EVIDENCE - Courts - Judicial bias - Allegation - Proof - Such allegation must be proved on some extra judicial factors - Else it is insufficient to disqualify a judge - From adjudicating a case properly before him (H1) Womiloju v. Anibire (2010) 4 KLR (Pt. 281) 1605; (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt.1203) 545

EVIDENCE - Courts - Judicial bias - Proof - Judge as former counsel of a party - Effect - It is not enough to disqualify him - Unless it is shown that his former role as counsel - Could pervert the course of justice (H2) Womiloju v. Anibire (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1605; (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt.1203) 545

EVIDENCE - Courts - Title - Finding - That appellants failed to prove title - Basis - Trial court considered all five ways of proving title - Before making the finding - Particularly the acts of long possession by respondents (H4) Nwokidu v. Okanu (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 323; (2010) 3 NWLR (Pt.1181) 362

EVIDENCE - Crime - Alibi - Disproof of - Where there is vital identification evidence of the accused - By prosecution witness - Believed by the court - It destroys the defence of alibi raised (H2) Afolalu v. The State (2010) 7 KLR (pt. 284) 2109; (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1220) 584

EVIDENCE - Crime - Burden of proof - Discharge - It is discharged if on the entire evidence adduced - The court is left with no doubt - That the accused committed the offence (H1) Afolalu v. The State (2010) 7 KLR (pt. 284) 2109; (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1220) 584

EVIDENCE - Crime - Cross examination - Objective - The main objective is to destroy the case of the prosecution - And make the court believe that accused did not commit the offence - But cross examination of PW1 failed in this regard (H2) Moses Jua v. State (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 577; (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt.1184) 217

EVIDENCE - Crime - Defences - Insanity - Onus of proof - An accused person who pleads insanity - Has the onus of proving same - As every man is presumed to be sane - Until the contrary is proved (H5) Edoho v. State (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1453; (2010) 14 NWLR (Pt.1214) 651

EVIDENCE - Crime - Failure to call native doctor as witness - Effect on prosecution’s case - There was no relevance in calling the native doctor to testify for prosecution - Appellants ought to have called him if they required his testimony (H3) Nkebisi v. State (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 671; (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt.1188) 471

EVIDENCE - Crime - Identification parade - Dispensing with - Where the accused person and the prosecution witness knew themselves - Before the alleged crime - There is no need for an identification parade (H7) Sunday v. Oformata (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 286) 2583

EVIDENCE - Crime - Identification parade - Relevancy - Where the prosecution witnesses knew the accused person - Before the commission of the crime - Identification parade is unnecessary (H7) Attah v. State (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 279) 1039; (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt.1201) 190

EVIDENCE - Crime - Murder - Proof of cause of death - Testimony of medical officer - Whether it must be viva voce - It is not mandatory - Production of a certificate signed by him may suffice (H3) Edoho v. State (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1453; (2010) 14 NWLR (Pt.1214) 651

EVIDENCE - Crime - Proof - Effect of suspicion - Suspicion however strong cannot take the place of legal proof - Nor can it found or lead to a conviction (H4) Shehu v. State (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 279) 1167; (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1195) 112

EVIDENCE - Crime - Proof - Reasonable doubt - Meaning - Reasonable doubt which will justify an acquittal - Is a doubt based on reason - Arising from evidence or lack of it (H1) Moses Jua v. State (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 577; (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt.1184) 217

EVIDENCE - Crime - Prosecution witnesses - Discrepancies in evidence - Effect - It is not every such discrepancy that is fatal to prosecution’s case - It is only such as are crucial to the main issues in question (H3) Attah v. State (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 279) 1039; (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt.1201) 190

EVIDENCE - Crime - Prosecution witnesses - Previous statements - Duty of defence to demand - It is the duty of defence to demand them - If he requires them - Else he cannot complain that they were withheld (H5) Attah v. State (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 279) 1039; (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt.1201) 190

EVIDENCE - Criminal procedure - Calling of witnesses - Duty on prosecution - The prosecution is duty bound to call such number of witnesses - As is necessary to prove the offences charged (H4) Sunday v. Oformata (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 286) 2583

EVIDENCE - Criminal procedure - Contradictions alleged - Whether proved - There is no material contradiction in the evidence of prosecution - Such as to create doubts in its case (H5) Sunday v. Oformata (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 286) 2583

EVIDENCE - Cross examination - Elicited facts - Evidence for adverse party - Such facts may be relied on by an adverse party - Provided they were pleaded by the party concerned (H3) Akomolafe v. Guardian Press Ltd. (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 275) 63; (2010) 3 NWLR (Pt.1181) 338

EVIDENCE - Customs relied on - Proof - Need for - It is important that custom should be strictly proved - Unless the particular custom is such - That court should take judicial notice of (H1) Orlu v. Gogo-Abite (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 391; (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1196) 307

EVIDENCE - Document - Signed by an illiterate - And third party claims - While the writer of such document cannot take advantage thereunder - Persons other than the writer can do so (H4) Orlu v. Gogo-Abite (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 391; (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1196) 307

EVIDENCE - Documents - Admissibility - Principles - The governing principles are whether the document is pleaded - Whether it is relevant - And whether it is admissible in law (H4) Okoye v. Obiaso (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 280) 1329; (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1195) 145

EVIDENCE - Documents - Admissibility - Principles - The governing principles are whether the document is pleaded - Whether it is relevant - And whether it is admissible in law (H4) Suberu v. The State (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 280) 1353; (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1197) 586

EVIDENCE - Documents - Admissibility - Right to challenge - Limits - When an exhibit is tendered and admitted - Without any objection from counsel - Such counsel may lose the right to challenge the admission on appeal (H1) Shurumo v. State (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 3021; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 73

EVIDENCE - Documents - Exhibit A1 - Weight - There is a concurrent finding that it lacks credibility - Which finding is supported by evidence - So there is no reason to warrant interference with the finding (H2) Okoye v. Obiaso (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 280) 1329; (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1195) 145

EVIDENCE - Documents - Exhibit A1 - Weight - There is a concurrent finding that it lacks credibility - Which finding is supported by evidence - So there is no reason to warrant interference with the finding (H2) Suberu v. The State (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 280) 1353; (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1197) 586

EVIDENCE - Documents - Exhibits P1 to 3 - Effect - All the documents tendered operated against the interest of appellants - In favour of respondents - Trial court was therefore right to prefer respondents’ evidence (H3) Nwokidu v. Okanu (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 323; (2010) 3 NWLR (Pt.1181) 362

EVIDENCE - Evaluation - Duty on trial court - Whether discharged - Trial court has ably performed its duty of evaluation - And has properly ascribed probative value to the evidence led (H3) Sunday v. Oformata (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 286) 2583

EVIDENCE - Evaluation - Exhibit G - Discrepancies in statement of claim - Effect - They are irrelevant to the force of Exhibit G - As account stated - Since defendant did not join issue with plaintiff on them (H1) GMBH v. Tunji Ind. Ltd. (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1485; (2010) 11 NWLR (Pt.1206) 589

EVIDENCE - Evaluation - Findings of fact by trial court - Interference on appeal - Principles - It is not ordinarily interfered with - More so where it involves assessment of credibility of witnesses (H2) Teriba v. Adeyemo (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1583; (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1211) 242

EVIDENCE - Evaluation - Land law - Traditional history - Credibility and demeanour are relevant but not strong points - Evidence of contemporary events supporting the history - Is more conclusive (H4) Odunukwe v. Ofomata (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 285) 2405; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 404

EVIDENCE - Evaluation - Reevaluation on appeal - Basis - It is only when the trial court fails to comply with the requirements of evaluation - That the appeal court could interfere - Which was not the case herein (H4) Kayode Vent. Ltd. v. Min. of FCT (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 611; (2010) 7 NWLR (Pt.1192) 171

EVIDENCE - Evaluation - Reliance on s. 129 of Evidence Act - Effect on judgment of trial court - Notwithstanding the reliance - Trial court still made correct findings of fact - Based on evidence of P. W. 4 and P.W. 5 (H2) Victino Ltd. v. Ojo (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 278) 1007; (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1197) 486

EVIDENCE - Evaluation - Trial court - Duty of - Trial court enjoys the singular benefit - Of evaluating evidence - And appellate court can not interfere with findings - Except where same do not march with evidence or record (H1) Okonkwo v. Okonkwo (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 288) 3269; (2010) 14 NWLR (Pt.1213) 228

EVIDENCE - Facts - Conflicts - Existence of - Since the question to be decided is the candidate - Sought to be substituted by the party - There is no conflict in relation to relevant facts of the case (H3) Ezeigwe v. Nwawulu (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 535; (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt.1183) 159

EVIDENCE - Fair hearing - Violation - Evidence led before joinder - As basis for liability - Propriety - As the evidence was taken behind their back - To hold appellants liable based on it - Amounts to breach of their right to fair hearing (H1) Pan Africa Int. v. Shoreline Ltd. (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 279) 1153; (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt.1189) 98

EVIDENCE - Federal High Court - Declaratory relief - Granted on affidavit evidence - Propriety - It may be properly so granted - In view of the provisions of O. 46 of the Federal High Court Rules (H5) CBN v. Amao (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1715; (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1219) 271

EVIDENCE - Findings of fact - Interference - Limits - Appellate court should refrain - From coming to different findings - Unless it can show that those of trial court - Could not flow from evidence before it (H3) Omotayo v. Cooperative Supply Asso. (2010) 7 KLR (pt. 284) 2277; (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1218) 1

EVIDENCE - Judgments - Analysis - Liberty of judges - Unless there are oral or documentary materials before the court - Worth the while of a judge to consider extensively - He may not be obliged to make such detailed analysis (H1) Nasir v. Civil Serv. Com. Kano (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 651; (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt.1190) 253

EVIDENCE - Judgments - Basis - Extraneous matters - Whether relied on - The court merely regarded certain naked facts - The existence of which none of the parties could deny - And neither party was prejudiced by the step (H9) Ishola v. Falorunso (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 2009; (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1210) 169

EVIDENCE - Judgments - Basis - Reliance on exhibit P.4 - Whether fatal - Though the reliance on it was improper - It has not led to miscarriage of justice - In view of the contents of exhibits P.1 and P. 2 - So it is not fatal (H1) Agala v. Okusin (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1421; (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt.1202) 412

EVIDENCE - Judgment - Forms - Failure to date and sign - Means of proof - Where the record of appeal indicates that the judgment was dated and signed - As in the instant case - The manuscript need to be tendered to prove otherwise (H8) Sunday v. Oformata (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 286) 2583

EVIDENCE - Land law - Appeals - Reevaluation - Propriety - Where trial court fails to make a finding - On a material issue of fact as in this case - Appellate court is correct to consider vital evidence adduced - In proof of radical title to land (H1) Olodo v. Josiah (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2971; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 653

EVIDENCE - Land law - Common property - Exclusive ownership - Burden of proof - Where parties agree that the land was common property originally - The onus rests on the party now claiming exclusive ownership to prove same (H3) Olodo v. Josiah (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2971; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 653

EVIDENCE - Land law - Family land - Partition - Proof - Where P.W. 5 gave evidence that there was partitioning of the land - Which appellant failed to contradict - Trial judge was entitled to believe and act on the evidence (H1) Victino Ltd. v. Ojo (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 278) 1007; (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1197) 486

EVIDENCE - Land Law - Original name of compound - As Oko Polo - Proof - From the content of paragraph (4) of Exhibit P.1 - Which supports the evidence of plaintiffs’ witness No.1 - This fact has been proved (H2) Agala v. Okusin (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1421; (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt.1202) 412

EVIDENCE - Land law - Ownership of adjoining land - S. 46 of Evidence Act - Limits - The section creates a probability - Not conclusive proof of ownership of land - The presumption could be displaced by credible evidence (H5) Odunukwe v. Ofomata (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 285) 2405; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 404

EVIDENCE - Land law - Root of title - Proof - Where a party claiming title - Gives conflicting history of root of title - From that given by his witnesses - Such root will be treated as unreliable (H2) Olodo v. Josiah (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2971; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 653

EVIDENCE - Land law - Title - Competing traditional evidence - Evaluation - Duty of court - Court has a duty to examine both evidence - To decide which is more probable - By testing each against the other evidence (H2) Nwokidu v. Okanu (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 323; (2010) 3 NWLR (Pt.1181) 362

EVIDENCE - Land law - Title - Proof - Cross-appellants having pleaded - And led evidence that one of them sold the land to appellant - To their knowledge without their protest - The courts have no basis to set aside the transfer of land (H7) Oyeneyin v. Akinkugbe (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 439; (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt.1184) 265

EVIDENCE - Land law - Title - Proof - Onus - Where plaintiff proves grant of title by an earlier judgment - The onus is on defendant - To lead evidence to nullify that grant - Which defendants herein failed to do (H3) Obineche v. Akusobi (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 2057; (2010) 12 NWLR (Pt.1208) 383

EVIDENCE - Land law - Title - Proof - Traditional history - Relevance - Where a party proves his title through an earlier court judgment - Traditional history is irrelevant in proof of same - In that proceedings (H5) Obineche v. Akusobi (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 2057; (2010) 12 NWLR (Pt.1208) 383

EVIDENCE - Land law - Untendered evidence - Presumption against interest - Though appellant claimed to have been collecting rent - He failed to tender any receipt issued to any tenant - So section 149 (d) of Evidence Act operates against him (H3) Orlu v. Gogo-Abite (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 391; (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1196) 307

EVIDENCE - Libel - Defamation - Publication - Where the offensive publication does not refer to plaintiff at all - It cannot possibly be defamatory of him (H4) Sky Bank Plc. v. Bolanle (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 278) 979

EVIDENCE - Master & servant - Retirement benefits - Claim - Onus of proof - Respondents who pleaded - That appellant was paid retirement benefits - Must prove same - (H2) Ekeagwu v. Nig. Army (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 288) 3251; (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1220) 419

EVIDENCE - Murder - Conviction - Sufficiency of one witness - The evidence of one witness can lead to conviction if believed - It is immaterial that the witness is related to the deceased (H1) Nkebisi v. State (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 671; (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt.1188) 471

EVIDENCE - Murder - Defences - Insanity vide witchcraft - Whether proved - The account of the incident - Given by appellant - Is more of feigning mental illness - And his evidence of witchcraft has no credence (H6) Edoho v. State (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1453; (2010) 14 NWLR (Pt.1214) 651

EVIDENCE - Murder - Intent to kill - Whether proved - The finding that deceased was shot intentionally - Made by trial court and confirmed by Court of Appeal - Having not been shown to be perverse - Will not be interfered with (H1) Oludamilola v. State (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 278) 939; (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1197) 565

EVIDENCE - Murder - Proof - Accused last seen with deceased - Effect - While such evidence per se may not be proof of culpability - It can support and corroborate other acts of accused - Resulting in death of deceased (H3) Moses Jua v. State (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 577; (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt.1184) 217

EVIDENCE - Murder - Tainted witnesses - P.W.s 2 to 4 - Whether tainted - A witness is tainted where he is an accomplice - Or has some personal purpose to serve by his evidence - None of P.W.s 2 to 4 has been shown as such (H3) Olaiya v. State (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 357; (2010) 3 NWLR (Pt.1181) 423

EVIDENCE - Negligence - Contributory negligence - Whether proved against appellant - It is the failure of 2nd respondent to see appellant’s vehicle - That was the sole cause of the accident - Appellant was not in any way negligent (H3) Oshe v. Okin Biscuits Ltd. (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 279) 1137; (2010) 11 NWLR (Pt.1206) 482

EVIDENCE - Partitioning - Burden of proof - Discharge - Appellants alleged partition and had the burden of proving same - Which burden they failed to discharge (H7) Ishola v. Falorunso (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 2009; (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1210) 169

EVIDENCE - Pleadings - Averment - Not supported by evidence - Fate of - Such averment is deemed abandoned - And must be struck out by the court (H2) Kayode Vent. Ltd. v. Min. of FCT (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 611; (2010) 7 NWLR (Pt.1192) 171

EVIDENCE - Pleadings - Binding nature of - Effect - Parties and the court are bound by pleadings filed in a matter - As such any evidence on facts not pleaded goes to no issue (H5) Adekeye v. Adesina (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2801; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 449

EVIDENCE - Pleadings - Joinder of issues - Nonjoinder on material fact - Effect - Where a party fails to join issue on an averred fact - He cannot lead any evidence in rebuttal thereof (H1) Obineche v. Akusobi (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 2057; (2010) 12 NWLR (Pt.1208) 383

EVIDENCE - Pleadings - Principle of - Custom - Repugnancy rule is not averred in this case - Parties are bound by their pleadings - And evidence contrary to pleadings - Goes to no issue (H1) Ojiogu v. Ojiogu (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 279) 1113; (2010) 9 NWLR (Pt.1198) 1

EVIDENCE - Pleadings - Statements of claim - Averments - Admission - Averments not specifically traversed - As is the case with paragraphs 3 and 4 herein - Are presumed admitted (H1) GMBH v. Tunji Ind. Ltd. (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1485; (2010) 11 NWLR (Pt.1206) 589

EVIDENCE - Pleadings - Testimony by P.W.1 of an “appeal” - Whether pleaded - In view of the pleading in paragraph 22 of amended statement of claim - There was proper pleading to back the evidence (H3) Agala v. Okusin (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1421; (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt.1202) 412

EVIDENCE - Presumption of unfavourableness - S. 149 (d) of Evidence Act - When to invoke - It is to be invoked not for failure to call a particular witness - But for failure to furnish a particular evidence (H4) Moses Jua v. State (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 577; (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt.1184) 217

EVIDENCE - Probative value - Title - Pleadings - Where a party fails to disclose necessary information in his evidence - Such evidence has no probative value - And goes to no issue (H7) Tanko v. Echendu (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3205; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1224) 253

EVIDENCE - Proof - Conspiracy - Whether proved - Since there was a criminal purpose common to appellant and his friends - Who were at the house of P.W.4 on the day of the incident - There is sufficient proof of conspiracy (H3) Shurumo v. State (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 3021; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 73

EVIDENCE - Proof - Crime - Duty on prosecution - Though prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt - It is not bound to call every person at scene of crime - To testify before the court (H4) Shurumo v. State (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 3021; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 73

EVIDENCE - Proof - Custom - Limit of ownership of waterfront - Whether proved - Appellants who pleaded the custom - Had the onus of proving same by evidence - But failed to discharge the onus (H2) Ibuluya v. Dikibo (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1519; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 627

EVIDENCE - Proof - Land law - Where plaintiff fails to prove his case - Proper verdict - Judgment should be in favour of defendant - As it is plaintiff who failed to prove - That he is entitled to what he claims (H5) Nwokidu v. Okanu (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 323; (2010) 3 NWLR (Pt.1181) 362

EVIDENCE - Proof - Libel - Content of publication - Need to prove - Even where defendant admits making a publication - Plaintiff has a duty to prove the alleged defamatory content thereof - Failure to do so is fatal (H3) Sky Bank Plc. v. Bolanle (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 278) 979

EVIDENCE - Proof - Nonreceipt of machine - Failure to tender letter - Defendant’s failure to tender the letter - By which he conveyed his nonreceipt - Entitles plaintiff to invoke s. 149 (d) of Evidence Act (H2) GMBH v. Tunji Ind. Ltd. (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1485; (2010) 11 NWLR (Pt.1206) 589

EVIDENCE - Proof - Onus - Whether misdirected - There is no trace of misdirection as to onus - As the findings of facts by trial judge- Were amply supported by evidence on record (H5) Orlu v. Gogo-Abite (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 391; (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1196) 307

EVIDENCE - Proof - Overt act to commit robbery - Whether proved - In view of unexplained presence of appellant and his friends - At P.W. 4’s room at night with arms - Overt act to commit robbery was proved (H2) Shurumo v. State (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 3021; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 73

EVIDENCE - Proof - Paternity of Ojo and Adeniran - From the evidence before trial court - It is established that neither of them is a son of Jagun Ibagbe (H4) Ishola v. Falorunso (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 2009; (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1210) 169

EVIDENCE - Proof - Piece of evidence - Probative value - Once it is relevant and not successfully challenged - It has probative value - And ought to influence the judge - In the determination of the case (H1) Chabasaya v. Anwasi (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1745; (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt.1201) 163

EVIDENCE - Proof - Plaintiff’s claim - Whether proved - As plaintiff has made out a prima facie case - He is entitled to have judgment in his favour - In view of defendant’s failure to rebut same (H3) GMBH v. Tunji Ind. Ltd. (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1485; (2010) 11 NWLR (Pt.1206) 589

EVIDENCE - Proof - Special damages - Whether proved - Evidence of PW4 which was not challenged by defendant - Clearly established the plaintiff’s claim for over N11.4m - Which is special damages - Though called general damages by trial court (H4) Kopek Const. Ltd. v. Ekisola (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 247; (2010) 3 NWLR (Pt.1182) 618

EVIDENCE - Proof by concession - Exhibit H1 - Whether conceding title - In the light of the contents of other material exhibits - Tendered in evidence - There is no concession of title by Exhibit H1 - As claimed by appellants (H3) Salisu v. Odumade (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 747; (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt.1190) 228

EVIDENCE - Records - Evaluation of - Propriety - Where trial court properly evaluated evidence - On record as in this case - Appellate court need not interfere with concurrent findings (H2) Okonkwo v. Okonkwo (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 288) 3269; (2010) 14 NWLR (Pt.1213) 228

EVIDENCE - Redemption of property - Burden of proof - Incidence - Respondent has the burden of proving redemption - As burden of proof lies on the party - Who asserts the affirmative of an issue (H3) Jolasun v. Bamgboye (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2929; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 285

EVIDENCE - Registration of titles - First registration - Opposition to application - Duty on objector - An objector has the burden of satisfying the registrar - That the land sought to be registered is a family land (H2) Jolasun v. Bamgboye (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2929; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 285

EVIDENCE - Registration of titles - First registration - Proof required - An applicant for first registration must satisfy the registrar of his ownership - Through such evidence as is ordinarily required by conveyancers (H1) Jolasun v. Bamgboye (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2929; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 285

EVIDENCE - Relevance - Uncontradicted evidence - Effect on judgment - Where such evidence is irrelevant to the claim - It will have no consequence on the judgment (H4) Agala v. Okusin (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1421; (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt.1202) 412

EVIDENCE - Statutes of Limitation - Public Officers’ Protection Act - Proof of exception - It is the duty of plaintiff to prove the circumstance - That makes the case an exception - Which duty was not discharged in this case (H4) Hassan v. Aliyu (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 285) 2311; (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt.1223) 547

EVIDENCE - Testimony of witnesses - Presumption of consistency - Where an accused person fails to contradict a witness’s testimony - Though he had opportunity to do so - The testimony is presumed to be consistent (H2) Sunday v. Oformata (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 286) 2583

EVIDENCE - Title - Conferment of - Exhibit A and B - Efficacy of - Contrary to opinion of appellants - The exhibits are not void - But are legally viable documents conferring title (H2) Oyeneyin v. Akinkugbe (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 439; (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt.1184) 265

EVIDENCE - Title - Grant of family land - Exhibits A and B - Validity - The exhibits are valid - Having been executed by the head and principal members - Of the grantor family - Contrary to allegation of appellants (H1) Oyeneyin v. Akinkugbe (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 439; (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt.1184) 265

EVIDENCE - Title - Pleadings - Appellant’s root of title - Was not specifically traversed by the respondent (H4) Tanko v. Echendu (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3205; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1224) 253

EVIDENCE - Title - Pleadings - Root of title - Where not pleaded by defendant - Evidence of when and who he bought the land from - Should be rejected for going to no issue (H6) Tanko v. Echendu (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3205; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1224) 253

EVIDENCE - Title - Proof - Respondents’ acts of possession - Effect - They constitute conclusive evidence of ownership - Not proof of pledge - As the pledged lands have been shown - To be outside the land in dispute (H3) Okoye v. Obiaso (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 280) 1329; (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1195) 145

EVIDENCE - Title - Proof - Respondents’ acts of possession - Effect - They constitute conclusive evidence of ownership - Not proof of pledge - As the pledged lands have been shown - To be outside the land in dispute (H3) Suberu v. The State (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 280) 1353; (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1197) 586

EVIDENCE - Title - Proof - Where respondent claims to having certificate of occupancy - Of the land in dispute - And did not plead same in his defence - Such evidence goes to no issue (H8) Tanko v. Echendu (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3205; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1224) 253

EVIDENCE - Title - Self defeating evidence - Where evidence of respondent shows that - The person whom appellant allegedly sold to - Merely granted a sub lease to another - Such evidence is self defeating (H5) Tanko v. Echendu (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3205; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1224) 253

EVIDENCE - Title - Succession - Proof by documents - Appellant could have proved title by production of title documents - But he had no documents to depict - That the property had been legally assigned to him (H2) Orlu v. Gogo-Abite (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 391; (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1196) 307

EVIDENCE - Torts - Special damages - Claim for - Requirements - It must be specially pleaded and particularized in the pleading - And adequate evidence given - Which plaintiff failed to do in this case (H1) Adim v. Nig. Botling Co. Ltd. (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1401; (2010) 9 NWLR (Pt.1200) 543

EVIDENCE - Trespass - Proof of better title - Implications - Once plaintiff shows proof of prior possession of the land - The onus shifts to defendant - To show that he has a better title (H2) Kopek Const. Ltd. v. Ekisola (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 247; (2010) 3 NWLR (Pt.1182) 618

EVIDENCE - Trespass - Survey plan - Where respondent knows the land in dispute - Filing survey plan is not an absolute necessity - To prove identity of the land in dispute (H10) Tanko v. Echendu (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3205; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1224) 253

EVIDENCE - Weight - Evidence of PW1 - Whether conclusive - Trial judge reduced the efficacy of the weight of the evidence - When he stated that it should only be persuasive - Though unchallenged (H5) Kayode Vent. Ltd. v. Min. of FCT (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 611; (2010) 7 NWLR (Pt.1192) 171

EVIDENCE - Words & Phrases - “Person interested” - S. 91(3) of Evidence Act - Meaning - A person who is performing an act in his official capacity - Cannot be a person interested under the section (H1) NSITF MGT. BOARD Mgt. Board v. Klifco Nig. Ltd. (2010) 7 KLR (pt. 284) 2255; (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1211) 307

EVIDENCE - Words & Phrases - “Prima facie” - Meaning - It means the nature of evidence which if accepted - Is sufficient to establish a fact - Unless rebutted (H5) GMBH v. Tunji Ind. Ltd. (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1485; (2010) 11 NWLR (Pt.1206) 589

FAIR HEARING - Appeals - Breach of fair hearing - Effect - Appellate court need not go into the reasons for the breach - It has no alternative but to allow the appeal - And treat it as though there had been no hearing at all (H2) Yesufu v. Adama (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 278) 1021; (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt.1188) 522

FAIR HEARING - Appeals - Complaint of breach - Propriety - Appellants who decided to stand by - And watch the outcome of the case at lower court - Can not complain of breach of fair hearing (H12) Osun State INEC v. AC (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3137; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 273

FAIR HEARING - Breach - Correctness of decision - Effect - Once the right to fair hearing is violated - It is irrelevant whether the decision subsequently reached is correct (H1) Yesufu v. Adama (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 278) 1021; (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt.1188) 522

FAIR HEARING - Breach - Effect on judgment - Such judgment will not be allowed to stand on appeal - As the right to fair hearing is constitutional (H9) First Bank v. T.S.A. Ind. Ltd. (2010) 7 KLR (pt. 285) 2383; (2010) 15 NWLR (Pt.1216) 247

FAIR HEARING - Breach - Effect on proceedings - It renders the entire proceedings null and void - Necessitating a consequential order of retrial (H2) Pan Africa Int. v. Shoreline Ltd. (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 279) 1153; (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt.1189) 98

FAIR HEARING - Courts - Interlocutory applications - Refusal to hear pending motion - Effect - It amounts to a breach of fair hearing - Nullifies subsequent proceedings - And entitles injured party to have same set aside (H4) Dingyadi v. INEC (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 1877

FAIR HEARING - Courts - Statutory duty - To consider all issues raised - Failure to do same - Will lead to denial of fair hearing - Capable of nullifying the proceedings (H5) Samba Ltd. UBA Plc. (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 288) 3289; (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt.1221) 192

FAIR HEARING - Courts - Trial - Denial - Cross appellant was not given opportunity - To be heard in the normal course of trial (H3) Samba Ltd. UBA Plc. (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 288) 3289; (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt.1221) 192

FAIR HEARING - Ingredients - It must include giving to a party or his counsel - Opportunity to present his case - In an atmosphere free from fear and intimidation (H2) FRN v. Akubueze (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 1993; (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt.1223) 525

FAIR HEARING - Judgments - Complaints - Failure to consider some - Effect - It is inconsequential - For as long as the judge considered the most vital aspects of the application - There was no infringement of fair hearing (H2) Nasir v. Civil Serv. Com. Kano (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 651; (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt.1190) 253

FAIR HEARING - Observance - Yardstick for determining - It is not whether any injustice has been occasioned on any party - Due to want of hearing - It is whether an opportunity of hearing was afforded to the parties (H4) Union Bank v. Astra Builders Ltd. (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 769; (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt.1186) 1

FAIR HEARING - Principles - Application - Basis - It is based on opportunity to meet the case of the other party - Where a party fails to utilize the opportunity offered - He cannot be heard to complain of lack of fair hearing (H5) Chami v. UBA Plc. (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 507; (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt.1191) 474

FAIR HEARING - Violation - Evidence led before joinder - As basis for liability - Propriety - As the evidence was taken behind their back - To hold appellants liable based on it - Amounts to breach of their right to fair hearing (H1) Pan Africa Int. v. Shoreline Ltd. (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 279) 1153; (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt.1189) 98

FAMILY LAW - Custom - Headship of family - Qualification - For purposes of land transaction - The eldest member of a family is by virtue of that fact - Head of the family - Whether or not he is a mogaji (H4) Teriba v. Adeyemo (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1583; (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1211) 242

FAMILY LAW - Custom law - Family property - Sale - Validity - Sale by member without consent of family head is void - But sale by the head without consent of principal members is only voidable (H3) Teriba v. Adeyemo (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1583; (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1211) 242

FAMILY LAW - Evidence - Proof - Paternity of Ojo and Adeniran - From the evidence before trial court - It is established that neither of them is a son of Jagun Ibagbe (H4) Ishola v. Falorunso (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 2009; (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1210) 169

FAMILY LAW - Lands - Common property - Exclusive ownership - Burden of proof - Where parties agree that the land was common property originally - The onus rests on the party now claiming exclusive ownership to prove same (H3) Olodo v. Josiah (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2971; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 653

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS - Actions - Nonjoinder - Effect of - Where appellant was not joined at the proceedings - Which adversely affected him - Breach of his fundamental rights to fair hearing was occasioned - That rendered the action incompetent (H2) Okonta v. Philips (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3095; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 320

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS - Fair hearing - Breach - Correctness of decision - Effect - Once the right to fair hearing is violated - It is irrelevant whether the decision subsequently reached is correct (H1) Yesufu v. Adama (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 278) 1021; (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt.1188) 522

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS - Right to freedom of association - S. 40 of the Constitution - Limits - The rights under the section are not absolute - But have to be exercised within the ambit of s. 45 of the Constitution (H7) NUEE v. Bureau of Pub. Enter. (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 691; (2010) 7 NWLR (Pt.1194) 538

IDENTIFICATION PARADE - Need - Dispensing with - Where the accused person and the prosecution witness knew themselves - Before the alleged crime - There is no need for an identification parade (H7) Sunday v. Oformata (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 286) 2583

IDENTIFICATION PARADE - Relevancy - Where the prosecution witnesses knew the accused person - Before the commission of the crime - Identification parade is unnecessary (H7) Attah v. State (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 279) 1039; (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt.1201) 190

ILLITERATES - Document - Signed by an illiterate - And third party claims - While the writer of such document cannot take advantage thereunder - Persons other than the writer can do so (H4) Orlu v. Gogo-Abite (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 391; (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1196) 307

INDUSTRIAL LAW - Trade disputes - Employer/Employee relationship - Necessity - In the absence of an employer/employee relationship - Between the parties herein - Disagreement between them - Cannot qualify as a trade dispute (H1) NUEE v. Bureau of Pub. Enter. (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 691; (2010) 7 NWLR (Pt.1194) 538

INDUSTRIAL LAW - Trade disputes - Nature - Connection with employment necessary - The dispute must be connected with employment - Not a dispute about some different subject matter - Non settlement of which may result in nonemployment (H2) NUEE v. Bureau of Pub. Enter. (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 691; (2010) 7 NWLR (Pt.1194) 538

INJUNCTIONS - Trespass - Order of injunction - Propriety - Since respondent said he had disposed of the property in question - There was no justification for the order of injunction - Granted in his favour (H2) Sky Bank Plc v. Bolanle (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 278) 979

INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS - Appeals - Parties - Duty to compile record - Under O. 7 of Supreme Court Rules - Compilation of primary record is the duty of appellant - But where he fails - Respondent has option of either doing so or asking for dismissal (H6) Dingyadi v. INEC (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 1877

INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS - Appeals - Application for dismissal - Propriety of hearing - The hearing on 5/6/01 was unjustifiable - As the hearing notice for it was dated 31/5/01- And there was an intervening weekend between the two dates (H2) Olorunyolemi v. Akhagbe (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277)733; (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1195) 48

INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS - Courts - Refusal to hear pending motion - Effect - It amounts to a breach of fair hearing - Nullifies subsequent proceedings - And entitles injured party to have same set aside (H4) Dingyadi v. INEC (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 1877

INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS - Duty of courts - Pending applications - Determination - Courts have a duty to consider and determine all pending applications - Before determining an action or appeal in its finality (H3) Dingyadi v. INEC (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 1877

INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS - Motions - Struck out by court - Options of applicant - He can either file a fresh motion or apply to relist the one struck out - Depending on the circumstances that led to the striking out (H4) Panalpina Trans. Ltd. v. Olandeen Int’l (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2999; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 1

INTERNATIONAL LAW - Carriage of goods by sea - Inward shipments - Hague Rules 1924 - Applicability - Basis - It applies to contracts of shipment into Nigeria - By virtue of incorporation in a clause - Not as a matter of statute (H3) JSF Invest. Ltd v. Brawal Line Ltd (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 286) 2611; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 495

INTERNATIONAL LAW - Commercial law - Judgment sum - Award in foreign currency - Propriety - Our courts have jurisdiction - To give judgment in foreign currency - On the strength of the Miliangos case - Which overruled the Havana case (H7) GMBH v. Tunji Ind. Ltd. (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1485; (2010) 11 NWLR (Pt.1206) 589

INTERNATIONAL LAW - Treaties - Domestic application - S. 12 of 1979 Constitution - Where a treaty qualifies as an existing law under the 1979 Constitution - It does not require further ratification - To apply domestically (H8) JSF Invest. Ltd v. Brawal Line Ltd (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 286) 2611; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 495

JUDGMENTS - Appeals - Application for enlargement of time - Nonreceipt of copy of judgment - As reason for late appeal - Where judgment to be appealed against is that of trial court - Such reason is unacceptable - As applicant could have filed an omnibus ground in the meantime (H2) Min. of Petroleum v. Expo-Shipping Line (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1557; (2010) 12 NWLR (Pt.1208) 261

JUDGMENTS - Appeals - Application for enlargement of time - Reason for delay - Sufficiency - Where reason is inability to obtain copy of judgment - Applicant must spell out when and how he applied for it - And what obstacles faced (H1) Min. of Petroleum v. Expo-Shipping Line (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1557; (2010) 12 NWLR (Pt.1208) 261

JUDGMENTS - Appeals - Time to appeal - Validity - The period within which to appeal - For final decision is 90 days - And not 14 days meant for interlocutory appeals (H6) Gen. Elect. Coy. v. Akande (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3069; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 596

JUDGMENTS - Action for damages - Failure to make monetary award - Whether fatal - Such failure is at most an irregularity which could be cured - As it did not occasion a miscarriage of justice (H4) Baliol Nig. Ltd. v. Navcon Nig. Ltd. (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1703; (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1220) 619

JUDGMENTS - Actions - Counterclaim - Dismissal - Propriety - Court of Appeal rightly dismissed appellants’ counterclaim - In view of respondents’ proof of their title to the land in dispute (H6) Obineche v. Akusobi (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 2057; (2010) 12 NWLR (Pt.1208) 383

JUDGMENTS - Appeals - “To allow an appeal” - Meaning - Where an appeal is allowed without conditions attached - It means judgment of lower court is set aside - And the reliefs it had refused are granted - Or vice versa (H1) Ishola v. Falorunso (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 2009; (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1210) 169

JUDGMENTS - Appeals - Application for enlargement of time - Reason for delay - When irrelevant - Where proposed grounds of appeal is on issue of jurisdiction - Arising prima facie from the judgment appealed against - It ceases to be relevant (H4) Min. of Petroleum v. Expo-Shipping Line (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1557; (2010) 12 NWLR (Pt.1208) 261

JUDGMENTS - Appeals - Basis of dismissal - Whether commencement procedure - Court of Appeal did not dismiss appellant’s appeal - Solely because it was brought by way of originating summons (H2) Amasike v. Reg. Gen. CAC (2010) 7 KLR (pt. 284) 2131; (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1211) 337

JUDGMENTS - Appeals - Court of Appeal’s decision - Based on repugnancy - Propriety - The decision failed to consider the pleadings and evidence - As the principle of repugnancy was never contested on the pleadings and evidence (H2) Ojiogu v. Ojiogu (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 279) 1113; (2010) 9 NWLR (Pt.1198) 1

JUDGMENTS - Appeals - Decision on points - Not appealed against - Binding effect - By operation of law such decision - As far as it relates to that point - Remains binding on the parties to the action (H2) Okonobor v. Edegbe & Sons Ltd. (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 725; (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt.1221) 181

JUDGMENTS - Appeals - Finality - Basis - Where appeal has been dismissed with cost - Which decision terminated the appeal - Such decision was final and not interlocutory (H5) Gen. Elect. Coy. v. Akande (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3069; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 596

JUDGMENTS - Appeals - Findings of fact - Land in Exhibits B and B1 - Whether within the land in dispute - Contrary to argument of appellants - Court of Appeal found both land to be outside the land in dispute (H1) Okoye v. Obiaso (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 280) 1329; (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1195) 145

JUDGMENTS - Appeals - Findings of fact - Land in Exhibits B and B1 - Whether within the land in dispute - Contrary to argument of appellants - Court of Appeal found both land to be outside the land in dispute (H1) Suberu v. The State (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 280) 1353; (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1197) 586

JUDGMENTS - Appeals - Grounds - Text of judgment - Whether sole source - It is not the sole source - As a ground of appeal may also arise - From extrinsic factors like jurisdiction - Or some omission or commission by the court (H2) Akpan v. Bob (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1623; (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt.1223) 421

JUDGMENTS - Appeals - Issues - Basis - Propriety - Issues must be distilled from grounds of appeal - Which grounds must attack the ratio of the judgment appealed against - Unlike issue 5 in the instant case (H2) Chami v. UBA Plc. (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 507; (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt.1191) 474

JUDGMENTS - Appeals - Issues - Essence of - An issue is properly so called- When its resolution in favour of appellant - Should result in setting aside of the judgment appealed against (H1) Akomolafe v. Guardian Press Ltd. (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 275) 63; (2010) 3 NWLR (Pt.1181) 338

JUDGMENTS - Appeals - Issues - Propriety - Complaint against jurisdiction - Such complaint can only be properly entertained where it is on an appeal against the judgment - Or against the assumption of jurisdiction by the trial court (H4) Federal Housing Authority v. Kalejaiye (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2911; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 147

JUDGMENTS - Appeals - Issues - Raising two issues - On cross appeal - Failure to determine one of the issues raised - Will affect competence of counter claim (H2) Samba Ltd. UBA Plc. (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 288) 3289; (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt.1221) 192

JUDGMENTS - Appeals - Parties - Right of Appeal - A person cannot appeal against a decision - Unless it wrongfully deprives him of an entitlement - Or some thing which he had a right to demand (H2) Adekeye v. Adesina (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2801; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 449

JUDGMENTS - Appeals - Respondent’s notice - Seeking variation - Necessity - It having been decided that 1st respondent is the legal winner of the election - Other reliefs naturally follow - It does not require the variation sought by the respondent’s notice (H7) Ezeigwe v. Nwawulu (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 535; (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt.1183) 159

JUDGMENTS - Appeals - Special damages - Claim for loss of profit - Refusal by Court of Appeal - Propriety - Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the claim - After it had held that the claim was particularised and proved (H1) Alade v. Alic (Nig) Ltd. (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2843; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 111

JUDGMENTS - Appeals - Title & boundary dispute - Whether different - Court of Appeal was wrong in holding that only boundary dispute was in issue - And there is no distinction - Between boundary and land dispute (H1) Tanko v. Echendu (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3205; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1224) 253

JUDGMENTS - Based on suo motu issues - Effect - It does not necessarily lead to a reversal of the decision - Unless it is shown that miscarriage of justice was occasioned thereby (H4) Effiom v. CROSIEC (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1767; (2010) 14 NWLR (Pt.1213) 106

JUDGMENTS - Basis - Controversion - The basis of trial court’s judgment for respondents - Was its finding that the land in dispute adjoins that in PHC/36/72 - Which finding is crucial and unassailable (H1) Ibuluya v. Dikibo (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1519; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 627

JUDGMENTS - Basis - Exhibit C - Treatment by Court of Appeal - Contrary to appellant’s contention - Court of Appeal never held that trial court did not rely on the exhibit - But that its judgment would still be valid - In the absence of the exhibit (H4) Salisu v. Odumade (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 747; (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt.1190) 228

JUDGMENTS - Basis - Extraneous matters - Whether relied on - The court merely regarded certain naked facts - The existence of which none of the parties could deny - And neither party was prejudiced by the step (H9) Ishola v. Falorunso (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 2009; (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1210) 169

JUDGMENTS - Basis - Rejection of appellant’s case - Reason - Contrary to allegation of appellant - Court of Appeal rejected his case for lack of proof - And not for reason of being fair to trial judge (H3) Odunukwe v. Ofomata (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 285) 2405; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 404

JUDGMENTS - Basis - Reliance on exhibit P.4 - Whether fatal - Though the reliance on it was improper - It has not led to miscarriage of justice - In view of the contents of exhibits P.1 and P. 2 - So it is not fatal (H1) Agala v. Okusin (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1421; (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt.1202) 412

JUDGMENTS - Challenge - By persons interested - Option - They should apply to trial court for leave - To appeal against the judgment - As a person having interest in the matter (H3) Bello v. INEC (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 278) 827; (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1196) 342

JUDGMENTS - Commercial law - Judgment sum - Award in foreign currency - Propriety - Our courts have jurisdiction - To give judgment in foreign currency - On the strength of the Miliangos case - Which overruled the Havana case (H7) GMBH v. Tunji Ind. Ltd. (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1485; (2010) 11 NWLR (Pt.1206) 589

JUDGMENTS - Commercial law - Judgment sum - Award in foreign currency - Rate of conversion - Applicable rate is that prevailing - At time of enforcing judgment - On the strength of the Miliangos case - Which overruled the Havana case (H7) GMBH v. Tunji Ind. Ltd. (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1485; (2010) 11 NWLR (Pt.1206) 589

JUDGMENTS - Complaints - Failure to consider some - Effect - It is inconsequential - For as long as the judge considered the most vital aspects of the application - There was no infringement of fair hearing (H2) Nasir v. Civil Serv. Com. Kano (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 651; (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt.1190) 253

JUDGMENTS - Courts - Conflicting decisions of superior court - No discernible ratio - Option of lower courts - In such a case the lower court is free to choose between the decisions - Which appears to it correct (H3) Osakue v. Fed. Col. of Edu. Asaba (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 278) 953; (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt.1201) 1

JUDGMENTS - Courts - Records of proceedings - Binding effect - Courts are bound by their records - And must look into them at the time of writing their judgments (H2) Leaders Co. Ltd. v. Bamaiyi (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 286) 2647; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 329

JUDGMENTS - Evidence - Analysis - Liberty of judges - Unless there are oral or documentary materials before the court - Worth the while of a judge to consider extensively - He may not be obliged to make such detailed analysis (H1) Nasir v. Civil Serv. Com. Kano (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 651; (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt.1190) 253

JUDGMENTS - Evidence - Contradictions in a party’s case - Effect on appeal - It is not every such contradiction that will affect the substance of the case - It is only such as have caused a miscarriage of justice (H5) Shurumo v. State (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 3021; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 73

JUDGMENTS - Evidence - Uncontradicted - Where such evidence is irrelevant to the claim - It will have no consequence on the judgment (H4) Agala v. Okusin (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1421; (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt.1202) 412

JUDGMENTS - Extension of time to appeal - Reason for failure to appeal in time - Sufficiency - Where reason is the election of alternative option - When applicant had option to appeal - Such reason is insufficient (H2) Federal Housing Authority v. Kalejaiye (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2911; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 147

JUDGMENTS - Fair hearing - Breach - Effect on judgment - Such judgment will not be allowed to stand on appeal - As the right to fair hearing is constitutional (H9) First Bank v. T.S.A. Ind. Ltd. (2010) 7 KLR (pt. 285) 2383; (2010) 15 NWLR (Pt.1216) 247

JUDGMENTS - Forms - Failure to date and sign - Means of proof - Where the record of appeal indicates that the judgment was dated and signed - As in the instant case - The manuscript need to be tendered to prove otherwise (H8) Sunday v. Oformata (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 286) 2583

JUDGMENTS - Forms - S. 269(1) of C.P.C. of Kano State - Compliance with - The judgments of trial court is in full compliance - With the provisions of the section - Contrary to submission of appellant’s counsel (H4) Attah v. State (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 279) 1039; (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt.1201) 190

JUDGMENTS - Grounds of appeal - Not related to decision appealed - Competence - Such ground of appeal - Like the sole ground herein - Being unrelated to the decision appealed against - Is incompetent and should be struck out (H3) Okonobor v. Edegbe & Sons Ltd. (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 725; (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt.1221) 181

JUDGMENTS - Judicial precedents - Conflicting judgments - Of Supreme Court - Option of lower courts - Where there are conflicting Supreme Court authorities - Lower courts are bound by the latter decision (H1) Osakue v. Fed. Col. of Edu. Asaba (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 278) 953; (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt.1201) 1

JUDGMENTS - Judicial precedents - Stare decisis - Decisions per incuriam - Binding nature - Lower court cannot refuse to be bound by decisions of higher courts - Even if such decisions are reached per incuriam (H4) Osakue v. Fed. Col. of Edu. Asaba (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 278) 953; (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt.1201) 1

JUDGMENTS - Justice - Failure to make consequential orders - Effect - Though it is the ideal thing to make such order - Failure of a court to so do - Could not cause miscarriage of justice to the losing party (H2) Ishola v. Falorunso (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 2009; (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1210) 169

JUDGMENTS - Land law - Title - Proof - Onus - Where plaintiff proves grant of title by an earlier judgment - The onus is on defendant - To lead evidence to nullify that grant - Which defendants herein failed to do (H3) Obineche v. Akusobi (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 2057; (2010) 12 NWLR (Pt.1208) 383

JUDGMENTS - Land law - Title - Proof - Traditional history - Relevance - Where a party proves his title through an earlier court judgment - Traditional history is irrelevant in proof of same - In that proceedings (H5) Obineche v. Akusobi (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 2057; (2010) 12 NWLR (Pt.1208) 383

JUDGMENTS - Missing word - Held to be “fair” - Correctness - In view of the recorded findings by the trial judge - Court of Appeal was right - To have held that the missing word was “fair” (H5) Akomolafe v. Guardian Press Ltd. (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 275) 63; (2010) 3 NWLR (Pt.1181) 338

JUDGMENTS - Mistakes - Appeals - Setting aside - Effect of mistakes - A mistake must have led to miscarriage of justice - Before it can result in the setting aside - Of a judgment appealed against (H2) Akomolafe v. Guardian Press Ltd. (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 275) 63; (2010) 3 NWLR (Pt.1181) 338

JUDGMENTS - Mistakes - Effect on appeal - It does not result in reversal - Unless it is fatal - In the sense that it occasioned substantial miscarriage of justice (H3) Amasike v. Reg. Gen. CAC (2010) 7 KLR (pt. 284) 2131; (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1211) 337

JUDGMENTS - Mistakes - Mistaken statements - How ascertained - A statement should not be read in isolation - But should be read along with paragraphs before and after it - To ascertain if it is a mistake (H3) Ibuluya v. Dikibo (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1519; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 627

JUDGMENTS - Proof - Land law - Where plaintiff fails to prove his case - Proper verdict - Judgment should be in favour of defendant - As it is plaintiff who failed to prove - That he is entitled to what he claims (H5) Nwokidu v. Okanu (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 323; (2010) 3 NWLR (Pt.1181) 362

JUDGMENTS - Propriety - Plaintiff’s claim - Whether proved - As plaintiff has made out a prima facie case - He is entitled to have judgment in his favour - In view of defendant’s failure to rebut same (H3) GMBH v. Tunji Ind. Ltd. (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1485; (2010) 11 NWLR (Pt.1206) 589

JUDGMENTS - Reliefs - Consequential orders - Need for - Where necessary consequential order was not made - To revert to status quo ante - It would only amount to - A doubtful victory (H10) Osun State INEC v. AC (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3137; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 273

JUDGMENTS - Res judicata - Applicability - As both parties and subject matter - Are same in past and present suit - Appellants are misguided in litigating the matter afresh - As it has been determined by the judgment in the prior suit (H1) Alapo v. Agbokere (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 278) 811; (2010) 9 NWLR (Pt.1198) 30

JUDGMENTS - Res judicata - Rationale - Whether based on rightness of judgment - The rationale for the doctrine is not because the judgment is right - But that there needs be an end to litigation (H2) Alapo v. Agbokere (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 278) 811; (2010) 9 NWLR (Pt.1198) 30

JUDGMENTS - Setting aside - On ground of error - Propriety - An error that could result in setting aside - Must be substantial - So as to affect the justice of the case (H1) Ohakim v. Agbaso (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 286) 2513; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 172

JUDGMENTS - Time of delivery - Where delivered earlier than fixed - And without notice to appellant - Miscarriage of justice must be shown - For the said judgment to be nullified (H8) Cotecna Int’l Ltd. v. Churchgate Nig. Ltd. (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) p. 2871; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 346

JUDGMENTS - Use of words - Liberty of judges - Extent - They are at liberty to use any words they like - Provided they do not go outside the issue before them (H5) Amasike v. Reg. Gen. CAC (2010) 7 KLR (pt. 284) 2131; (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1211) 337

JUDGMENTS - Words & phrases - “Consequential order” - Nature of - It gives effect to the judgment already given - It does not grant fresh relief - But flows naturally from the main relief granted (H3) Ishola v. Falorunso (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 2009; (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1210) 169

JUDGMENTS - Words & phrases - Judgment on the merits - Meaning - It is one obtained where the case has been argued - And the court has decided - Which party is in the right (H4) Oyegun v. Nzeribe (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 419

JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS - Appeals - Leave to amend processes - S. 16 of Court of Appeal Act - Limitation by Supreme Court - Basis - Based on the hierarchy of courts - And the doctrine of judicial precedent - Supreme Court may limit application of the section (H3) Ogunsola v. NICON (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 2083; (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1211) 225

JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS - Authority - Odofin v. Agu - Application for extension of time to appeal - The case is not an authority that every such application - Must contain the trinity prayers (H3) Ault & Wiborg Ltd. v. Nibel Ind. Ltd. (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 1853; (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1220) 619

JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS - Conflicting judgments - Of Supreme Court - Option of lower courts - Where there are conflicting Supreme Court authorities - Lower courts are bound by the latter decision (H1) Osakue v. Fed. Col. of Edu. Asaba (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 278) 953; (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt.1201) 1

JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS - Consequential orders - Amaechi v. INEC - Applicability - Court of Appeal was right in granting consequential orders - To give effect to reliefs 1-5 - By setting the election aside (H11) Osun State INEC v. AC (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3137; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 273

JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS - Courts - Conflicting decisions of superior court - No discernible ratio - Option of lower courts - In such a case the lower court is free to choose between the decisions - Which appears to it correct (H3) Osakue v. Fed. Col. of Edu. Asaba (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 278) 953; (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt.1201) 1

JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS - Stare decisis - Decisions per incuriam - Binding nature - Lower court cannot refuse to be bound by decisions of higher courts - Even if such decisions are reached per incuriam (H4) Osakue v. Fed. Col. of Edu. Asaba (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 278) 953; (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt.1201) 1

JURISDICTION - Actions - How determined - In order to determine Jurisdiction - Court has to look at plaintiff’s statement of claim and not the defence (H2) Olofu v. Itodo (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3101; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 545

JURISDICTION - Actions - Proper parties - Necessity of - Where proper parties are not before the court - It does not assume jurisdiction - And can not make order affecting parties not so joined (H1) Okonta v. Philips (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3095; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 320

JURISDICTION - Appeals - Application for enlargement of time - Reason for delay - When irrelevant - Where proposed grounds of appeal is on issue of jurisdiction - Arising prima facie from the judgment appealed against - It ceases to be relevant (H4) Min. of Petroleum v. Expo-Shipping Line (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1557; (2010) 12 NWLR (Pt.1208) 261

JURISDICTION - Appeals - Application for enlargement of time - Reason for delay - When it may be overlooked - Where proposed grounds of appeal is on strong points of law - Like want of jurisdiction - It may not be necessary to satisfactorily explain the delay (H3) Min. of Petroleum v. Expo-Shipping Line (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1557; (2010) 12 NWLR (Pt.1208) 261

JURISDICTION - Appeals - Court of Appeal Rules - Dismissal under O. 6 r. 10 - Effect on status of appeal - Such dismissal terminates the life of the appeal - Such that no court has jurisdiction to revive it (H4) First Bank v. T.S.A. Ind. Ltd. (2010) 7 KLR (pt. 285) 2383; (2010) 15 NWLR (Pt.1216) 247

JURISDICTION - Appeals - Fresh issues - Raised for the first time - Propriety - Though such issue can be raised at any stage - Being a point of law - It requires prior leave of court to be so raised (H1) Sapo v. Sunmonu (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1819; (2010) 11 NWLR (Pt.1205) 374

JURISDICTION - Appeals - Issues - Propriety - Complaint against jurisdiction - Such complaint can only be properly entertained where it is on an appeal against the judgment - Or against the assumption of jurisdiction by the trial court (H4) Federal Housing Authority v. Kalejaiye (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2911; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 147

JURISDICTION - Certiorari - Hearing - Noncompliance with O. 37 r. 5(4) of High Court Rules of Anambra State - Such noncompliance erodes the court’s jurisdiction - It is not an irregularity that can be waived or cured (H2) Onyemaizu v. Ojiako (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 371; (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt.1185) 504

JURISDICTION - Commercial law - Judgment sum - Award in foreign currency - Propriety - Our courts have jurisdiction - To give judgment in foreign currency - On the strength of the Miliangos case - Which overruled the Havana case (H7) GMBH v. Tunji Ind. Ltd. (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1485; (2010) 11 NWLR (Pt.1206) 589

JURISDICTION - Conflict of laws - Trade Disputes (Amendment) Decree - By conferring exclusive jurisdiction - On National Industrial Court - It detracts from the powers of the State High Court under s. 272 of the Constitution - And as such is null and void (H5) NUEE v. Bureau of Pub. Enter. (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 691; (2010) 7 NWLR (Pt.1194) 538

JURISDICTION - Courts - Absence of - Effect on appellate court - Where trial court has no jurisdiction to hear a matter - As in this case - Court of Appeal will be without jurisdiction (H8) Olofu v. Itodo (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3101; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 545

JURISDICTION - Courts - Claims - As basis - The jurisdiction of a court to adjudicate on a matter - Is predicated upon the facts placed before it - Especially the phraseology of the plaintiff’s claim (H3) Egharevba v. Eribo (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 278) 877; (2010) 9 NWLR (Pt.1199) 411

JURISDICTION - Courts - Decisions - lack of jurisdiction - Effect - Where a court lacks competence to try a person - Whatever decision it arrives at on such person - Is a nullity (H7) Nig. Army v. Aminun-Kano (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 287; (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt.1188) 429

JURISDICTION - Courts - Derivative actions - Defect in commencement - Effect - Such defect nullifies the entire proceedings - Commencement by originating summons is condition precedent - To exercise of jurisdiction by court (H5) Agip (Nig) Ltd. v. Agip Petroli Int’l (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 275) 1; (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt.1187) 348

JURISDICTION - Courts - Determination - Basis - It is to be determined on plaintiff’s statement of claim - Without any recourse to defendant’s statement of defence (H1) Adatayo v. Ademola (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1375; (2010) 15 NWLR (Pt.1215) 169

JURISDICTION - Courts - Elections - Matters relating to - By S. 285 (2) of the 1999 Constitution - Such matters are within the exclusive jurisdiction of Election Tribunals (H8) Ohakim v. Agbaso (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 286) 2513; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 172

JURISDICTION - Courts - How activated - Failure of political party to comply with Electoral law - Confers jurisdiction on court - To protect rights of candidates - As to ensure order in the society (H5) Olofu v. Itodo (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3101; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 545

JURISDICTION - Courts - Joinder of parties - Effect of nonjoinder - It does not affect jurisdiction of the court - Nor even the competence of the suit - As an application may be made during trial to join appropriate persons (H3) Anyawoko v. Okoye (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 275) 87; (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt.1188) 497

JURISDICTION - Courts - Objection - In the middle of trial - Propriety - Since it concerned jurisdiction - The objection was properly raised - For such objection can be raised at any time before judgment (H3) Nasir v. Civil Serv. Com. Kano (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 651; (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt.1190) 253

JURISDICTION - Courts - Words & phrases - “Functus officio” - Meaning - A court becomes functus officio in a matter - When it fulfills its function in respect thereof - And so lacks the potency to revisit it (H5) First Bank v. T.S.A. Ind. Ltd. (2010) 7 KLR (pt. 285) 2383; (2010) 15 NWLR (Pt.1216) 247

JURISDICTION - Election tribunals - Hearing of motions outside pre-hearing session - Validity - Any such hearing is done without jurisdiction - And is consequently null and void - Under paragraph 6(1) of Practice Directions 2007 (H4) Nwankwo v. Yar’adua (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 280) 1223; (2010) 12 NWLR (Pt.1209) 518

JURISDICTION - Elections - Courts - Basis of - The Constitution confers exclusive jurisdiction - In concluded elections as in this case on tribunals - And pre-election matters on High Courts (H6) Olofu v. Itodo (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3101; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 545

JURISDICTION - Exclusivity - Federal High Court - Subject matter of action - This court’s jurisdiction is not automatic in all matters - In which Federal Government is a party - Subject matter of action must also be recognized by s. 251 of the Constitution (H6) NUEE v. Bureau of Pub. Enter. (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 691; (2010) 7 NWLR (Pt.1194) 538

JURISDICTION - F.C.T. High court - Crime - S. 257 of the Constitution - Scope - It confers jurisdiction on the court - To hear and determine criminal proceedings - At first instance and in appellate or supervisory capacity (H4) Nyame v. FRN (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 280) 1269; (2010) 7 NWLR (Pt.1193) 344

JURISDICTION - Federal High Court - Companies - Limit - Where the dispute is not on matters concerning the law - Regulating the operations of CAMA - It falls outside the exclusive jurisdiction of the court (H1) Godwin v. Okwey (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 285) 2299; (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1219) 309

JURISDICTION - Federal High Court - Effect of s. 230(1) of 1979 Constitution - Paragraphs (p) to (s) conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the court - In certain matters notwithstanding the nature of the claim (H2) Osakue v. Fed. Col. of Edu. Asaba (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 278) 953; (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt.1201) 1

JURISDICTION - Federal High Court - S. 251(1)(r) of 1999 Constitution - Scope - Though it appears to give the court exclusive jurisdiction - Once Federal Government is a party - But facts and circumstances - Are the determinant factors (H2) Adatayo v. Ademola (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1375; (2010) 15 NWLR (Pt.1215) 169

JURISDICTION - Federal High Court - S. 251(1)(r) of 1999 Constitution - Activation - It is activated only where the executive action of the Federal Government - Is being challenged by plaintiff (H3) Adatayo v. Ademola (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1375; (2010) 15 NWLR (Pt.1215) 169

JURISDICTION - High Courts - Supervisory jurisdiction - Limits - It covers the civil and criminal proceedings - But is not stretched to cover election petitions or appeals (H1) Egharevba v. Eribo (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 278) 877; (2010) 9 NWLR (Pt.1199) 411

JURISDICTION - Land law - Actions - Original jurisdiction - Courts having - State High Courts have exclusive jurisdiction - Over urban lands - And shares jurisdiction with Area and Customary courts - Over rural lands (H4) Adatayo v. Ademola (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1375; (2010) 15 NWLR (Pt.1215) 169

JURISDICTION - Originating summons - Not signed as required by the Rules - Effects - Such noncompliance amounts to mere irregularity - It has nothing to do with the jurisdiction of the court (H1) Anyawoko v. Okoye (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 275) 87; (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt.1188) 497

JURISDICTION - Source & purpose - Being conferred on courts by Constitution - It is fundamental to adjudication - As foundation on which courts exercise judicial powers (H1) Olofu v. Itodo (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3101; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 545

JURISDICTION - State High Courts - Curtailment - Conflict of laws - The jurisdiction as conferred by the Constitution - Can only be curtailed by the Constitution itself - Not by an Act or law of the National or State House of Assembly (H3) NUEE v. Bureau of Pub. Enter. (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 691; (2010) 7 NWLR (Pt.1194) 538

JURISDICTION - Supreme Court - Election petition appeals - Limit - Supreme court does not have jurisdiction - Where appeal arises from Governorship and Legislative Houses Election Tribunal - Decision of Court of Appeal in respect thereof is final (H2) Ugwa v. Lekwauwa (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 3049; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 26

JURISDICTION - Trespass - Reliefs - Injunction - Propriety - Once a court has found for continuing trespass - It has jurisdiction to grant the equitable remedy of injunction - Notwithstanding that it was not claimed (H4) Omotayo v. Cooperative Supply Asso. (2010) 7 KLR (pt. 284) 2277; (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1218) 1

JURISDICTION - Vesting of - F.C.T. High Court - Crime - Some of the elements of offences charged - Must occur in Abuja - Before the F.C.T. High court can assume jurisdiction (H2) Nyame v. FRN (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 280) 1269; (2010) 7 NWLR (Pt.1193) 344

JURISPRUDENCE - Actions - Statutes of Limitation - Application - Effect - The effect of its application is that it takes away the right of action - Leaving plaintiff with a cause of action devoid of any judicial relief (H3) Hassan v. Aliyu (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 285) 2311; (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt.1223) 547

JURISPRUDENCE - Commercial law - Words & phrases - “Account stated” - Meaning - It means a balance - That parties to a transaction agree on - Either expressly or by implication (H6) GMBH v. Tunji Ind. Ltd. (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1485; (2010) 11 NWLR (Pt.1206) 589

JURISPRUDENCE - Evidence - “Prima facie” - Meaning - It means the nature of evidence which if accepted - Is sufficient to establish a fact - Unless rebutted (H5) GMBH v. Tunji Ind. Ltd. (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1485; (2010) 11 NWLR (Pt.1206) 589

JURISPRUDENCE - Legal practitioners - Law firms and lawyers therein - Whether same - There is a legal difference between the firm and legal practitioners - In our jurisprudence of parties - Therefore one cannot substitute for the other (H2) Adewunmi v. Oketade (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 278) 797

JURISPRUDENCE - Words & Phrases - Exercise of discretion - Purport - It is an act based on ones personal judgment - In accordance with ones conscience - Free and unfettered by any external influence or suggestions (H1) Union Bank v. Astra Builders Ltd. (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 769; (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt.1186) 1

JURISPRUDENCE - Words & phrases - Right of action - Distinction from cause of action - While cause of actions refers to the facts entitling a plaintiff to his claims - Right of actions is the means by which he accesses judicial relief (H2) Hassan v. Aliyu (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 285) 2311; (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt.1223) 547

JUSTICE - Appeals - Briefs - Joint argument on issues - Severability - A court is at liberty to sever such argument - If doing so will meet the ends of justice (H6) Akpan v. Bob (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1623; (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt.1223) 421

JUSTICE - Appeals - Issues raised - Failure to relate to grounds - Whether fatal - Where briefs are properly filed and issues raised are not incompetent - The court will overlook such failure - In the process of doing substantial justice (H1) JSF Invest. Ltd v. Brawal Line Ltd (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 286) 2611; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 495

JUSTICE - Courts - Erroneous finding - That both parties called evidence - Effect - Even if the finding was in error - It did not occasion miscarriage of justice (H4) Akomolafe v. Guardian Press Ltd. (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 275) 63; (2010) 3 NWLR (Pt.1181) 338

JUSTICE - Fair hearing - Observance - Yardstick for determining - It is not whether any injustice has been occasioned on any party - Due to want of hearing - It is whether an opportunity of hearing was afforded to the parties (H4) Union Bank v. Astra Builders Ltd. (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 769; (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt.1186) 1

JUSTICE - Judgment - Time of delivery - Where delivered earlier than fixed - And without notice to appellant - Miscarriage of justice must be shown - For the said judgment to be nullified (H8) Cotecna Int’l Ltd. v. Churchgate Nig. Ltd. (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) p. 2871; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 346

JUSTICE - Judgments - Action for damages - Failure to make monetary award - Whether fatal - Such failure is at most an irregularity which could be cured - As it did not occasion a miscarriage of justice (H4) Baliol Nig. Ltd. v. Navcon Nig. Ltd. (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1703; (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1220) 619

JUSTICE - Judgments - Based on suo motu issues - Effect - It does not necessarily lead to a reversal of the decision - Unless it is shown that miscarriage of justice was occasioned thereby (H4) Effiom v. CROSIEC (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1767; (2010) 14 NWLR (Pt.1213) 106

JUSTICE - Judgments - Failure to make consequential orders - Effect - Though it is the ideal thing to make such order - Failure of a court to so do - Could not cause miscarriage of justice to the losing party (H2) Ishola v. Falorunso (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 2009; (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1210) 169

JUSTICE - Judgments - Mistakes - Effect on appeal - It does not result in reversal - Unless it is fatal - In the sense that it occasioned substantial miscarriage of justice (H3) Amasike v. Reg. Gen. CAC (2010) 7 KLR (pt. 284) 2131; (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1211) 337

JUSTICE - Judgments - Mistakes - Setting aside - Effect of mistakes - A mistake must have led to miscarriage of justice - Before it can result in the setting aside - Of a judgment appealed against (H2) Akomolafe v. Guardian Press Ltd. (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 275) 63; (2010) 3 NWLR (Pt.1181) 338

JUSTICE - Judgments - Prejudice - Basis - Extraneous matters - Whether relied on - The court merely regarded certain naked facts - The existence of which none of the parties could deny - And neither party was prejudiced by the step (H9) Ishola v. Falorunso (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 2009; (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1210) 169

JUSTICE - Judgments - Setting aside - On ground of error - Propriety - An error that could result in setting aside - Must be substantial - So as to affect the justice of the case (H1) Ohakim v. Agbaso (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 286) 2513; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 172

JUSTICE - Judicial bias - Proof - Judge as former counsel of a party - Effect - It is not enough to disqualify him - Unless it is shown that his former role as counsel - Could pervert the course of justice (H2) Womiloju v. Anibire (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1605; (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt.1203) 545

JUSTICE - Miscarriage - Issues - Raised but not considered - Effect - As same have now been considered by Supreme Court - And found to be without merit - Failure to consider them at lower court did not occasion miscarriage of justice (H7) CBN v. Amao (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1715; (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1219) 271

JUSTICE - Miscarriage - Judgment - Basis - Reliance on exhibit P.4 - Whether fatal - Though the reliance on it was improper - It has not led to miscarriage of justice - In view of the contents of exhibits P.1 and P. 2 - So it is not fatal (H1) Agala v. Okusin (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1421; (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt.1202) 412

LABOUR LAW - Trade disputes - Employer/Employee relationship - Necessity - In the absence of an employer/employee relationship - Between the parties herein - Disagreement between them - Cannot qualify as a trade dispute (H1) NUEE v. Bureau of Pub. Enter. (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 691; (2010) 7 NWLR (Pt.1194) 538

LABOUR LAW - Trade disputes - Nature - Connection with employment necessary - The dispute must be connected with employment - Not a dispute about some different subject matter - Non settlement of which may result in nonemployment (H2) NUEE v. Bureau of Pub. Enter. (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 691; (2010) 7 NWLR (Pt.1194) 538

LAND LAW - Actions - Counterclaim - Dismissal - Propriety - Court of Appeal rightly dismissed appellants’ counterclaim - In view of respondents’ proof of their title to the land in dispute (H6) Obineche v. Akusobi (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 2057; (2010) 12 NWLR (Pt.1208) 383

LAND LAW - Actions - Courts - Transfers - S. 22 of Federal High Court Act - Limit - It will not avail the court - Where subject of action involves plots of land - Located in two or more states (H5) Adatayo v. Ademola (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1375; (2010) 15 NWLR (Pt.1215) 169

LAND LAW - Actions - Decisions - Estoppel by conduct - Applicability - Where a party knew of - But took no part in previous proceedings on a subject matter affecting him - He is bound by the decision therein (H4) Obineche v. Akusobi (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 2057; (2010) 12 NWLR (Pt.1208) 383

LAND LAW - Actions - Joint defence - Effect on individual rights - Where defendants claim individual ownership of specific portions - Without filing separate survey plans for their desired portions - Joint defence may weaken their case (H4) Olodo v. Josiah (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2971; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 653

LAND LAW - Actions - Original jurisdiction - Courts having - State High Courts have exclusive jurisdiction - Over urban lands - And shares jurisdiction with Area and Customary courts - Over rural lands (H4) Adatayo v. Ademola (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1375; (2010) 15 NWLR (Pt.1215) 169

LAND LAW - Actions - Pleadings - Issues - Where in an action touching on land - Defendant claims ownership of the land by his pleadings - Issue of title becomes the cardinal issue - On which the action is to be fought (H2) Omotayo v. Cooperative Supply Asso. (2010) 7 KLR (pt. 284) 2277; (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1218) 1

LAND LAW - Appeals - Findings of fact - Land in Exhibits B and B1 - Whether within the land in dispute - Contrary to argument of appellants - Court of Appeal found both land to be outside the land in dispute (H1) Okoye v. Obiaso (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 280) 1329; (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1195) 145

LAND LAW - Appeals - Findings of fact - Land in Exhibits B and B1 - Whether within the land in dispute - Contrary to argument of appellants - Court of Appeal found both land to be outside the land in dispute (H1) Suberu v. The State (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 280) 1353; (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1197) 586

LAND LAW - Appeals - Title & boundary dispute - Whether different - Court of Appeal was wrong in holding that only boundary dispute was in issue - And there is no distinction - Between boundary and land dispute (H1) Tanko v. Echendu (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3205; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1224) 253

LAND LAW - Compulsory acquisition - Findings of fact - Finding as to service by pasting - Whether perverse - In view of the evidence before the trial court - And believed by it - The finding is not perverse (H1) Okeowo v. A-G Ogun State (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 285) 2367; (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1219) 327

LAND LAW - Compulsory acquisition - Service of notice - Dispensing with personal service - Though personal service is ordinarily mandatory - It may be dispensed with - Where it is difficult to trace the land owner (H2) Okeowo v. A-G Ogun State (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 285) 2367; (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1219) 327

LAND LAW - Conveyancing - Deeds - Earlier deed of gift - Recited in Exhibit A - Effect - Having embodied the deed in its recital - Exhibit A has subsumed the contents of the deed - So the deed no longer has legal recognition (H3) Oyeneyin v. Akinkugbe (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 439; (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt.1184) 265

LAND LAW - Conveyancing - Title - Grant of family land - Exhibits A and B - Validity - The exhibits are valid - Having been executed by the head and principal members - Of the grantor family - Contrary to allegation of appellants (H1) Oyeneyin v. Akinkugbe (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 439; (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt.1184) 265

LAND LAW - Courts - Title - Finding - That appellants failed to prove title - Basis - Trial court considered all five ways of proving title - Before making the finding - Particularly the acts of long possession by respondents (H4) Nwokidu v. Okanu (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 323; (2010) 3 NWLR (Pt.1181) 362

LAND LAW - Customary law - Family property - Sale - Validity - Sale by member without consent of family head is void - But sale by the head without consent of principal members is only voidable (H3) Teriba v. Adeyemo (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1583; (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1211) 242

LAND LAW - Customary law - Headship of family - Qualification - For purposes of land transaction - The eldest member of a family is by virtue of that fact - Head of the family - Whether or not he is a mogaji (H4) Teriba v. Adeyemo (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1583; (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1211) 242

LAND LAW - Declaration of title - Identity of land - Whether considered - Contrary to opinion of appellants - Trial court considered the issue - And found that both parties agree as to the land - From the pleadings and evidence led (H1) Nwokidu v. Okanu (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 323; (2010) 3 NWLR (Pt.1181) 362

LAND LAW - Evidence - Appeals - Reevaluation - Propriety - Where trial court fails to make a finding - On a material issue of fact as in this case - Appellate court is correct to consider vital evidence adduced - In proof of radical title to land (H1) Olodo v. Josiah (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2971; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 653

LAND LAW - Evidence - Evaluation - Traditional history - Credibility and demeanour are relevant but not strong points - Evidence of contemporary events supporting the history - Is more conclusive (H4) Odunukwe v. Ofomata (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 285) 2405; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 404

LAND LAW - Evidence - Original name of compound - As Oko Polo - Proof - From the content of paragraph (4) of Exhibit P.1 - Which supports the evidence of plaintiffs’ witness No.1 - This fact has been proved (H2) Agala v. Okusin (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1421; (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt.1202) 412

LAND LAW - Evidence - Ownership of adjoining land - S. 46 of Evidence Act - Limits - The section creates a probability - Not conclusive proof of ownership of land - The presumption could be displaced by credible evidence (H5) Odunukwe v. Ofomata (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 285) 2405; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 404

LAND LAW - Evidence - Root of title - Proof - Where a party claiming title - Gives conflicting history of root of title - From that given by his witnesses - Such root will be treated as unreliable (H2) Olodo v. Josiah (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2971; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 653

LAND LAW - Evidence - Title - Proof - Cross-appellants having pleaded - And led evidence that one of them sold the land to appellant - To their knowledge without their protest - The courts have no basis to set aside the transfer of land (H7) Oyeneyin v. Akinkugbe (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 439; (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt.1184) 265

LAND LAW - Evidence - Untendered evidence - Presumption against interest - Though appellant claimed to have been collecting rent - He failed to tender any receipt issued to any tenant - So section 149 (d) of Evidence Act operates against him (H3) Orlu v. Gogo-Abite (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 391; (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1196) 307

LAND LAW - Family land - Partition - Proof - Where P.W. 5 gave evidence that there was partitioning of the land - Which appellant failed to contradict - Trial judge was entitled to believe and act on the evidence (H1) Victino Ltd. v. Ojo (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 278) 1007; (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1197) 486

LAND LAW - Family lands - Common property - Exclusive ownership - Burden of proof - Where parties agree that the land was common property originally - The onus rests on the party now claiming exclusive ownership to prove same (H3) Olodo v. Josiah (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2971; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 653

LAND LAW - Identity of the land - Trespass - Survey plan - Where respondent knows the land in dispute - Filing survey plan is not an absolute necessity - To prove identity of the land in dispute (H10) Tanko v. Echendu (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3205; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1224) 253

LAND LAW - Judgments - Basis - Controversion - The basis of trial court’s judgment for respondents - Was its finding that the land in dispute adjoins that in PHC/36/72 - Which finding is crucial and unassailable (H1) Ibuluya v. Dikibo (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1519; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 627

LAND LAW - Partitioning - Burden of proof - Discharge - Appellants alleged partition and had the burden of proving same - Which burden they failed to discharge (H7) Ishola v. Falorunso (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 2009; (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1210) 169

LAND LAW - Proof - Where plaintiff fails to prove his case - Proper verdict - Judgment should be in favour of defendant - As it is plaintiff who failed to prove - That he is entitled to what he claims (H5) Nwokidu v. Okanu (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 323; (2010) 3 NWLR (Pt.1181) 362

LAND LAW - Registration of titles - First registration - Opposition to application - Duty on objector - An objector has the burden of satisfying the registrar - That the land sought to be registered is a family land (H2) Jolasun v. Bamgboye (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2929; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 285

LAND LAW - Registration of titles - First registration - Proof required - An applicant for first registration must satisfy the registrar of his ownership - Through such evidence as is ordinarily required by conveyancers (H1) Jolasun v. Bamgboye (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2929; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 285

LAND LAW - Title - Claim for - Where both parties claim ownership and possession of the land - Title is a decider in the case - The absence of which makes the party in default a trespasser (H2) Tanko v. Echendu (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3205; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1224) 253

LAND LAW - Title - Competing claims by the parties - Where in issue - Plaintiff succeeds on the strength of his case - Which the court is bound to consider first (H3) Tanko v. Echendu (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3205; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1224) 253

LAND LAW - Title - Competing traditional evidence - Evaluation - Duty of court - Court has a duty to examine both evidence - To decide which is more probable - By testing each against the other evidence (H2) Nwokidu v. Okanu (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 323; (2010) 3 NWLR (Pt.1181) 362

LAND LAW - Title - Conferment of - Exhibit A and B - Efficacy of - Contrary to opinion of appellants - The exhibits are not void - But are legally viable documents conferring title (H2) Oyeneyin v. Akinkugbe (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 439; (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt.1184) 265

LAND LAW - Title - Pleadings - Root of title - Where not pleaded by defendant - Evidence of when and who he bought the land from - Should be rejected for going to no issue (H6) Tanko v. Echendu (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3205; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1224) 253

LAND LAW - Title - Pleadings & evidence - Appellant’s root of title - Was not specifically traversed by the respondent (H4) Tanko v. Echendu (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3205; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1224) 253

LAND LAW - Title - Proof - Onus - Where plaintiff proves grant of title by an earlier judgment - The onus is on defendant - To lead evidence to nullify that grant - Which defendants herein failed to do (H3) Obineche v. Akusobi (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 2057; (2010) 12 NWLR (Pt.1208) 383

LAND LAW - Title - Proof - Respondents’ acts of possession - Effect - They constitute conclusive evidence of ownership - Not proof of pledge - As the pledged lands have been shown - To be outside the land in dispute (H3) Okoye v. Obiaso (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 280) 1329; (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1195) 145

LAND LAW - Title - Proof - Respondents’ acts of possession - Effect - They constitute conclusive evidence of ownership - Not proof of pledge - As the pledged lands have been shown - To be outside the land in dispute (H3) Suberu v. The State (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 280) 1353; (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1197) 586

LAND LAW - Title - Proof - Traditional history - Relevance - Where a party proves his title through an earlier court judgment - Traditional history is irrelevant in proof of same - In that proceedings (H5) Obineche v. Akusobi (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 2057; (2010) 12 NWLR (Pt.1208) 383

LAND LAW - Title - Proof - Where respondent claims to having certificate of occupancy - Of the land in dispute - And did not plead same in his defence - Such evidence goes to no issue (H8) Tanko v. Echendu (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3205; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1224) 253

LAND LAW - Title - Proof by concession - Exhibit H1 - Whether conceding title - In the light of the contents of other material exhibits - Tendered in evidence - There is no concession of title by Exhibit H1 - As claimed by appellants (H3) Salisu v. Odumade (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 747; (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt.1190) 228

LAND LAW - Title - Self defeating evidence - Where evidence of respondent shows that - The person whom appellant allegedly sold to - Merely granted a sub lease to another - Such evidence is self defeating (H5) Tanko v. Echendu (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3205; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1224) 253

LAND LAW - Title - Succession - Proof by documents - Appellant could have proved title by production of title documents - But he had no documents to depict - That the property had been legally assigned to him (H2) Orlu v. Gogo-Abite (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 391; (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1196) 307

LAND LAW - Trespass - Actions - Basis - In a claim for trespass what is primarily in issue - Is possession of the land - The possessor has a right of action against all wrong doers - Except a person with a better title (H1) Kopek Const. Ltd. v. Ekisola (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 247; (2010) 3 NWLR (Pt.1182) 618

LAND LAW - Trespass - Licencee - Denial of licensor’s title - Effect - Where a licensee challenges licensor’s title - Having entered lawfully on the land - He becomes a trespasser ab initio (H1) Omotayo v. Cooperative Supply Asso. (2010) 7 KLR (pt. 284) 2277; (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1218) 1

LAND LAW - Trespass - Proof of better title - Implications - Once plaintiff shows proof of prior possession of the land - The onus shifts to defendant - To show that he has a better title (H2) Kopek Const. Ltd. v. Ekisola (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 247; (2010) 3 NWLR (Pt.1182) 618

LAND LAW - Trespass - Reliefs - Injunction - Propriety - Once a court has found for continuing trespass - It has jurisdiction to grant the equitable remedy of injunction - Notwithstanding that it was not claimed (H4) Omotayo v. Cooperative Supply Asso. (2010) 7 KLR (pt. 284) 2277; (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1218) 1

LAND REGISTRATION - Titles - First registration - Opposition to application - Duty on objector - An objector has the burden of satisfying the registrar - That the land sought to be registered is a family land (H2) Jolasun v. Bamgboye (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2929; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 285

LAND REGISTRATION - Titles - First registration - Proof required - An applicant for first registration must satisfy the registrar of his ownership - Through such evidence as is ordinarily required by conveyancers (H1) Jolasun v. Bamgboye (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2929; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 285

LANDLORD & TENANT - Contracts - Enforceability - Tenancy law - Penalty clauses - Such clauses are unenforceable - Court cannot salvage obligations created by such clauses - By applying provisions of statutes - As it has no vires to make cases for parties (H6) Oyeneyin v. Akinkugbe (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 439; (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt.1184) 265

LANDLORD & TENANT - Evidence - Untendered evidence - Presumption against interest - Though appellant claimed to have been collecting rent - He failed to tender any receipt issued to any tenant - So section 149 (d) of Evidence Act operates against him (H3) Orlu v. Gogo-Abite (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 391; (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1196) 307

LANDLORD & TENANT - Tenancy - Quit notice - Adequacy - What constitutes adequate notice to Quit - Is spelt out in the lease or tenancy agreement - Between landlord and tenant (H5) Oketade v. Adewunmi (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 288) 3235; (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1195) 63

LANDLORD & TENANT - Tenancy - Quit notice - Refusal - Effect - Where a tenant refuses to quit - A court of law can on action by landlord - Force him out of the premises (H6) Oketade v. Adewunmi (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 288) 3235; (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1195) 63

LANDLORD & TENANT - Tenancy - Right to terminate - A landlord has unfettered legal right - To terminate a tenancy - Upon giving adequate notice (H4) Oketade v. Adewunmi (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 288) 3235; (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1195) 63

LANDLORD & TENANT - Termination of tenancy - Right of landlord - Extent - He has an unfettered right to terminate a tenancy - Subject to the conditions in the tenancy agreement (H3) Adewunmi v. Oketade (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 278) 797

LANDLORD & TENANT - Title - Possession - Leases - Where lower court found that appellant leased the land to tenants - The act amounts to effective possession - And contrary holding is perverse (H9) Tanko v. Echendu (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3205; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1224) 253

LANDLORD & TENANT - Title - Self defeating evidence - Where evidence of respondent shows that - The person whom appellant allegedly sold to - Merely granted a sub lease to another - Such evidence is self defeating (H5) Tanko v. Echendu (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3205; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1224) 253

LEASES - Tenancy - Quit notice - Adequacy - What constitutes adequate notice to Quit - Is spelt out in the lease or tenancy agreement - Between landlord and tenant (H5) Oketade v. Adewunmi (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 288) 3235; (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1195) 63

LEASES - Title - Possession - Where lower court found that appellant leased the land to tenants - The act amounts to effective possession - And contrary holding is perverse (H9) Tanko v. Echendu (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3205; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1224) 253

LEASES - Title - Self defeating evidence - Where evidence of respondent shows that - The person whom appellant allegedly sold to - Merely granted a sub lease to another - Such evidence is self defeating (H5) Tanko v. Echendu (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3205; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1224) 253

LEGAL DRAFTING - Conveyancing - Deeds - Earlier deed of gift - Recited in Exhibit A - Effect - Having embodied the deed in its recital - Exhibit A has subsumed the contents of the deed - So the deed no longer has legal recognition (H3) Oyeneyin v. Akinkugbe (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 439; (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt.1184) 265

LEGAL DRAFTING - Documents - Interpretation - Role of context - A passage is best interpreted by reference - To what precedes and what follows it - In order to read the mind of the maker (H1) Nig. Army v. Aminun-Kano (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 287; (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt.1188) 429

LEGAL DRAFTING - Elections - Procedure - Marginal notes - Purpose - Ss. 31. 121 & 122 Electoral Act & para 11 of 2nd Schedule to 1999 Constitution - Deal with the procedure - As shown by the marginal notes to the sections (H1) Osun State INEC v. AC (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3137; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 273

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS - Appeals - Issues - Formulation - Rule against proliferation - Counsel may formulate one issue per one ground of appeal - But he is not allowed to formulate two or more issues - Out of one ground of appeal (H1) Okwuagbala v. Ikwueme (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2955; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 54

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS - Appeals - Grounds - Nature - How determined - Appellation given by counsel is irrelevant - Ground and particulars must be examined - If it reveals a misunderstanding or misapplication of law - It is ground of law (H1) Odunukwe v. Ofomata (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 285) 2405; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 404

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS - Appeals - Issues - Proliferation - Attitude of court - While counsel is permitted to formulate one issue out of one or more grounds of appeal - He cannot formulate more than one issue out of one ground of appeal (H1) Okonobor v. Edegbe & Sons Ltd. (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 725; (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt.1221) 181

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS - Appeals - Notices and Briefs - Endorsement in name of a firm - Effect on appeal - It makes the appeal incompetent - As such processes can only be endorsed - By a legal practitioner as such - Under the Legal Practitioners Act (H1) Adewunmi v. Oketade (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 278) 797

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS - Appeals - Notices of appeal - Multiple filing - Effect on competence - An appeal is not incompetent for being brought by more than one notice - It is open to appellant’s counsel to adopt one of the notices filed (H2) First Bank v. T.S.A. Ind. Ltd. (2010) 7 KLR (pt. 285) 2383; (2010) 15 NWLR (Pt.1216) 247

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS - Authority to bind client - Duration of - A client is presumed to have confidence in a counsel he has briefed - This confidence will continue till the case ends - Unless the brief is withdrawn (H2) Young Motors Ltd. v. Okonkwo (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 279) 1191; (2010) 15 NWLR (Pt.1217) 524

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS - Bill of charges - Recovery under undefended list - Propriety - As the bills relied on by respondent - Were not based on any mutually agreed ascertainable standard - The claim is for unliquidated sum and ought not to be by undefended list (H2) Nworah & Sons Ltd v. Akputa (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 278) 897; (2010) 9 NWLR (Pt.1200) 596

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS - Clients - Appeals - Death of a party - Failure of counsel to inform court - Effect - It is the duty of a counsel whose client is dead - To inform the court - If he fails to do so - What judgment is delivered eventually - Is valid and binding (H3) Sapo v. Sunmonu (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1819; (2010) 11 NWLR (Pt.1205) 374

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS - Courts - Judicial bias - Proof - Judge as former counsel of a party - Effect - It is not enough to disqualify him - Unless it is shown that his former role as counsel - Could pervert the course of justice (H2) Womiloju v. Anibire (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1605; (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt.1203) 545

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS - Courts - Submissions - Rulings on - Failure to rule on - Effect - Though every submission should be ruled upon - Failure to so rule will not affect judgment - If such a ruling will not have made a difference to the outcome of the case (H6) Odunukwe v. Ofomata (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 285) 2405; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 404

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS - Documents - Admissibility - Right to challenge - Limits - When an exhibit is tendered and admitted - Without any objection from counsel - Such counsel may lose the right to challenge the admission on appeal (H1) Shurumo v. State (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 3021; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 73

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS - Fair hearing - Ingredients - It must include giving to a party or his counsel - Opportunity to present his case - In an atmosphere free from fear and intimidation (H2) FRN v. Akubueze (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 1993; (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt.1223) 525

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS - Legal practice - Law firms and lawyers therein - Whether same - There is a legal difference between the firm and legal practitioners - In our jurisprudence of parties - Therefore one cannot substitute for the other (H2) Adewunmi v. Oketade (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 278) 797

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS - Names - Legal identity - Differences - While Olujimi and Akeredolu - Is a firm with corporate existence - Name of Legal Practitioner - Has no corporate connotation (H1) Oketade v. Adewunmi (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 288) 3235; (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1195) 63

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS - Names - Status - Olujimi and Akeredolu - Is not a name in the roll of legal practitioners in Nigeria - Thus use of same violates S. 2 (1) & 24 Legal Practitioners Act - And affects Legal processes in this case (H2) Oketade v. Adewunmi (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 288) 3235; (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1195) 63

LEGISLATION - Elections - Legislative powers - Of Local Government Councils - S. 121 Electoral Act & para 11 of 2nd Schedule to 1999 Constitution - Confer powers to National Assembly - To make laws regulating Local Government Elections (H2) Osun State INEC v. AC (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3137; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 273

LEGISLATION - Elections - Local Government Councils - State legislative powers - Limit - Osun State House of Assembly - Has no power to make laws - Contrary to that made by National Assembly (H3) Osun State INEC v. AC (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3137; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 273

LEGISLATION - Elections - Procedure - Marginal notes - Purpose - Ss. 31. 121 & 122 Electoral Act & para 11 of 2nd Schedule to 1999 Constitution - Deal with the procedure - As shown by the marginal notes to the sections (H1) Osun State INEC v. AC (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3137; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 273

LEGISLATION - Interpretation - Restrictive statutes - How construed - Any law which seeks to deprive a citizen of his right of access to court - Or any other constitutional right - Must be construed strictly by the courts (H5) Cotecna Int’l Ltd. v. Churchgate Nig. Ltd. (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) p. 2871; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 346

LEGISLATION - Martial Law - Retirement of officers - Regulation of - Chapter 09. 02 (b) of Harmonised Terms and Conditions of Service - For Force Officers - Stipulates 6 months salary in lieu of notice - For officers retired not on disciplinary ground (H4) Ekeagwu v. Nig. Army (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 288) 3251; (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1220) 419

LEGISLATION - Statutes - Interpretation - Of the word ‘may’ - In s. 23 of Kogi State Local Government Election Law, 2004 - By appellant as not being mandatory is wrong - For same does not relate to time within which to substitute candidates (H4) Olofu v. Itodo (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3101; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 545

LEGISLATION - Statutes - Rules of construction - Several statutes - On same subject - Such statutes are construed together - So that the intention of the legislature is discovered - From the whole set of enactments (H4) Nig. Army v. Aminun-Kano (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 287; (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt.1188) 429

LEGISLATION - Taxation laws - Limitation of action - Applicability - Such Limitation of liability in respect of disputed tax - Must be provided for expressly and with certainty - Not by mere inference (H6) Cotecna Int’l Ltd. v. Churchgate Nig. Ltd. (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) p. 2871; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 346

LEGISLATION - Treaties - Domestic application - S. 12 of 1979 Constitution - Where a treaty qualifies as an existing law under the 1979 Constitution - It does not require further ratification - To apply domestically (H8) JSF Invest. Ltd v. Brawal Line Ltd (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 286) 2611; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 495

LIBEL - Actions - Assessment of damages - Factors to consider - Some of the factors to be considered - Are the social standing of plaintiff - And the rate of inflation (H3) Oduwole v. David West (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1795; (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt.1203) 598

LIBEL - Actions - Quantum of damages - Propriety - Though assessment is usually subjective - An award must be adequate to assuage for the injury to the plaintiff’s reputation (H2) Oduwole v. David West (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1795; (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt.1203) 598

MASTER & SERVANT - Circulars - Rate of pension for C.B.N. - Applicability of the circulars - In view of s. 14(3) of C.B.N. Act - The decision of the Board to approve the circulars - Made them applicable (H6) CBN v. Amao (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1715; (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1219) 271

MASTER & SERVANT - Company law - Suspension from work - Meaning - It only means suspension from performance of ordinary duties - Attaching to ones office - It does not entail a diminution of his right under the law (H4) Longe v. First Bank (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 279) 1067; (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt.1189) 1

MASTER & SERVANT - Compulsory retirement - Effect - Appellant having been compulsorily retired - Is only entitled to retirement benefits - And six months salary in lieu of notice (H6) Ekeagwu v. Nig. Army (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 288) 3251; (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1220) 419

MASTER & SERVANT - Pension - Actions - Cause of action - Whether continuing - Where pension is being underpaid - If the payment is made monthly - Cause of action arises each time - Plaintiff is paid less than appropriate sum (H4) CBN v. Amao (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1715; (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1219) 271

MASTER & SERVANT - Retirement benefits - Absence of evidence - The record did not show iota of evidence - That appellant was paid retirement benefits - Following his compulsory retirement (H1) Ekeagwu v. Nig. Army (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 288) 3251; (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1220) 419

MASTER & SERVANT - Retirement benefits - Claim - Onus of proof - Respondents who pleaded - That appellant was paid retirement benefits - Must prove same - (H2) Ekeagwu v. Nig. Army (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 288) 3251; (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1220) 419

MASTER & SERVANT - Retirement benefits - Misconception - Respondents assumed any payment - Made to appellant following his reinstatement - Was his retirement benefits - Which cannot be true (H3) Ekeagwu v. Nig. Army (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 288) 3251; (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1220) 419

MILITARY LAW - Retirement of officers - Regulation of - Chapter 09. 02 (b) of Harmonised Terms and Conditions of Service - For Force Officers - Stipulates 6 months salary in lieu of notice - For officers retired not on disciplinary ground (H4) Ekeagwu v. Nig. Army (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 288) 3251; (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1220) 419

MORTGAGES - Redemption of property - Burden of proof - Incidence - Respondent has the burden of proving redemption - As burden of proof lies on the party - Who asserts the affirmative of an issue (H3) Jolasun v. Bamgboye (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2929; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 285

MOTIONS - Appeals - Application for dismissal - Propriety of hearing - The hearing on 5/6/01 was unjustifiable - As the hearing notice for it was dated 31/5/01- And there was an intervening weekend between the two dates (H2) Olorunyolemi v. Akhagbe (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277)733; (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1195) 48

MOTIONS - Appeals - As of right - Application for extension of time - Appropriate prayer - Where appeal is as of right - But applicant failed to appeal within time - He need only pray for extension of time (H2) Ault & Wiborg Ltd. v. Nibel Ind. Ltd. (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 1853; (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1220) 619

MOTIONS - Appeals - Extension of time to appeal - Application - Crucial questions - The crucial question for the court to consider - Is whether the reason for failure to appeal within time - Could have been true and reasonable - As it will not be accepted if otherwise (H1) ANPP v. Albishir (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 481; (2010) 9 NWLR (Pt.1198) 118

MOTIONS - Appeals - Time - Application for extension of time - Trinity prayers - When needed - They become necessary where right of appeal is only with leave - And applicant had failed to appeal within time (H1) Ault & Wiborg Ltd. v. Nibel Ind. Ltd. (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 1853; (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1220) 619

MOTIONS - Certiorari proceedings - Initiating motion - Competency - Not having been initiated by due process of law - The instant motion is incompetent ab initio (H5) Onyemaizu v. Ojiako (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 371; (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt.1185) 504

MOTIONS - Courts - Duties - Pending applications - Determination - Courts have a duty to consider and determine all pending applications - Before determining an action or appeal in its finality (H3) Dingyadi v. INEC (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 1877

MOTIONS - Courts - Interlocutory applications - Refusal to hear pending motion - Effect - It amounts to a breach of fair hearing - Nullifies subsequent proceedings - And entitles injured party to have same set aside (H4) Dingyadi v. INEC (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 1877

MOTIONS - Election petitions - Tribunals - Hearing of motions outside pre-hearing session - Validity - Any such hearing is done without jurisdiction - And is consequently null and void - Under paragraph 6(1) of Practice Directions 2007 (H4) Nwankwo v. Yar’adua (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 280) 1223; (2010) 12 NWLR (Pt.1209) 518

MOTIONS - Election petitions - When to hear - Practice directions 2007 - The tribunal can only hear motions - At the pre-hearing session - Not when it sits as a tribunal - To hear petitions (H2) Nwankwo v. Yar’adua (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 280) 1223; (2010) 12 NWLR (Pt.1209) 518

MOTIONS - Interlocutory applications - Struck out by court - Options of applicant - He can either file a fresh motion or apply to relist the one struck out - Depending on the circumstances that led to the striking out (H4) Panalpina Trans. Ltd. v. Olandeen Int’l (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2999; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 1

MOTIONS - Judgments - Complaints - Failure to consider some - Effect - It is inconsequential - For as long as the judge considered the most vital aspects of the application - There was no infringement of fair hearing (H2) Nasir v. Civil Serv. Com. Kano (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 651; (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt.1190) 253

MURDER - Conviction - Corpus delicti - Effect of failure to produce - It is not the law that conviction cannot be secured - Where corpus delicti is not produced - The important thing is to show necessary nexus between accused and the killing of deceased (H5) Moses Jua v. State (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 577; (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt.1184) 217

MURDER - Conviction of appellants - Discharge of 7th accused - Propriety - Appellants and 7th accused did not have a common base for their defence - So the discharge of 7th accused cannot lead to discharge of appellants (H2) Nkebisi v. State (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 671; (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt.1188) 471

MURDER - Defences - Accident - Propriety of being raised now - As it was neither raised at trial court - Nor at Court of Appeal - It is a fresh issue before Supreme Court - And may only be properly raised with leave (H2) Edoho v. State (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1453; (2010) 14 NWLR (Pt.1214) 651

MURDER - Defences - Insanity - Conflict - Pleas of insanity and provocation presuppose the doing of the alleged act - Any argument suggesting the contrary - Is irreconcilable and untenable (H1) Edoho v. State (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1453; (2010) 14 NWLR (Pt.1214) 651

MURDER - Defences - Insanity vide witchcraft - Whether proved - The account of the incident - Given by appellant - Is more of feigning mental illness - And his evidence of witchcraft has no credence (H6) Edoho v. State (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1453; (2010) 14 NWLR (Pt.1214) 651

MURDER - Defences - Provocation - Ingredients - For provocation to constitute a defence to an act - There must have been actual and reasonable loss of self-control - During which the act was done - In proportion to the provocation (H4) Edoho v. State (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1453; (2010) 14 NWLR (Pt.1214) 651

MURDER - Evidence - Conviction - Sufficiency of one witness - The evidence of one witness can lead to conviction if believed - It is immaterial that the witness is related to the deceased (H1) Nkebisi v. State (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 671; (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt.1188) 471

MURDER - Evidence - Tainted witnesses - P.W.s 2 to 4 - Whether tainted - A witness is tainted where he is an accomplice - Or has some personal purpose to serve by his evidence - None of P.W.s 2 to 4 has been shown as such (H3) Olaiya v. State (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 357; (2010) 3 NWLR (Pt.1181) 423

MURDER - Intent to kill - Whether proved - The finding that deceased was shot intentionally - Made by trial court and confirmed by Court of Appeal - Having not been shown to be perverse - Will not be interfered with (H1) Oludamilola v. State (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 278) 939; (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1197) 565

MURDER - Proof - Accused last seen with deceased - Effect - While such evidence per se may not be proof of culpability - It can support and corroborate other acts of accused - Resulting in death of deceased (H3) Moses Jua v. State (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 577; (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt.1184) 217

MURDER - Proof of cause of death - Testimony of medical officer - Whether it must be viva voce - It is not mandatory - Production of a certificate signed by him may suffice (H3) Edoho v. State (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1453; (2010) 14 NWLR (Pt.1214) 651

NEGLIGENCE - Contributory negligence - Whether proved against appellant - It is the failure of 2nd respondent to see appellant’s vehicle - That was the sole cause of the accident - Appellant was not in any way negligent (H3) Oshe v. Okin Biscuits Ltd. (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 279) 1137; (2010) 11 NWLR (Pt.1206) 482

OBJECTIONS - Appeals - Briefs - Reply - Preliminary objection - Failure to file a reply or respond orally to the objection - Party is deemed to have conceded the objection (H1) Adekeye v. Adesina (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2801; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 449

OBJECTIONS - Appeals - Particulars - Grounds of appeal - Objection to specific particulars - Where other particulars exist to support the grounds - The objection will fail - As it can not affect validity of the grounds (H4) Adekeye v. Adesina (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2801; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 449

OBJECTIONS - Appeals - Propriety - Where issue in consideration is purely on law - Objection based on failure to obtain leave to appeal - Will fail (H1) Samba Ltd. UBA Plc. (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 288) 3289; (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt.1221) 192

ORDERS OF COURT - Appeals - Retrial order - Propriety - Where a mistrial happens - Not being such as to render a trial a nullity - And warrant the discharge of respondent - Retrial order is proper (H3) FRN v. Akubueze (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 1993; (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt.1223) 525

ORDERS OF COURT - Appeals - Sentencing - Order sending appellants back to prison - Propriety - As the appeal was a complaint - Against their conviction and sentence - An order striking out the appeal necessitates an order sending them back to prison (H2) Idris v. COP (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 280) 1211; (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1210) 153

ORDERS OF COURT - Efficacy - Suo motu order - For service outside jurisdiction - As appellant never applied for such leave - That order in the circumstance - Does not amount to leave being granted (H3) Agip (Nig) Ltd. v. Agip Petroli Int’l (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 275) 1; (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt.1187) 348

ORDERS OF COURT - Error - Orders made contrary to findings - Correction on appeal - Court of Appeal gave order in favour of cross-appellants - Who had lost on the issue - The order having been made by omission - Supreme Court is in a position to rectify it (H5) Oyeneyin v. Akinkugbe (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 439; (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt.1184) 265

ORDERS OF COURT - Judicial precedents - Consequential orders - Amaechi v. INEC - Applicability - Court of Appeal was right in granting consequential orders - To give effect to reliefs 1-5 - By setting the election aside (H11) Osun State INEC v. AC (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3137; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 273

ORDERS OF COURT - Judicial review - Mandatory injunction - Whether mandamus - A claim for mandatory injunction without the claim for mandamus - In an action for judicial review - Amounts in law to a claim for mandamus (H7) Ohakim v. Agbaso (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 286) 2513; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 172

ORDERS OF COURT - Judicial review - Order of mandamus - Conditions for application - Applicant must show among others - That he made a prior demand on respondent - Yet respondent had refused to act (H6) Ohakim v. Agbaso (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 286) 2513; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 172

ORDERS OF COURT - Mandatory injunction - Nature of - It is an order requiring a party to do specific acts - And is usually restoratory in nature - Requiring the undoing of what had been done - Unlike relief (e) herein sought (H5) Ohakim v. Agbaso (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 286) 2513; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 172

ORDERS OF COURT - Order pending an event - Lapse of - Once the event has taken place - Such order lapses - It requires no order subsequent to the event - To set it aside (H5) Dingyadi v. INEC (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 1877

ORDERS OF COURT - Refusal to set aside - Trial court’s decision - Propriety - Court of Appeal acted properly - In view of its finding that trial court properly exercised its discretion - In the circumstance of the case (H3) Union Bank v. Astra Builders Ltd. (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 769; (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt.1186) 1

ORDERS OF COURT - Trespass - Order of injunction - Propriety - Since respondent said he had disposed of the property in question - There was no justification for the order of injunction - Granted in his favour (H2) Sky Bank Plc v. Bolanle (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 278) 979

ORDERS OF COURT - Words & Phrases - “Striking out”- Instances - Where an order of “dismissal” is made - Following a hearing not based on merit - It is in law a mere striking out - With an option to relist (H3) Panalpina Trans. Ltd. v. Olandeen Int’l (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2999; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 1

ORIGINATING SUMMONS - Actions - Commencement procedure - Originating summons - Propriety - It is proper where the principal question is question of law - Or there is no substantial dispute of fact - Neither of which is the case herein (H4) Amasike v. Reg. Gen. CAC (2010) 7 KLR (pt. 284) 2131; (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1211) 337

ORIGINATING SUMMONS - Not signed as required by the Rules - Effects - Such noncompliance amounts to mere irregularity - It has nothing to do with the jurisdiction of the court (H1) Anyawoko v. Okoye (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 275) 87; (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt.1188) 497

PARTIES - Actions - “Community” - Definition - It means all the people who live in an area - When talked about as a group - A body of persons in the same locality (H2) Salisu v. Odumade (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 747; (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt.1190) 228

PARTIES - Actions - “Party” - Meaning - A party is a person whose name is on record - As plaintiff or defendant - Others who may be affected by the suit - Are persons interested not parties (H1) Bello v. INEC (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 278) 827; (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1196) 342

PARTIES - Actions - Decisions - Estoppel by conduct - Applicability - Where a party knew of - But took no part in previous proceedings on a subject matter affecting him - He is bound by the decision therein (H4) Obineche v. Akusobi (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 2057; (2010) 12 NWLR (Pt.1208) 383

PARTIES - Actions - Desirable - Where culpability of a person is suggested by the facts presented - As with Panalpina in this case - Such person ought to be made a party to the action (H1) Panalpina Trans. Ltd. v. Olandeen Int’l (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2999; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 1

PARTIES - Actions - Guarantee contracts - Action to enforce - Effect of nonjoinder of principal debtor - The contract can be enforced against guarantor - Without the necessity of joining the principal debtor (H7) Chami v. UBA Plc. (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 507; (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt.1191) 474

PARTIES - Actions - Issues - Raising and resolution suo motu - Propriety - Its wrong for a court to raise an issue suo motu - And resolve a case on that basis - Without inviting the parties to address it on the issue (H1) Leaders Co. Ltd. v. Bamaiyi (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 286) 2647; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 329

PARTIES - Actions - Judgment in representative capacity - Liberty of courts - Once the pleadings and evidence show a matter was fought in that capacity - Judgment may be given in that capacity by the court suo motu (H4) Sapo v. Sunmonu (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1819; (2010) 11 NWLR (Pt.1205) 374

PARTIES - Actions - Nonjoinder - Effect of - Where appellant was not joined at the proceedings - Which adversely affected him - Breach of his fundamental rights to fair hearing was occasioned - That rendered the action incompetent (H2) Okonta v. Philips (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3095; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 320

PARTIES - Actions - Nonjoinder - Whether fatal - No cause shall be defeated by reason of nonjoinder - As the court may in every cause - Deal with the matter as regards the rights - Of parties actually before it (H5) Sapo v. Sunmonu (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1819; (2010) 11 NWLR (Pt.1205) 374

PARTIES - Actions - Nonjoinder of PDP - Whether fatal - In view of the question for determination at trial court - The nonjoinder was not fatal - As it could be determined without joining PDP (H11) Akpan v. Bob (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1623; (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt.1223) 421

PARTIES - Actions - Proper parties - Necessity of - Where proper parties are not before the court - It does not assume jurisdiction - And can not make order affecting parties not so joined (H1) Okonta v. Philips (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3095; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 320

PARTIES - Actions - Raising of issues - Statute of limitation - Time to raise - It cannot be raised at the threshold stage - Of determination of the parties to the suit (H2) Panalpina Trans. Ltd. v. Olandeen Int’l (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2999; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 1

PARTIES - Actions - Representative capacity - Absence of leave to sue - Effect - Once it is obvious that a case was fought in a representative capacity - A court will enter judgment as such - Though no leave was obtained to sue in that capacity (H1) Salisu v. Odumade (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 747; (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt.1190) 228

PARTIES - Adjournments - Application for - Where case is for hearing - Duty on applicant - He must show sufficient reason why the case must be adjourned - Otherwise court must ensure hearing (H1) Nwadiogbu v. Anambra/Imo River Basin Dev. (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 286) 2661; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 364

PARTIES - Appeal - Issues - Formulation by respondent - Limits - Where he neither cross-appealed nor filed a respondent’s notice - He is limited to formulating issues - From the grounds of appeal filed by appellant (H3) Chami v. UBA Plc. (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 507; (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt.1191) 474

PARTIES - Appeals - Briefs - Reply - Preliminary objection - Failure to file a reply or respond orally to the objection - Party is deemed to have conceded the objection (H1) Adekeye v. Adesina (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2801; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 449

PARTIES - Appeals - Decision on points - Not appealed against - Binding effect - By operation of law such decision - As far as it relates to that point - Remains binding on the parties to the action (H2) Okonobor v. Edegbe & Sons Ltd. (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 725; (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt.1221) 181

PARTIES - Appeals - Extension of time to appeal - Application - Duty of applicant - He must show good and substantial reasons for failing to appeal within time - And good cause why the appeal should be heard (H1) Federal Housing Authority v. Kalejaiye (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2911; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 147

PARTIES - Appeals - Misjoinder - Effect - The defect of misjoinder or nonjoinder of parties - Does not vitiate an appeal - When there are living parties - Willing to prosecute the case (H7) Gen. Elect. Coy. v. Akande (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3069; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 596

PARTIES - Appeals - Notice of objection - Manner of raising - Whether can be raised in the brief - There is nothing wrong in raising it in a party’s brief - As the essence of an objection is to give notice to appellant - Before date fixed for hearing (H3) Okwuagbala v. Ikwueme (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2955; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 54

PARTIES - Appeals - Processes - Power to amend - Limits - Though a court ordinarily has power - To grant leave to amend processes - That power does not extend to occasions - Where the right of parties to amend - Is curtailed by a higher court’s order (H1) Ogunsola v. NICON (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 2083; (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1211) 225

PARTIES - Appeals - Processes - Right of parties to amend - Curtailment - How done - In the absence of an express permission - Incorporated in a rehearing order - Parties cannot amend their processes at such rehearing (H2) Ogunsola v. NICON (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 2083; (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1211) 225

PARTIES - Appeals - Records of proceedings - Binding effect - It is settled law that the contents of such records - Are binding on both the court and the parties (H2) Sapo v. Sunmonu (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1819; (2010) 11 NWLR (Pt.1205) 374

PARTIES - Appeals - Right of Appeal - A person cannot appeal against a decision - Unless it wrongfully deprives him of an entitlement - Or some thing which he had a right to demand (H2) Adekeye v. Adesina (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2801; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 449

PARTIES - Contracts - Breach - Accountability - Absence of - Where respondents made it impossible for parties - To know the financial situation of the partnership business - A fundamental breach is occasioned (H2) Alade v. Alic (Nig) Ltd. (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2843; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 111

PARTIES - Contracts - Breach - Remedies - Propriety - Where breach has been established against a party - The appropriate remedy to which the innocent party is entitled - Is payment of compensation in form of damages (H3) Kayode Vent. Ltd. v. Min. of FCT (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 611; (2010) 7 NWLR (Pt.1192) 171

PARTIES - Contracts - Carriage of goods by sea - Hague Rules 1924 - Effect of application - Where its provisions are applicable in a transaction - Parties are not permitted to contract out of the obligations imposed (H6) JSF Invest. Ltd v. Brawal Line Ltd (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 286) 2611; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 495

PARTIES - Contracts - Damages for breach - Scope of Liability - It is not only the person in actual breach of contract that may be liable for damages - But also the person who masterminded the breach (H3) Alade v. Alic (Nig) Ltd. (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2843; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 111

PARTIES - Contracts - Statutes - Agency - Parties status - Federal Government agency - Where the terms of contract of service - Require service provider to exercise independent professional mandate - It makes it an independent contractor (H1) Cotecna Int’l Ltd. v. Churchgate Nig. Ltd. (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) p. 2871; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 346

PARTIES - Contracts - Validity - Misrepresentation - Effect - Party guilty of misrepresentation - Cannot rely on it to repudiate the contract - As equity will not allow a person to benefit from his own wrong (H5) Teriba v. Adeyemo (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1583; (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1211) 242

PARTIES - Court processes - Service - Complaint against - Propriety - Such complaint against non or improper service - Can only be properly raised - By the party affected thereby (H3) Ohakim v. Agbaso (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 286) 2513; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 172

PARTIES - Court processes - Service - Improper service - Effect on proceedings - It nullifies any order made against the party improperly served - As it denies him the opportunity to be heard in the proceedings (H8) First Bank v. T.S.A. Ind. Ltd. (2010) 7 KLR (pt. 285) 2383; (2010) 15 NWLR (Pt.1216) 247

PARTIES - Courts - Contract - Enforceability - Tenancy law - Penalty clauses - Such clauses are unenforceable - Court cannot salvage obligations created by such clauses - By applying provisions of statutes - As it has no vires to make cases for parties (H6) Oyeneyin v. Akinkugbe (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 439; (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt.1184) 265

PARTIES - Courts - Erroneous finding - That both parties called evidence - Effect - Even if the finding was in error - It did not occasion miscarriage of justice (H4) Akomolafe v. Guardian Press Ltd. (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 275) 63; (2010) 3 NWLR (Pt.1181) 338

PARTIES - Cross examination - Elicited facts - Evidence for adverse party - Such facts may be relied on by an adverse party - Provided they were pleaded by the party concerned (H3) Akomolafe v. Guardian Press Ltd. (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 275) 63; (2010) 3 NWLR (Pt.1181) 338

PARTIES - Death of a party - Appeals - Failure of counsel to inform court - Effect - It is the duty of a counsel whose client is dead - To inform the court - If he fails to do so - What judgment is delivered eventually - Is valid and binding (H3) Sapo v. Sunmonu (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1819; (2010) 11 NWLR (Pt.1205) 374

PARTIES - Evidence - Conclusiveness - Exhibit G - Effect as account stated - It precludes the parties from reopening the transactions - Which have informed its preparation and execution (H4) GMBH v. Tunji Ind. Ltd. (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1485; (2010) 11 NWLR (Pt.1206) 589

PARTIES - Evidence - Conflicting documents - From the same source - Effect - As is the case with Exhibits MEU-4 and EA-2 - They both cancel out each other - Leaving the party alleging the fact in issue - With the initial burden of proof (H2) Effiom v. CROSIEC (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1767; (2010) 14 NWLR (Pt.1213) 106

PARTIES - Evidence - Partitioning - Burden of proof - Discharge - Appellants alleged partition and had the burden of proving same - Which burden they failed to discharge (H7) Ishola v. Falorunso (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 2009; (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1210) 169

PARTIES - Evidence - Probative value - Title - Pleadings - Where a party fails to disclose necessary information in his evidence - Such evidence has no probative value - And goes to no issue (H7) Tanko v. Echendu (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3205; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1224) 253

PARTIES - Evidence - Proof - Nonreceipt of machine - Failure to tender letter - Defendant’s failure to tender the letter - By which he conveyed his nonreceipt - Entitles plaintiff to invoke s. 149 (d) of Evidence Act (H2) GMBH v. Tunji Ind. Ltd. (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1485; (2010) 11 NWLR (Pt.1206) 589

PARTIES - Extension of time to appeal - Reason for failure to appeal in time - Sufficiency - Where reason is the election of alternative option - When applicant had option to appeal - Such reason is insufficient (H2) Federal Housing Authority v. Kalejaiye (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2911; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 147

PARTIES - Fair hearing - Principles - Application - Basis - It is based on opportunity to meet the case of the other party - Where a party fails to utilize the opportunity offered - He cannot be heard to complain of lack of fair hearing (H5) Chami v. UBA Plc. (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 507; (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt.1191) 474

PARTIES - Hearing notice - Proof of service - Effect of attendance in court - A party’s presence in court on the day a matter is slated - Is not necessarily a confirmation of service on him - There needs to be actual proof of service (H3) Olorunyolemi v. Akhagbe (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277)733; (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1195) 48

PARTIES - Interlocutory appeals - Duty to compile record - Under O. 7 of Supreme Court Rules - Compilation of primary record is the duty of appellant - But where he fails - Respondent has option of either doing so or asking for dismissal (H6) Dingyadi v. INEC (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 1877

PARTIES - Joinder - Issue raised by appellant - Propriety - Before he can properly raise the issue - Appellant has to first question the holding - That the issue never properly arose before trial court (H6) Chami v. UBA Plc. (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 507; (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt.1191) 474

PARTIES - Joinder - Jurisdiction of courts - Effect of nonjoinder - It does not affect jurisdiction of the court - Nor even the competence of the suit - As an application may be made during trial to join appropriate persons (H3) Anyawoko v. Okoye (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 275) 87; (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt.1188) 497

PARTIES - Land law - Common property - Exclusive ownership - Burden of proof - Where parties agree that the land was common property originally - The onus rests on the party now claiming exclusive ownership to prove same (H3) Olodo v. Josiah (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2971; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 653

PARTIES - Land law - Evidence - Root of title - Proof - Where a party claiming title - Gives conflicting history of root of title - From that given by his witnesses - Such root will be treated as unreliable (H2) Olodo v. Josiah (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2971; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 653

PARTIES - Land law - Title - Proof - Onus - Where plaintiff proves grant of title by an earlier judgment - The onus is on defendant - To lead evidence to nullify that grant - Which defendants herein failed to do (H3) Obineche v. Akusobi (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 2057; (2010) 12 NWLR (Pt.1208) 383

PARTIES - Libel - Defamation - Publication - Where the offensive publication does not refer to plaintiff at all - It cannot possibly be defamatory of him (H4) Sky Bank Plc. v. Bolanle (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 278) 979

PARTIES - Master & servant - Retirement benefits - Claim - Onus of proof - Respondents who pleaded - That appellant was paid retirement benefits - Must prove same - (H2) Ekeagwu v. Nig. Army (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 288) 3251; (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1220) 419

PARTIES - Pleadings - Binding nature of - Effect - Parties and the court are bound by pleadings filed in a matter - As such any evidence on facts not pleaded goes to no issue (H5) Adekeye v. Adesina (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2801; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 449

PARTIES - Pleadings - Joinder of issues - Nonjoinder on material fact - Effect - Where a party fails to join issue on an averred fact - He cannot lead any evidence in rebuttal thereof (H1) Obineche v. Akusobi (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 2057; (2010) 12 NWLR (Pt.1208) 383

PARTIES - Pleadings - Principle of - Custom - Repugnancy rule is not averred in this case - Parties are bound by their pleadings - And evidence contrary to pleadings - Goes to no issue (H1) Ojiogu v. Ojiogu (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 279) 1113; (2010) 9 NWLR (Pt.1198) 1

PARTIES - Pleadings - Statutory defences - Need to plead - A party relying on statutory provision for defence - Must plead sufficient facts - Upon which such defence will have to be based (H4) Ojiogu v. Ojiogu (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 279) 1113; (2010) 9 NWLR (Pt.1198) 1

PARTIES - Practice & procedure - Argument - Effect of failure to counter a point argued by opponent - The point not so countered is deemed conceded - By the defaulting party (H1) Nwankwo v. Yar’adua (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 280) 1223; (2010) 12 NWLR (Pt.1209) 518

PARTIES - Practice & procedure - Exercise of right - Limited by rule of practice - Where exercise of a right is limited by a rule of practice - Such rule must be complied with - Unless it is waived (H2) Dingyadi v. INEC (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 1877

PARTIES - Prejudice - Judgments - Basis - Extraneous matters - Whether relied on - The court merely regarded certain naked facts - The existence of which none of the parties could deny - And neither party was prejudiced by the step (H9) Ishola v. Falorunso (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 2009; (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1210) 169

PARTIES - Rules of court - Court of Appeal Rules - O. 7 rr. 2 and 5 - Availability to parties - It is meant to aid the vigilant and not the sluggard - As such it must be invoked within reasonable time - To avail a party (H7) First Bank v. T.S.A. Ind. Ltd. (2010) 7 KLR (pt. 285) 2383; (2010) 15 NWLR (Pt.1216) 247

PARTIES - Rules of court - Noncompliance - Attitude of courts - It is strict compliance thereto - That makes for quicker administration of justice - Courts shall always refuse to exercise their discretion - When their rules are not obeyed (H1) Oyegun v. Nzeribe (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 419

PARTIES - Rules of court - Noncompliance - Right to set aside suit - Waiver of - Application to set aside suit for irregularity - Shall not be allowed unless made within reasonable time - Before taking further step (H4) Anyawoko v. Okoye (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 275) 87; (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt.1188) 497

PARTIES - Title - Claim for - Where both parties claim ownership and possession of the land - Title is a decider in the case - The absence of which makes the party in default a trespasser (H2) Tanko v. Echendu (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3205; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1224) 253

PARTIES - Title - Competing claims by the parties - Where in issue - Plaintiff succeeds on the strength of his case - Which the court is bound to consider first (H3) Tanko v. Echendu (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3205; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1224) 253

PARTIES - Violation of fair hearing - Evidence led before joinder - As basis for liability - Propriety - As the evidence was taken behind their back - To hold appellants liable based on it - Amounts to breach of their right to fair hearing (H1) Pan Africa Int. v. Shoreline Ltd. (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 279) 1153; (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt.1189) 98

PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS - Breach - Accountability - Absence of - Where respondents made it impossible for parties - To know the financial situation of the partnership business - A fundamental breach is occasioned (H2) Alade v. Alic (Nig) Ltd. (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2843; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 111

PLEADINGS - Actions - Claim for interest - Justification - Whether pleaded - Plaintiffs did not plead any facts - In justification of their claim for interest (H2) Abacha v. UBA Plc. (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 467

PLEADINGS - Actions - Claim for interest - Requirements - Claimant must not only plead the claim - But must also plead facts in support of the claim - Showing that the he is entitled to it (H1) Abacha v. UBA Plc. (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 467

PLEADINGS - Appeals - Court of Appeal’s decision - Based on repugnancy - Propriety - The decision failed to consider the pleadings and evidence - As the principle of repugnancy was never contested on the pleadings and evidence (H2) Ojiogu v. Ojiogu (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 279) 1113; (2010) 9 NWLR (Pt.1198) 1

PLEADINGS - Appeals - Grounds - Relation to pleadings - They must be based on reasons for decision reached by lower court - Which should in turn be based on issues joined on the pleadings - And evidence in support thereof (H9) Chami v. UBA Plc. (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 507; (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt.1191) 474

PLEADINGS - Application for demurrer - Reliance on exhibits - Propriety of - Where the exhibits have already been pleaded by plaintiff - Before being exhibited by defendants - It is proper for court to rely thereon (H2) JSF Invest. Ltd v. Brawal Line Ltd (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 286) 2611; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 495

PLEADINGS - Averment - Not supported by evidence - Fate of - Such averment is deemed abandoned - And must be struck out by the court (H2) Kayode Vent. Ltd. v. Min. of FCT (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 611; (2010) 7 NWLR (Pt.1192) 171

PLEADINGS - Binding nature of - Effect - Parties and the court are bound by pleadings filed in a matter - As such any evidence on facts not pleaded goes to no issue (H5) Adekeye v. Adesina (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2801; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 449

PLEADINGS - Briefs - Reply - Failure to reply on issue raised - Effect - Appellant has not reacted contrary - To submission of respondents - And is deemed to have conceded same (H5) Ekeagwu v. Nig. Army (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 288) 3251; (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1220) 419

PLEADINGS - Chieftaincy - Findings of fact - Basis - Though estoppel was pleaded and testified to - It was not against the whole lineage of 1st respondent - So there was no basis for court of Appeal to have so held (H6) Adekeye v. Adesina (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2801; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 449

PLEADINGS - Courts - Binding nature of - A court is not permitted to go outside the pleadings and issues joined - But trial court did so in his determination of the case - When it held that exhibit 2 was a contract under seal (H4) Chabasaya v. Anwasi (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1745; (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt.1201) 163

PLEADINGS - Evidence - Evaluation - Exhibit G - Discrepancies in statement of claim - Effect - They are irrelevant to the force of Exhibit G - As account stated - Since defendant did not join issue with plaintiff on them (H1) GMBH v. Tunji Ind. Ltd. (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1485; (2010) 11 NWLR (Pt.1206) 589

PLEADINGS - Evidence - Probative value - Title - Where a party fails to disclose necessary information in his evidence - Such evidence has no probative value - And goes to no issue (H7) Tanko v. Echendu (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3205; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1224) 253

PLEADINGS - Evidence - Proof - Custom - Limit of ownership of waterfront - Whether proved - Appellants who pleaded the custom - Had the onus of proving same by evidence - But failed to discharge the onus (H2) Ibuluya v. Dikibo (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1519; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 627

PLEADINGS - Evidence - Testimony by P.W.1 of an “appeal” - Whether pleaded - In view of the pleading in paragraph 22 of amended statement of claim - There was proper pleading to back the evidence (H3) Agala v. Okusin (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1421; (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt.1202) 412

PLEADINGS - Joinder of issues - Nonjoinder on material fact - Effect - Where a party fails to join issue on an averred fact - He cannot lead any evidence in rebuttal thereof (H1) Obineche v. Akusobi (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 2057; (2010) 12 NWLR (Pt.1208) 383

PLEADINGS - Land law - Actions - Issues - Where in an action touching on land - Defendant claims ownership of the land by his pleadings - Issue of title becomes the cardinal issue - On which the action is to be fought (H2) Omotayo v. Cooperative Supply Asso. (2010) 7 KLR (pt. 284) 2277; (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1218) 1

PLEADINGS - Practice & Procedure - Statutory defences - Need to plead - A party relying on statutory provision for defence - Must plead sufficient facts - Upon which such defence will have to be based (H4) Ojiogu v. Ojiogu (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 279) 1113; (2010) 9 NWLR (Pt.1198) 1.

PLEADINGS - Principle of - Custom - Repugnancy rule is not averred in this case - Parties are bound by their pleadings - And evidence contrary to pleadings - Goes to no issue (H1) Ojiogu v. Ojiogu (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 279) 1113; (2010) 9 NWLR (Pt.1198) 1

PLEADINGS - Statements of claim - Averments - Admission - Averments not specifically traversed - As is the case with paragraphs 3 and 4 herein - Are presumed admitted (H1) GMBH v. Tunji Ind. Ltd. (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1485; (2010) 11 NWLR (Pt.1206) 589

PLEADINGS - Title - Evidence - Appellant’s root of title - Was not specifically traversed by the respondent (H4) Tanko v. Echendu (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3205; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1224) 253

PLEADINGS - Title - Proof - Cross-appellants having pleaded - And led evidence that one of them sold the land to appellant - To their knowledge without their protest - The courts have no basis to set aside the transfer of land (H7) Oyeneyin v. Akinkugbe (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 439; (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt.1184) 265

PLEADINGS - Title - Proof - Where respondent claims to having certificate of occupancy - Of the land in dispute - And did not plead same in his defence - Such evidence goes to no issue (H8) Tanko v. Echendu (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3205; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1224) 253

PLEADINGS - Title - Root of title - Where not pleaded by defendant - Evidence of when and who he bought the land from - Should be rejected for going to no issue (H6) Tanko v. Echendu (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3205; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1224) 253

PLEADINGS - Torts - Special damages - Claim for - Requirements - It must be specially pleaded and particularized in the pleading - And adequate evidence given - Which plaintiff failed to do in this case (H1) Adim v. Nig. Botling Co. Ltd. (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1401; (2010) 9 NWLR (Pt.1200) 543

PLEADINGS - Trespass - Survey plan - Where respondent knows the land in dispute - Filing survey plan is not an absolute necessity - To prove identity of the land in dispute (H10) Tanko v. Echendu (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3205; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1224) 253

POLICE - Alibi - Failure to investigate - Effect - Where the defence is properly raised - But the police fails to investigate it - It may warrant an invocation of s. 149 (d) of Evidence Act - Against the prosecution (H3) Shehu v. State (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 279) 1167; (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1195) 112

POLITICS - Courts - How activated - Failure of political party to comply with Electoral law - Confers jurisdiction on court - To protect rights of candidates - As to ensure order in the society (H5) Olofu v. Itodo (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3101; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 545

POLITICS - Elections - Nomination - Issue before trial court - Whether merely on nomination - In view of the questions on which the court made pronouncements - The issue thereat transcends nomination - To issue of substitution (H10) Akpan v. Bob (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1623; (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt.1223) 421

POLITICS - Elections - Political parties - Substitution of candidates - Whether within time - In view of the date of the letters of substitution viz-a-viz the date of the elections - The substitution was done within time - Contrary to the holding of Court of Appeal (H4) Ezeigwe v. Nwawulu (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 535; (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt.1183) 159

POLITICS - Elections - Political parties - Substitution of candidates - Cogency of reasons - As exhibit 2 does not say that 1st respondent - Was involved in any of the allegations made therein - There is no cogent reason given for his substitution (H5) Ezeigwe v. Nwawulu (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 535; (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt.1183) 159

POLITICS - Elections - Pre election matters - Substitution of candidate - Propriety - Only political party can nominate candidate for election - But in event of substitution of such candidate - Party must fulfil certain conditions (H3) Olofu v. Itodo (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3101; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 545

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Actions - Cause of action - Whether continuing - Where pension is being underpaid - If the payment is made monthly - Cause of action arises each time - Plaintiff is paid less than appropriate sum (H4) CBN v. Amao (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1715; (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1219) 271

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Actions - Commencement procedure - Originating summons - Propriety - It is proper where the principal question is question of law - Or there is no substantial dispute of fact - Neither of which is the case herein (H4) Amasike v. Reg. Gen. CAC (2010) 7 KLR (pt. 284) 2131; (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1211) 337

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Actions - Commencement - Originating summons - Propriety - As the relief only calls for construction of section 34 of Electoral Act - Commencement by originating summons is appropriate (H2) Ezeigwe v. Nwawulu (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 535; (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt.1183) 159

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Actions - Competence - Recovery of debts - Applicability of limitation period - Though it applies to actions for recovery of debt - A subsequent acknowledgment of the debt by the debtor - Revives statute barred right of action (H3) NSITF MGT. BOARD v. Klifco Nig. Ltd. (2010) 7 KLR (pt. 284) 2255; (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1211) 307

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Actions - Counterclaim - Dismissal - Propriety - Court of Appeal rightly dismissed appellants’ counterclaim - In view of respondents’ proof of their title to the land in dispute (H6) Obineche v. Akusobi (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 2057; (2010) 12 NWLR (Pt.1208) 383

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Actions - Duplicate actions - Vacation on grounds of abuse - Sequence - Where two actions of similar nature - Are being prosecuted concurrently - It is the later in time that vacates (H8) Dingyadi v. INEC (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 1877

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Actions - Limitation - Public Officers’ Protection Act - Exception - It does not apply where the public officer failed to act in good faith - Or acted in abuse of office (H1) Hassan v. Aliyu (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 285) 2311; (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt.1223) 547

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Actions - Nonjoinder - Effect of - Where appellant was not joined at the proceedings - Which adversely affected him - Breach of his fundamental rights to fair hearing was occasioned - That rendered the action incompetent (H2) Okonta v. Philips (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3095; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 320

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Actions - Nonjoinder of PDP - Whether fatal - In view of the question for determination at trial court - The nonjoinder was not fatal - As it could be determined without joining PDP (H11) Akpan v. Bob (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1623; (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt.1223) 421

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Actions - Parties - Nonjoinder - Whether fatal - No cause shall be defeated by reason of nonjoinder - As the court may in every cause - Deal with the matter as regards the rights - Of parties actually before it (H5) Sapo v. Sunmonu (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1819; (2010) 11 NWLR (Pt.1205) 374

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Actions - Proper parties - Necessity of - Where proper parties are not before the court - It does not assume jurisdiction - And can not make order affecting parties not so joined (H1) Okonta v. Philips (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3095; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 320

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Actions - Raising of issues - Statute of limitation - Time to raise - It cannot be raised at the threshold stage - Of determination of the parties to the suit (H2) Panalpina Trans. Ltd. v. Olandeen Int’l (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2999; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 1

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Actions - Representative capacity - Absence of leave to sue - Effect - Once it is obvious that a case was fought in a representative capacity - A court will enter judgment as such - Though no leave was obtained to sue in that capacity (H1) Salisu v. Odumade (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 747; (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt.1190) 228

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Adjournments - Application for - Refusal by trial court - Propriety - In view of the evidence on record the refusal was proper - As applicants had already been given adequate opportunity to file their reply - But failed to do so (H2) Nwadiogbu v. Anambra/Imo River Basin Dev. (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 286) 2661; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 364

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Adjournments - Application for - Where case is for hearing - Duty on applicant - He must show sufficient reason why the case must be adjourned - Otherwise court must ensure hearing (H1) Nwadiogbu v. Anambra/Imo River Basin Dev. (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 286) 2661; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 364

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Appeals - Cross-appeal by successful party - Propriety - Such cross-appeal serves no useful purpose - Appellate court may therefore ignore it (H5) Ukiri v. Geco-Prakla (Nig.) Ltd. (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 285) 2383; (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1220) 544

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Appeals - Parties - Duty to compile record - Under O. 7 of Supreme Court Rules - Compilation of primary record is the duty of appellant - But where he fails - Respondent has option of either doing so or asking for dismissal (H6) Dingyadi v. INEC (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 1877

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Appeals - Application for enlargement of time - Nonreceipt of copy of judgment - As reason for late appeal - Where judgment to be appealed against is that of trial court - Such reason is unacceptable - As applicant could have filed an omnibus ground in the meantime (H2) Min. of Petroleum v. Expo-Shipping Line (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1557; (2010) 12 NWLR (Pt.1208) 261

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Appeals - Application for enlargement of time - Reason for delay - When irrelevant - Where proposed grounds of appeal is on issue of jurisdiction - Arising prima facie from the judgment appealed against - It ceases to be relevant (H4) Min. of Petroleum v. Expo-Shipping Line (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1557; (2010) 12 NWLR (Pt.1208) 261

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Appeals - Application for enlargement of time - Reason for delay - Sufficiency - Where reason is inability to obtain copy of judgment - Applicant must spell out when and how he applied for it - And what obstacles faced (H1) Min. of Petroleum v. Expo-Shipping Line (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1557; (2010) 12 NWLR (Pt.1208) 261

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Appeals - As of right - Application for extension of time - Appropriate prayer - Where appeal is as of right - But applicant failed to appeal within time - He need only pray for extension of time (H2) Ault & Wiborg Ltd. v. Nibel Ind. Ltd. (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 1853; (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1220) 619

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Appeals - Court processes - Competency - Where processes for bringing an appeal are incompetent - The appeal itself is incompetent (H3) Oketade v. Adewunmi (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 288) 3235; (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1195) 63

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Appeals - Determination of - Rehearing - An appellate court is entitled to exercise - All powers of the trial court - By hearing on printed records - And reexamining of all evidence tendered - In the determination of an appeal (H8) Osun State INEC v. AC (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3137; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 273

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Appeals - Findings - Interference - Where trial court failed - To consider and evaluate evidence of parties - Appellate court has right - To evaluate and make necessary findings thereon (H6) Osun State INEC v. AC (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3137; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 273

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Appeals - Grounds - Error of law or misdirection - Manner of raising - Where a ground alleges either an error or a misdirection in law - The relevant passage in the judgment must be quoted - And full particulars given (H4) Okwuagbala v. Ikwueme (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2955; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 54

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Appeals - Grounds - Failure to consider pending motion - Validity as a ground - It is a valid ground of appeal - As a court is bound to dispense every such motion - Before taking a final decision in a matter (H3) Akpan v. Bob (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1623; (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt.1223) 421

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Appeals - Grounds - From which no issue is raised - Fate - Such ground is deemed abandoned - And liable to be struck out - This is the case with grounds 3-6 herein (H1) Ukiri v. Geco-Prakla (Nig.) Ltd. (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 285) 2383; (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1220) 544

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Appeals - Grounds - Nature - Whether of law - Where a ground raises an issue touching on jurisdiction - As does the sole ground herein - It is purely a ground of law (H1) Agip (Nig) Ltd. v. Agip Petroli Inter. (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 275) 1; (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt.1187) 348

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Appeals - Grounds - Relation to pleadings - They must be based on reasons for decision reached by lower court - Which should in turn be based on issues joined on the pleadings - And evidence in support thereof (H9) Chami v. UBA Plc. (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 507; (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt.1191) 474

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Appeals - Grounds - Whether of law or fact - Where a ground does not question a lower court’s assessment of facts - But rather its wrong application of legal principles - It is not of facts but law (H1) Effiom v. CROSIEC (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1767; (2010) 14 NWLR (Pt.1213) 106

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Appeals - Grounds of fact - Or mixed law and fact - Competence - Were the questions involve fact or mixed law and fact - Leave of court must be first sought and obtained - Else the grounds would be incompetent (H1) B.A.S.F. Nig. Ltd. v. Faith Ent. Ltd. (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 275) 1; (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt.1187) 34805

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Appeals - Issues - Compression of issues - Liberty of courts - A court is at liberty to compress issues presented by parties - Or even reformulate issues for the determination of the appeal (H6) Ishola v. Falorunso (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 2009; (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1210) 169

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Appeals - Issues - Formulation - Rule against proliferation - Counsel may formulate one issue per one ground of appeal - But he is not allowed to formulate two or more issues - Out of one ground of appeal (H1) Okwuagbala v. Ikwueme (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2955; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 54

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Appeals - Issues - Not argued by appellant - Fate - Such issue is deemed abandoned by appellant - As is the case with the instant issue 2 - Dealing with reduction of costs awarded (H4) Adim v. Nig. Botling Co. Ltd. (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1401; (2010) 9 NWLR (Pt.1200) 543

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Appeals - Issues - Number - Rule against proliferation - It is improper for issues for determination to outnumber grounds of appeal - They may only be equal to or less than the grounds of appeal (H1) Teriba v. Adeyemo (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1583; (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1211) 242

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Appeals - Issues - Power of registrar to extend time - Propriety of issue - In view of Court of Appeal’s ruling restoring the appeal - And extending the time by implication - This issue does not arise for determination herein (H4) Ukiri v. Geco-Prakla (Nig.) Ltd. (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 285) 2383; (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1220) 544

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Appeals - Issues - Rule against fresh issues - Limit - Where the alleged fresh issue - Arises from specific findings of the court appealed from - It is not a fresh issue for which prior leave is required (H3) Adekeye v. Adesina (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2801; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 449

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Appeals - Issues from Court of Appeal decision - Predicated on s. 15 of Court of Appeal Act - As the exercise of its powers under section 15 - Makes that court a court of first instance - Such issues cannot be fresh (H1) Ezeigwe v. Nwawulu (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 535; (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt.1183) 159

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Appeals - Leave - Court’s discretion - Appeal against - Leave is required to bring such an appeal - Else it is incompetent and liable to be struck out - As it cannot be brought as of right (H2) Oyegun v. Nzeribe (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 2097

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Appeals - Misjoinder - Effect - The defect of misjoinder or nonjoinder of parties - Does not vitiate an appeal - When there are living parties - Willing to prosecute the case (H7) Gen. Elect. Coy. v. Akande (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3069; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 596

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Appeals - Notice - Filed prior to ruling but same date - Propriety - Appellate courts do not oppose such step - What they frown at - Is delay in filing of appeal (H1) First Bank v. T.S.A. Ind. Ltd. (2010) 7 KLR (pt. 285) 2383; (2010) 15 NWLR (Pt.1216) 247

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Appeals - Notice of objection - Manner of raising - Whether can be raised in the brief - There is nothing wrong in raising it in a party’s brief - As the essence of an objection is to give notice to appellant - Before date fixed for hearing (H3) Okwuagbala v. Ikwueme (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2955; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 54

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Appeals - Notices of appeal - Multiple filing - Effect on competence - An appeal is not incompetent for being brought by more than one notice - It is open to appellant’s counsel to adopt one of the notices filed (H2) First Bank v. T.S.A. Ind. Ltd. (2010) 7 KLR (pt. 285) 2383; (2010) 15 NWLR (Pt.1216) 247

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Appeals - Pending motions - Failure to notify court of - Effect - Where parties fail to notify court of a motion - And court fails to pronounce thereon - They cannot complain about the non-pronouncement on appeal (H4) Akpan v. Bob (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1623; (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt.1223) 421

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Appeals - Processes - Power to amend - Limits - Though a court ordinarily has power - To grant leave to amend processes - That power does not extend to occasions - Where the right of parties to amend - Is curtailed by a higher court’s order (H1) Ogunsola v. NICON (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 2083; (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1211) 225

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Appeals - Processes - Right of parties to amend - Curtailment - How done - In the absence of an express permission - Incorporated in a rehearing order - Parties cannot amend their processes at such rehearing (H2) Ogunsola v. NICON (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 2083; (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1211) 225

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Appeals - Supreme Court - Withdrawal without court order - Requirements - A document signed by or for all the parties - Signifying their consent to the withdrawal - Must be filed in the Court’s Registry (H1) Dingyadi v. INEC (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 1877

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Appeals - Time - Application for enlargement of - Requirements - Applicant must show good reasons for failure to appeal in time - And good cause why the appeal should be heard (H1) Oyegun v. Nzeribe (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 2097

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Appeals - Time - Application for extension of time - Trinity prayers - When needed - They become necessary where right of appeal is only with leave - And applicant had failed to appeal within time (H1) Ault & Wiborg Ltd. v. Nibel Ind. Ltd. (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 1853; (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1220) 619

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Appeals - Time to appeal - Power to extend - O. 7 r. 10 of Court of Appeal Rules - Limits - It only avails persons who through inadvertence - Are unable to promptly file appeal - It is not an alternative route to those - Who have tried and failed at other procedures (H3) ANPP v. Albishir (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 481; (2010) 9 NWLR (Pt.1198) 118

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Appeals - Withdrawal - After exchange of briefs - Effect - After briefs have been exchanged - Whereby issues are crystallized - A withdrawal at that point must lead to dismissal - As an inflexible rule (H1) Young Motors Ltd. v. Okonkwo (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 279) 1191; (2010) 15 NWLR (Pt.1217) 524

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Application for demurrer - Reliance on exhibits - Propriety of - Where the exhibits have already been pleaded by plaintiff - Before being exhibited by defendants - It is proper for court to rely thereon (H2) JSF Invest. Ltd v. Brawal Line Ltd (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 286) 2611; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 495

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Application for enlargement of time - Reason for delay - When it may be overlooked - Where proposed grounds of appeal is on strong points of law - Like want of jurisdiction - It may not be necessary to satisfactorily explain the delay (H3) Min. of Petroleum v. Expo-Shipping Line (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1557; (2010) 12 NWLR (Pt.1208) 261

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Bill of charges - Recovery under undefended list - Propriety - As the bills relied on by respondent - Were not based on any mutually agreed ascertainable standard - The claim is for unliquidated sum and ought not to be by undefended list (H2) Nworah & Sons Ltd v. Akputa (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 278) 897; (2010) 9 NWLR (Pt.1200) 596

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Certiorari - Time of hearing - O. 37 r. 5(4) of High Court Rules of Anambra State - Hearing can only be had - After an affidavit of verification of service - Has been filed as required by the rules (H1) Onyemaizu v. Ojiako (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 371; (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt.1185) 504

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Certiorari proceedings - Affidavits of service - Who should file - As held in Re-Appolos Udo - The filing of a verification affidavit is personal to the applicant - It is not for the bailiff (H4) Onyemaizu v. Ojiako (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 371; (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt.1185) 504

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Certiorari proceedings - Conditions precedent - Effect of Exhibits 9 and 10 - They are worthless documents - As they were not filed in due process of law - Nor were they of the appellant’s personal making (H3) Onyemaizu v. Ojiako (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 371; (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt.1185) 504

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Commencement of actions - Originating summons - Propriety - It is the claim of a plaintiff that determines propriety of originating process - In view of the instant claim originating summons is proper (H5) Anyawoko v. Okoye (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 275) 87; (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt.1188) 497

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Commencement of actions - Undefended list procedure - Purpose - It is used to obtain quick judgment - In clear cases where defendant has no defence - To claim of debt - Or liquidated sum by plaintiff (H2) Imoniyame Holdings Ltd. v. Soneb Ent. Ltd. (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 275) 1; (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt.1185) 561

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Company law - Company Proceedings Rule - Rule 2(1) - Whether directory - In view of the use of the word “shall” in the provision - The provision is mandatory not merely directory (H8) Agip (Nig) Ltd. v. Agip Petroli Int’l (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 275) 1; (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt.1187) 348

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Company law - Derivative actions - Commencement - Procedure - Minority shareholder having obtained requisite leave - Must come by way of originating summons on notice to the company (H4) Agip (Nig) Ltd. v. Agip Petroli Int’l (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 275) 1; (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt.1187) 348

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Company Law - Removal of directors - Procedure - S. 266 (1) of CAMA - The subsection mandatorily requires - That the director must be given a notice - Of the meeting at which he will be removed (H2) Longe v. First Bank (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 279) 1067; (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt.1189) 1

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Competence - Grounds - Incompetence of all grounds - Effect on the appeal - Where all grounds are incompetent as in this case - The appeal is incompetent and liable to be struck out (H3) B.A.S.F. Nig. Ltd v. Faith Ent. Ltd. (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 275) 1; (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt.1187) 34805

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Constitutional law - Constitution - Interpretation - Manner of - The general principle is that it should be given an interpretation - Which would serve the interest of the constitution - And carry out its object and purpose (H5) Nyame v. FRN (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 280) 1269; (2010) 7 NWLR (Pt.1193) 344

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Contracts - Validity - Misrepresentation - Effect - Party guilty of misrepresentation - Cannot rely on it to repudiate the contract - As equity will not allow a person to benefit from his own wrong (H5) Teriba v. Adeyemo (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1583; (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1211) 242

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Court process - Failure to serve on 2nd respondent - Whether fatal - There was no obligation to serve it - As it was not a party to the action - As such non service on it is not fatal (H2) Bello v. INEC (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 278) 827; (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1196) 342

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Court process - Service - Complaint against - Propriety - Such complaint against non or improper service - Can only be properly raised - By the party affected thereby (H3) Ohakim v. Agbaso (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 286) 2513; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 172

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Court processes - Service - Improper service - Effect on proceedings - It nullifies any order made against the party improperly served - As it denies him the opportunity to be heard in the proceedings (H8) First Bank v. T.S.A. Ind. Ltd. (2010) 7 KLR (pt. 285) 2383; (2010) 15 NWLR (Pt.1216) 247

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Courts - Contempt charges - Invocation - Rationale - It is the need to vindicate the dignity of the court as an institution - Not to bolster the power or ego of the judge as an individual (H1) FRN v. Akubueze (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 1993; (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt.1223) 525

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Courts - Exercise of discretion - Attitude of appellate court - It will not interfere with it - Once it is exercised judicially and judiciously - As a previous decision cannot be an authority for another in such matter (H3) Oyegun v. Nzeribe (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 2097

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Courts - Exercise of discretion - Factual basis - It is only upon known or undisputed facts that a court may exercise its discretion - Any exercise of discretion in absence of relevant facts - Cannot be regarded as judicially and judiciously done (H2) Union Bank v. Astra Builders Ltd. (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 769; (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt.1186) 1

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Courts - Issues - Suo motu resolution - Rule against - Limits - The rule that a court ought not to raise and resolve an issue - Without hearing the parties - Applies mainly to issues of fact (H5) Effiom v. CROSIEC (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1767; (2010) 14 NWLR (Pt.1213) 106

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Courts - Judicial bias - Allegation - Proof - Such allegation must be proved on some extra judicial factors - Else it is insufficient to disqualify a judge - From adjudicating a case properly before him (H1) Womiloju v. Anibire (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1605; (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt.1203) 545

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Courts - Judicial bias - Proof - Judge as former counsel of a party - Effect - It is not enough to disqualify him - Unless it is shown that his former role as counsel - Could pervert the course of justice (H2) Womiloju v. Anibire (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1605; (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt.1203) 545

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Cross examination - Elicited facts - Evidence for adverse party - Such facts may be relied on by an adverse party - Provided they were pleaded by the party concerned (H3) Akomolafe v. Guardian Press Ltd. (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 275) 63; (2010) 3 NWLR (Pt.1181) 338

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Customs relied on - Proof - Need for - It is important that custom should be strictly proved - Unless the particular custom is such - That court should take judicial notice of (H1) Orlu v. Gogo-Abite (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 391; (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1196) 307

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Derivative actions - Defect in commencement - Effect - Such defect nullifies the entire proceedings - Commencement by originating summons is condition precedent - To exercise of jurisdiction by court (H5) Agip (Nig) Ltd. v. Agip Petroli Int’l (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 275) 1; (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt.1187) 348

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Documents - Admissibility - Right to challenge - Limits - When an exhibit is tendered and admitted - Without any objection from counsel - Such counsel may lose the right to challenge the admission on appeal (H1) Shurumo v. State (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 3021; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 73

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Evidence - Admissibility - Exhibit F - Challenge to - Propriety - As appellants failed to challenge - The application for leave to file same at trial court - They cannot challenge the exhibit on appeal without leave (H2) Obineche v. Akusobi (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 2057; (2010) 12 NWLR (Pt.1208) 383

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Evidence - Proof - Piece of evidence - Probative value - Once it is relevant and not successfully challenged - It has probative value - And ought to influence the judge - In the determination of the case (H1) Chabasaya v. Anwasi (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1745; (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt.1201) 163

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Evidence - Proof - Where defence offered no evidence - In such case the burden placed on plaintiff is minimal - He can use the unchallenged evidence - To establish his case (H4) Chami v. UBA Plc. (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 507; (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt.1191) 474

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Fair hearing - Breach - Effect on proceedings - It renders the entire proceedings null and void - Necessitating a consequential order of retrial (H2) Pan Africa Int. v. Shoreline Ltd. (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 279) 1153; (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt.1189) 98

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Fair hearing - Ingredients - It must include giving to a party or his counsel - Opportunity to present his case - In an atmosphere free from fear and intimidation (H2) FRN v. Akubueze (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 1993; (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt.1223) 525

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Fair hearing - Principles - Application - Basis - It is based on opportunity to meet the case of the other party - Where a party fails to utilize the opportunity offered - He cannot be heard to complain of lack of fair hearing (H5) Chami v. UBA Plc. (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 507; (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt.1191) 474

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Interlocutory applications - Struck out by court - Options of applicant - He can either file a fresh motion or apply to relist the one struck out - Depending on the circumstances that led to the striking out (H4) Panalpina Trans. Ltd. v. Olandeen Int’l (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2999; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 1

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Issue of mandamus - Whether raised suo motu - Contrary to allegation of appellants - It was at the front burner - During the proceedings at High Court - As well as before Court of Appeal (H1) Amasike v. Reg. Gen. CAC (2010) 7 KLR (pt. 284) 2131; (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1211) 337

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Judgments - Use of words - Liberty of judges - Extent - They are at liberty to use any words they like - Provided they do not go outside the issue before them (H5) Amasike v. Reg. Gen. CAC (2010) 7 KLR (pt. 284) 2131; (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1211) 337

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Judicial review - Federal High Court - Application procedure - O. 47 r. 3 (2) of the Federal High Court Rules 2000 - Must be complied with - Otherwise such application will be incompetent (H2) Ohakim v. Agbaso (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 286) 2513; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 172

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Judicial review - Federal High Court - Scope of remedies - By virtue of O. 47 r. 1 (2) of the Federal Court Rules 2000 - Remedies may include prerogative orders - Together with private law remedies (H4) Ohakim v. Agbaso (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 286) 2513; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 172

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Judicial review - Order of mandamus - Conditions for application - Applicant must show among others - That he made a prior demand on respondent - Yet respondent had refused to act (H6) Ohakim v. Agbaso (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 286) 2513; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 172

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Land law - Compulsory acquisition - Service of notice - Dispensing with personal service - Though personal service is ordinarily mandatory - It may be dispensed with - Where it is difficult to trace the land owner (H2) Okeowo v. A-G Ogun State (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 285) 2367; (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1219) 327

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Land suits - Joint defence - Effect on individual rights - Where defendants claim individual ownership of specific portions - Without filing separate survey plans for their desired portions - Joint defence may weaken their case (H4) Olodo v. Josiah (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2971; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 653

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Legal practice - Law firms and lawyers therein - Whether same - There is a legal difference between the firm and legal practitioners - In our jurisprudence of parties - Therefore one cannot substitute for the other (H2) Adewunmi v. Oketade (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 278) 797

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Legal practitioners - Authority to bind client - Duration of - A client is presumed to have confidence in a counsel he has briefed - This confidence will continue till the case ends - Unless the brief is withdrawn (H2) Young Motors Ltd. v. Okonkwo (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 279) 1191; (2010) 15 NWLR (Pt.1217) 524

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Noncompliance - Attitude of courts - It is strict compliance thereto - That makes for quicker administration of justice - Courts shall always refuse to exercise their discretion - When their rules are not obeyed (H1) Oyegun v. Nzeribe (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 419

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Orders of court - Order pending an event - Lapse of - Once the event has taken place - Such order lapses - It requires no order subsequent to the event - To set it aside (H5) Dingyadi v. INEC (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 1877

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Parties - Argument - Effect of failure to counter a point argued by opponent - The point not so countered is deemed conceded - By the defaulting party (H1) Nwankwo v. Yar’adua (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 280) 1223; (2010) 12 NWLR (Pt.1209) 518

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Parties - Exercise of right - Limited by rule of practice - Where exercise of a right is limited by a rule of practice - Such rule must be complied with - Unless it is waived (H2) Dingyadi v. INEC (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 1877

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Performance of duties - Regulated by statute - Methods - Where statute provides for a particular method - No other method is to be employed - In doing the particular thing (H3) Nwankwo v. Yar’adua (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 280) 1223; (2010) 12 NWLR (Pt.1209) 518

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Pleadings - Statutory defences - Need to plead - A party relying on statutory provision for defence - Must plead sufficient facts - Upon which such defence will have to be based (H4) Ojiogu v. Ojiogu (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 279) 1113; (2010) 9 NWLR (Pt.1198) 1

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Rules of court - Compliance - Federal High Court Rules - Objection to noncompliance - When to raise - It has to be done within a reasonable time - After objector became aware of the noncompliance (H3) CBN v. Amao (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1715; (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1219) 271

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Statutes of Limitation - Public Officers’ Protection Act - Proof of exception - It is the duty of plaintiff to prove the circumstance - That makes the case an exception - Which duty was not discharged in this case (H4) Hassan v. Aliyu (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 285) 2311; (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt.1223) 547

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Supreme Court - S. 22 of Supreme Court Act - Applicability - It can only be invoked where the lower courts had jurisdiction to do a thing - But neglected to do so (H8) Hassan v. Aliyu (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 285) 2311; (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt.1223) 547

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Undefended list - Hearing thereunder - When to refuse - Where there is a conflict between the claim - And the evidence in support - That is enough to refuse the suit - Being heard under the list (H2) NMC Bank v. Obi (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1541; (2010) 14 NWLR (Pt.1213) 169

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Undefended list - Intention to defend - Competence - Effect of time of filing - It does not affect its competence - Where actual hearing is not commenced - Prior to five days from filing date (H1) NMC Bank v. Obi (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1541; (2010) 14 NWLR (Pt.1213) 169

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Undefended list - Triable issue - Whenever a triable issue comes into existence - As a result of the facts deposed to by defendant - The case ought to be transferred to the general cause list (H3) Nworah & Sons Ltd v. Akputa (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 278) 897; (2010) 9 NWLR (Pt.1200) 596

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Undefended list procedure - Affidavits - Purpose of filing - Is for the court to decide whether defendant has any defence - Not that the case may be heard on affidavit evidence (H1) Imoniyame Holdings Ltd. v. Soneb Ent. Ltd. (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 275) 1; (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt.1185) 561

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Undefended list procedure - Duty of court - Where defence is disclosed - Court is to transfer case to general cause list - And not to enter judgment for defendant (H3) Imoniyame Holdings Ltd. v. Soneb Ent. Ltd. (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 275) 1; (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt.1185) 561

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Violation of fair hearing - Evidence led before joinder - As basis for liability - Propriety - As the evidence was taken behind their back - To hold appellants liable based on it - Amounts to breach of their right to fair hearing (H1) Pan Africa Int. v. Shoreline Ltd. (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 279) 1153; (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt.1189) 98

PROPERTY LAW - Customary law - Family property - Sale - Validity - Sale by member without consent of family head is void - But sale by the head without consent of principal members is only voidable (H3) Teriba v. Adeyemo (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1583; (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1211) 242

PROPERTY LAW - Landlord & tenant - Termination of tenancy - Right of landlord - Extent - He has an unfettered right to terminate a tenancy - Subject to the conditions in the tenancy agreement (H3) Adewunmi v. Oketade (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 278) 797

PROPERTY LAW - Redemption of property - Burden of proof - Incidence - Respondent has the burden of proving redemption - As burden of proof lies on the party - Who asserts the affirmative of an issue (H3) Jolasun v. Bamgboye (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2929; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 285

PROPERTY LAW - Succession - Title - Succession - Proof by documents - Appellant could have proved title by production of title documents - But he had no documents to depict - That the property had been legally assigned to him (H2) Orlu v. Gogo-Abite (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 391; (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1196) 307

RES JUDICATA - Estoppel - Applicability - As both parties and subject matter - Are same in past and present suit - Appellants are misguided in litigating the matter afresh - As it has been determined by the judgment in the prior suit (H1) Alapo v. Agbokere (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 278) 811; (2010) 9 NWLR (Pt.1198) 30

RES JUDICATA - Estoppel - Rationale - Whether based on rightness of judgment - The rationale for the doctrine is not because the judgment is right - But that there needs be an end to litigation (H2) Alapo v. Agbokere (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 278) 811; (2010) 9 NWLR (Pt.1198) 30

RULES OF COURT - Appeals - Court of Appeal Rules - Dismissal under O. 6 r. 10 - Effect on status of appeal - Such dismissal terminates the life of the appeal - Such that no court has jurisdiction to revive it (H4) First Bank v. T.S.A. Ind. Ltd. (2010) 7 KLR (pt. 285) 2383; (2010) 15 NWLR (Pt.1216) 247

RULES OF COURT - Appeals - Supreme Court - Withdrawal without court order - Requirements - A document signed by or for all the parties - Signifying their consent to the withdrawal - Must be filed in the Court’s Registry (H1) Dingyadi v. INEC (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 1877

RULES OF COURT - Appeals - Time to appeal - Power to extend - O. 7 r. 10 of Court of Appeal Rules - Limits - It only avails persons who through inadvertence - Are unable to promptly file appeal - It is not an alternative route to those - Who have tried and failed at other procedures (H3) ANPP v. Albishir (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 481; (2010) 9 NWLR (Pt.1198) 118

RULES OF COURT - Certiorari - Time of hearing - O. 37 r. 5(4) of High Court Rules of Anambra State - Hearing can only be had - After an affidavit of verification of service - Has been filed as required by the rules (H1) Onyemaizu v. Ojiako (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 371; (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt.1185) 504

RULES OF COURT - Compliance - Federal High Court Rules - Noncompliance with form of instituting proceedings - Court has option vide O. 2 r .1 (1) - Of treating same as an irregularity - Which will not nullify the proceedings (H2) CBN v. Amao (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1715; (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1219) 271

RULES OF COURT - Compliance - Federal High Court Rules - Objection to noncompliance - When to raise - It has to be done within a reasonable time - After objector became aware of the noncompliance (H3) CBN v. Amao (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1715; (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1219) 271

RULES OF COURT - Court of Appeal Rules - Dismissal under O. 3 r. 20(1) - Effect - Though the operative word in that provision is “dismissal”- It is without prejudice - To the right of a party to apply for re-listing under O. 3 r. 20(4) (H2) Oyegun v. Nzeribe (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 419

RULES OF COURT - Court of Appeal Rules - Dismissal under O. 6 r. 10 - Requirements - It must be shown that record of appeal had been entered - And time for filing brief had expired - And there is no extension of time ordered (H6) First Bank v. T.S.A. Ind. Ltd. (2010) 7 KLR (pt. 285) 2383; (2010) 15 NWLR (Pt.1216) 247

RULES OF COURT - Court of Appeal Rules - O. 7 rr. 2 and 5 - Availability to parties - It is meant to aid the vigilant and not the sluggard - As such it must be invoked within reasonable time - To avail a party (H7) First Bank v. T.S.A. Ind. Ltd. (2010) 7 KLR (pt. 285) 2383; (2010) 15 NWLR (Pt.1216) 247

RULES OF COURT - FCT High Court Rules - Originating summons - Contents - O. 6 r. 3(1) requires it to contain either questions for determination - Or statement of reliefs claimed - The instant summons is therefore substantially compliant (H2) Anyawoko v. Okoye (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 275) 87; (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt.1188) 497

RULES OF COURT - Judicial review - Federal High Court - Application procedure - O. 47 r. 3 (2) of the Federal High Court Rules 2000 - Must be complied with - Otherwise such application will be incompetent (H2) Ohakim v. Agbaso (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 286) 2513; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 172

RULES OF COURT - Judicial review - Federal High Court - Scope of remedies - By virtue of O. 47 r. 1 (2) of the Federal Court Rules 2000 - Remedies may include prerogative orders - Together with private law remedies (H4) Ohakim v. Agbaso (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 286) 2513; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 172

RULES OF COURT - Noncompliance - Attitude of courts - It is strict compliance thereto - That makes for quicker administration of justice - Courts shall always refuse to exercise their discretion - When their rules are not obeyed (H1) Oyegun v. Nzeribe (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 419

RULES OF COURT - Noncompliance - Right to set aside suit - Waiver of - Application to set aside suit for irregularity - Shall not be allowed unless made within reasonable time - Before taking further step (H4) Anyawoko v. Okoye (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 275) 87; (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt.1188) 497

STATUTES - Actions - Competence - Recovery of debts - Applicability of limitation period - Though it applies to actions for recovery of debt - A subsequent acknowledgment of the debt by the debtor - Revives statute barred right of action (H3) NSITF MGT. BOARD v. Klifco Nig. Ltd. (2010) 7 KLR (pt. 284) 2255; (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1211) 307

STATUTES - Appeals - Issues - Freshness of - Issues from Court of Appeal decision - Predicated on s. 15 of Court of Appeal Act - As the exercise of its powers under section 15 - Makes that court a court of first instance - Such issues cannot be fresh (H1) Ezeigwe v. Nwawulu (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 535; (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt.1183) 159

STATUTES - Appeals - Leave to amend processes - S. 16 of Court of Appeal Act - Limitation by Supreme Court - Basis - Based on the hierarchy of courts - And the doctrine of judicial precedent - Supreme Court may limit application of the section (H3) Ogunsola v. NICON (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 2083; (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1211) 225

STATUTES - Circulars - Rate of pension for C.B.N. - Applicability of the circulars - In view of s. 14(3) of C.B.N. Act - The decision of the Board to approve the circulars - Made them applicable (H6) CBN v. Amao (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1715; (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1219) 271

STATUTES - Company law - Removal of directors - Procedure - S. 266 (1) of CAMA - The subsection mandatorily requires - That the director must be given a notice - Of the meeting at which he will be removed (H2) Longe v. First Bank (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 279) 1067; (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt.1189) 1

STATUTES - Conflict of laws - Where claims of damages exist in a statute - And the other statute does not incorporate provisions of the former statute - Each statute is independent on its tenor (H7) Cotecna Int’l Ltd. v. Churchgate Nig. Ltd. (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) p. 2871; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 346

STATUTES - Elections - Procedure - Marginal notes - Purpose - Ss. 31. 121 & 122 Electoral Act & para 11 of 2nd Schedule to 1999 Constitution - Deal with the procedure - As shown by the marginal notes to the sections (H1) Osun State INEC v. AC (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3137; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 273

STATUTES - Interpretation - Company Proceedings Rule - Rule 2(1) - Whether directory - In view of the use of the word “shall” in the provision - The provision is mandatory not merely directory (H8) Agip (Nig) Ltd. v. Agip Petroli Int’l (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 275) 1; (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt.1187) 348

STATUTES - Interpretation - Fundamental principle - Literal interpretation should always be employed - Except when it is impossible - As the intention of a statute must be gathered - From the plain expression used therein (H3) Oyegun v. Nzeribe (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 419

STATUTES - Interpretation - Of the word ‘may’ - In s. 23 of Kogi State Local Government Election Law, 2004 - By appellant as not being mandatory is wrong - For same does not relate to time within which to substitute candidates (H4) Olofu v. Itodo (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3101; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 545

STATUTES - Interpretation - Principles - No court ought to be seen to defeat - The clear intendment of an enactment - By its interpretation of its provisions (H2) NSITF MGT. BOARD v. Klifco Nig. Ltd. (2010) 7 KLR (pt. 284) 2255; (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1211) 307

STATUTES - Interpretation - Restrictive statutes - How construed - Any law which seeks to deprive a citizen of his right of access to court - Or any other constitutional right - Must be construed strictly by the courts (H5) Cotecna Int’l Ltd. v. Churchgate Nig. Ltd. (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) p. 2871; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 346

STATUTES - Interpretation - S. 15 of Court of Appeal Act - Applicability - It applies where inter alia, trial court has legal power over the matter - The issue at trial was capable of arising from grounds of appeal - And necessary materials are before the court (H6) Ezeigwe v. Nwawulu (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 535; (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt.1183) 159

STATUTES - Legal Practitioners Act - Olujimi and Akeredolu - Is not a name in the roll of legal practitioners in Nigeria - Thus use of same violates S. 2 (1) & 24 Legal Practitioners Act - And affects Legal processes in this case (H2) Oketade v. Adewunmi (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 288) 3235; (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1195) 63

STATUTES - Limitation of action - Public Officers’ Protection Act - Exception - It does not apply where the public officer failed to act in good faith - Or acted in abuse of office (H1) Hassan v. Aliyu (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 285) 2311; (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt.1223) 547

STATUTES - Performance of duties - Regulated by statute - Methods - Where statute provides for a particular method - No other method is to be employed - In doing the particular thing (H3) Nwankwo v. Yar’adua (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 280) 1223; (2010) 12 NWLR (Pt.1209) 518

STATUTES - Pre-shipment Inspection of Imports Act - Limitation of action - Applicability - Such limitation of action is not shown in the Act - But is contained in the Customs Act - Where words of a statute are clear - Court is duty bound to give its literal meaning (H4) Cotecna Int’l Ltd. v. Churchgate Nig. Ltd. (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) p. 2871; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 346

STATUTES - Public Lands Acquisition Law - Compulsory acquisition - Service of notice - Dispensing with personal service - Though personal service is ordinarily mandatory - It may be dispensed with - Where it is difficult to trace the land owner (H2) Okeowo v. A-G Ogun State (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 285) 2367; (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1219) 327

STATUTES - Rules of construction - Several statutes - On same subject - Such statutes are construed together - So that the intention of the legislature is discovered - From the whole set of enactments (H4) Nig. Army v. Aminun-Kano (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 287; (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt.1188) 429

STATUTES - Taxation laws - Limitation of action - Applicability - Such Limitation of liability in respect of disputed tax - Must be provided for expressly and with certainty - Not by mere inference (H6) Cotecna Int’l Ltd. v. Churchgate Nig. Ltd. (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) p. 2871; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 346

STATUTES - Validity - Trade Disputes (Amendment) Decree - By conferring exclusive jurisdiction - On National Industrial Court - It detracts from the powers of the State High Court under s. 272 of the Constitution - And as such is null and void (H5) NUEE v. Bureau of Pub. Enter. (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 691; (2010) 7 NWLR (Pt.1194) 538

SUCCESSION - Title - Proof by documents - Appellant could have proved title by production of title documents - But he had no documents to depict - That the property had been legally assigned to him (H2) Orlu v. Gogo-Abite (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 391; (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1196) 307

SUPREME COURT - Appeals - Interlocutory appeals - Duty to compile record - Under O. 7 of Supreme Court Rules - Compilation of primary record is the duty of appellant - But where he fails - Respondent has option of either doing so or asking for dismissal (H6) Dingyadi v. INEC (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 1877

SUPREME COURT - Appeals - Issues - Raised but not considered - Effect - As same have now been considered by Supreme Court - And found to be without merit - Failure to consider them at lower court did not occasion miscarriage of justice (H7) CBN v. Amao (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1715; (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1219) 271

SUPREME COURT - Appeals - Issues raised - Duty of court to consider - Courts must consider all issues before it - Except the Supreme Court - Which can resolve an appeal - Based only on issues it deems fit (H4) Samba Ltd. UBA Plc. (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 288) 3289; (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt.1221) 192

SUPREME COURT - Appeals - Leave to amend processes - S. 16 of Court of Appeal Act - Limitation by Supreme Court - Basis - Based on the hierarchy of courts - And the doctrine of judicial precedent - Supreme Court may limit application of the section (H3) Ogunsola v. NICON (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 2083; (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1211) 225

SUPREME COURT - Appeals - Withdrawal without court order - Requirements - A document signed by or for all the parties - Signifying their consent to the withdrawal - Must be filed in the Court’s Registry (H1) Dingyadi v. INEC (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 1877

SUPREME COURT - Error - Orders made contrary to findings - Correction on appeal - Court of Appeal gave order in favour of cross-appellants - Who had lost on the issue - The order having been made by omission - Supreme Court is in a position to rectify it (H5) Oyeneyin v. Akinkugbe (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 439; (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt.1184) 265

SUPREME COURT - Jurisdiction - Election petition appeals - Limit - Supreme court does not have jurisdiction - Where appeal arises from Governorship and Legislative Houses Election Tribunal - Decision of Court of Appeal in respect thereof is final (H2) Ugwa v. Lekwauwa (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 3049; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 26

SUPREME COURT - S. 22 of Supreme Court Act - Applicability - It can only be invoked where the lower courts had jurisdiction to do a thing - But neglected to do so (H8) Hassan v. Aliyu (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 285) 2311; (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt.1223) 547

SURVEY PLANS - Land suits - Joint defence - Effect on individual rights - Where defendants claim individual ownership of specific portions - Without filing separate survey plans for their desired portions - Joint defence may weaken their case (H4) Olodo v. Josiah (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 2971; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 653

SURVEY PLANS - Trespass - Where respondent knows the land in dispute - Filing survey plan is not an absolute necessity - To prove identity of the land in dispute (H10) Tanko v. Echendu (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3205; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1224) 253

TAXATION - Statutes - Taxation laws - Limitation of action - Applicability - Such Limitation of liability in respect of disputed tax - Must be provided for expressly and with certainty - Not by mere inference (H6) Cotecna Int’l Ltd. v. Churchgate Nig. Ltd. (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) p. 2871; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 346

TECHNICALITIES - Appeals - Issues raised - Failure to relate to grounds - Whether fatal - Where briefs are properly filed and issues raised are not incompetent - The court will overlook such failure - In the process of doing substantial justice (H1) JSF Invest. Ltd v. Brawal Line Ltd (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 286) 2611; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 495

TORTS - Actions - Negligence - Damages - Basis of award - The general principle is that award of damages - Entirely depends on whether a party has established his case or not (H4) Hamza v. Kure (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 278) 921; (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt.1203) 630

TORTS - Actions - Negligence - Ingredients - To succeed in an action for negligence plaintiff has to show - That defendant owed him a duty of care - Which duty has been breached - Resulting in injury to plaintiff (H2) Hamza v. Kure (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 278) 921; (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt.1203) 630

TORTS - Damages - General - Quantum - Propriety - N500,000.00 awarded by Court of Appeal is excessive - As plaintiff has been adequately compensated - By the sum awarded as special damages (H4) Kopek Const. Ltd. v. Ekisola (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 247; (2010) 3 NWLR (Pt.1182) 618

TORTS - Damages - General and special - Distinction - General damages are natural consequences of the act complained of - But special damages do not follow in the ordinary course (H3) Kopek Const. Ltd. v. Ekisola (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 247; (2010) 3 NWLR (Pt.1182) 618

TORTS - Defamation - Issues - Relevancy - The finding that the publications were not defamatory - Made the issue as to whether they referred to appellant irrelevant (H6) Akomolafe v. Guardian Press Ltd. (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 275) 63; (2010) 3 NWLR (Pt.1181) 338

TORTS - Defamation - Qualified privilege - Meaning - It means that public convenience must be preferred to private convenience - In dissemination of information of interest to the public (H7) Akomolafe v. Guardian Press Ltd. (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 275) 63; (2010) 3 NWLR (Pt.1181) 338

TORTS - General damages - Quantum - Propriety - Having awarded all properly pleaded and proved special damages - It amounts to double compensation - To award N200,000.00 as general damages (H3) Adim v. Nig. Botling Co. Ltd. (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1401; (2010) 9 NWLR (Pt.1200) 543

TORTS - General damages - Quantum - Propriety of N20,000.00 - In view of the evidence of hospitalization - Of appellant and his family members - The sum is reasonable (H6) Adim v. Nig. Botling Co. Ltd. (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1401; (2010) 9 NWLR (Pt.1200) 543

TORTS - Libel - Assessment of damages - Factors to consider - Some of the factors to be considered - Are the social standing of plaintiff - And the rate of inflation (H3) Oduwole v. David West (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1795; (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt.1203) 598

TORTS - Libel - Content of publication - Need to prove - Even where defendant admits making a publication - Plaintiff has a duty to prove the alleged defamatory content thereof - Failure to do so is fatal (H3) Sky Bank Plc. v. Bolanle (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 278) 979

TORTS - Libel - Defamation - Publication - Where the offensive publication does not refer to plaintiff at all - It cannot possibly be defamatory of him (H4) Sky Bank Plc. v. Bolanle (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 278) 979

TORTS - Libel - Quantum of damages - Propriety - Though assessment is usually subjective - An award must be adequate to assuage for the injury to the plaintiff’s reputation (H2) Oduwole v. David West (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1795; (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt.1203) 598

TORTS - Negligence - Contributory negligence - Whether proved against appellant - It is the failure of 2nd respondent to see appellant’s vehicle - That was the sole cause of the accident - Appellant was not in any way negligent (H3) Oshe v. Okin Biscuits Ltd. (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 279) 1137; (2010) 11 NWLR (Pt.1206) 482

TORTS - Negligence - Meaning - It is the omission to do something which a reasonable man would do - Or the doing of something which a reasonable man would not do (H1) Hamza v. Kure (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 278) 921; (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt.1203) 630

TORTS - Special damages - Claim for - Requirements - It must be specially pleaded and particularized in the pleading - And adequate evidence given - Which plaintiff failed to do in this case (H1) Adim v. Nig. Botling Co. Ltd. (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1401; (2010) 9 NWLR (Pt.1200) 543

TORTS - Special damages - Quantum - Proof of excessiveness - Though cross-appellants alleged excessiveness - They offered no evidence in support of the allegation (H5) Adim v. Nig. Botling Co. Ltd. (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1401; (2010) 9 NWLR (Pt.1200) 543

TORTS - Trespass - Actions - Basis - In a claim for trespass what is primarily in issue - Is possession of the land - The possessor has a right of action against all wrong doers - Except a person with a better title (H1) Kopek Const. Ltd. v. Ekisola (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 247; (2010) 3 NWLR (Pt.1182) 618

TORTS - Trespass - Licencee - Denial of licensor’s title - Effect - Where a licensee challenges licensor’s title - Having entered lawfully on the land - He becomes a trespasser ab initio (H1) Omotayo v. Cooperative Supply Asso. (2010) 7 KLR (pt. 284) 2277; (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1218) 1

TORTS - Trespass - Order of injunction - Propriety - Since respondent said he had disposed of the property in question - There was no justification for the order of injunction - Granted in his favour (H2) Sky Bank Plc v. Bolanle (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 278) 979

TORTS - Trespass - Proof of better title - Implications - Once plaintiff shows proof of prior possession of the land - The onus shifts to defendant - To show that he has a better title (H2) Kopek Const. Ltd. v. Ekisola (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 247; (2010) 3 NWLR (Pt.1182) 618

TORTS - Trespass - Reliefs - Injunction - Propriety - Once a court has found for continuing trespass - It has jurisdiction to grant the equitable remedy of injunction - Notwithstanding that it was not claimed (H4) Omotayo v. Cooperative Supply Asso. (2010) 7 KLR (pt. 284) 2277; (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1218) 1

TRESPASS - Actions - Order of injunction - Propriety - Since respondent said he had disposed of the property in question - There was no justification for the order of injunction - Granted in his favour (H2) Sky Bank Plc v. Bolanle (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 278) 979

TRESPASS - Basis - In a claim for trespass what is primarily in issue - Is possession of the land - The possessor has a right of action against all wrong doers - Except a person with a better title (H1) Kopek Const. Ltd. v. Ekisola (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 247; (2010) 3 NWLR (Pt.1182) 618

TRESPASS - Title - Claim for - Where both parties claim ownership and possession of the land - Title is a decider in the case - The absence of which makes the party in default a trespasser (H2) Tanko v. Echendu (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3205; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1224) 253

TRESPASS - Title - Proof of better title - Implications - Once plaintiff shows proof of prior possession of the land - The onus shifts to defendant - To show that he has a better title (H2) Kopek Const. Ltd. v. Ekisola (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 247; (2010) 3 NWLR (Pt.1182) 618

TRIBUNALS - Election petitions - Jurisdiction - Hearing of motions outside pre-hearing session - Validity - Any such hearing is done without jurisdiction - And is consequently null and void - Under paragraph 6(1) of Practice Directions 2007 (H4) Nwankwo v. Yar’adua (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 280) 1223; (2010) 12 NWLR (Pt.1209) 518

TRIBUNALS - Election petitions - Motions - When to hear - Practice directions 2007 - The tribunal can only hear motions - At the pre-hearing session - Not when it sits as a tribunal - To hear petitions (H2) Nwankwo v. Yar’adua (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 280) 1223; (2010) 12 NWLR (Pt.1209) 518

UNDEFENDED SUITS - Bill of charges - Recovery under undefended list - Propriety - As the bills relied on by respondent - Were not based on any mutually agreed ascertainable standard - The claim is for unliquidated sum and ought not to be by undefended list (H2) Nworah & Sons Ltd v. Akputa (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 278) 897; (2010) 9 NWLR (Pt.1200) 596

UNDEFENDED SUITS - Triable issue - Whenever a triable issue comes into existence - As a result of the facts deposed to by defendant - The case ought to be transferred to the general cause list (H3) Nworah & Sons Ltd v. Akputa (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 278) 897; (2010) 9 NWLR (Pt.1200) 596

UNDEFENDED SUITS - Undefended list - Hearing thereunder - When to refuse - Where there is a conflict between the claim - And the evidence in support - That is enough to refuse the suit - Being heard under the list (H2) NMC Bank v. Obi (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1541; (2010) 14 NWLR (Pt.1213) 169

UNDEFENDED SUITS - Undefended list - Intention to defend - Competence - Effect of time of filing - It does not affect its competence - Where actual hearing is not commenced - Prior to five days from filing date (H1) NMC Bank v. Obi (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1541; (2010) 14 NWLR (Pt.1213) 169

WAIVER - Jurisdiction - Hearing - Noncompliance with O. 37 r. 5(4) of High Court Rules of Anambra State - Such noncompliance erodes the court’s jurisdiction - It is not an irregularity that can be waived or cured (H2) Onyemaizu v. Ojiako (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 371; (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt.1185) 504

WORDS & PHRASES - Election petitions - “Decision” - Meaning - It is a judicial determination - After consideration of the facts and law (H1) Ugwa v. Lekwauwa (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) 3049; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 26

WORDS & PHRASES - Actions - “Party” - Meaning - A party is a person whose name is on record - As plaintiff or defendant - Others who may be affected by the suit - Are persons interested not parties (H1) Bello v. INEC (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 278) 827; (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1196) 342

WORDS & PHRASES - Actions - Reliefs - Mandatory injunction - Nature of - It is an order requiring a party to do specific acts - And is usually restoratory in nature - Requiring the undoing of what had been done - Unlike relief (e) herein sought (H5) Ohakim v. Agbaso (2010) 7-12 KLR (pt. 286) 2513; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 172

WORDS & PHRASES - Appeals - “To allow an appeal” - Meaning - Where an appeal is allowed without conditions attached - It means judgment of lower court is set aside - And the reliefs it had refused are granted - Or vice versa (H1) Ishola v. Falorunso (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 2009; (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1210) 169

WORDS & PHRASES - Appeals - Determination of - Rehearing - An appellate court is entitled to exercise - All powers of the trial court - By hearing on printed records - And reexamining of all evidence tendered - In the determination of an appeal (H8) Osun State INEC v. AC (2010) 12 KLR (pt. 288) 3137; (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 273

WORDS & PHRASES - Appeals - Grounds - Meaning - It is an error of law or facts - Alleged by appellant - As the defect in the judgment appealed against - Which he relies upon to set it aside (H1) Akpan v. Bob (2010) 5 KLR (pt. 282) 1623; (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt.1223) 421

WORDS & PHRASES - Commercial law - “Account stated” - Meaning - It means a balance - That parties to a transaction agree on - Either expressly or by implication (H6) GMBH v. Tunji Ind. Ltd. (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1485; (2010) 11 NWLR (Pt.1206) 589

WORDS & PHRASES - “Community” - Definition - It means all the people who live in an area - When talked about as a group - A body of persons in the same locality (H2) Salisu v. Odumade (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 747; (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt.1190) 228

WORDS & PHRASES - Company law - “Directors” - Meaning under CAMA - They are those appointed by the company - To direct the business of the company - It does not matter that they are executive or non-executive (H5) Longe v. First Bank (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 279) 1067; (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt.1189) 1

WORDS & PHRASES - Company law - Suspension from work - Meaning - It only means suspension from performance of ordinary duties - Attaching to ones office - It does not entail a diminution of his right under the law (H4) Longe v. First Bank (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 279) 1067; (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt.1189) 1

WORDS & PHRASES - Contracts - “Misrepresentation” - Ingredients - To constitute misrepresentation - The misrepresentor and the misrepresentee - Must be distinct from one another (H6) Teriba v. Adeyemo (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1583; (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1211) 242

WORDS & PHRASES - Contracts - Damages - Liquidated sum - Meaning - It means a fixed or ascertainable amount mutually agreed on by parties to contract - As payable on breach thereof - Which amount must be known prior to breach (H1) Nworah & Sons Ltd v. Akputa (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 278) 897; (2010) 9 NWLR (Pt.1200) 596

WORDS & PHRASES - Courts - “Functus officio” - Meaning - A court becomes functus officio in a matter - When it fulfills its function in respect thereof - And so lacks the potency to revisit it (H5) First Bank v. T.S.A. Ind. Ltd. (2010) 7 KLR (pt. 285) 2383; (2010) 15 NWLR (Pt.1216) 247

WORDS & PHRASES - Crime - Condonation - Meaning - It is a victim’s express or implied forgiveness of an offence - By treating the offender as if there had been no offence (H1) Nig. Army v. Aminun-Kano (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 287; (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt.1188) 429

WORDS & PHRASES - Crime - Warning - Meaning - It connotes a mild punishment which paves way - Where occasion demands - To the avalanche of full wrath - Where the offence is repeated by the offender (H2) Nig. Army v. Aminun-Kano (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 287; (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt.1188) 429

WORDS & PHRASES - Criminal procedure - “Prima-facie case” - Meaning - It only means that there is ground for proceeding - It is not same as proof - Which comes when the court has to rule - On the guilt of accused (H1) Nyame v. FRN (2010) 3 KLR (pt. 280) 1269; (2010) 7 NWLR (Pt.1193) 344

WORDS & PHRASES - Criminal procedure - Proof - Reasonable doubt - Meaning - Reasonable doubt which will justify an acquittal - Is a doubt based on reason - Arising from evidence or lack of it (H1) Moses Jua v. State (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 577; (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt.1184) 217

WORDS & PHRASES - Defamation - Qualified privilege - Meaning - It means that public convenience must be preferred to private convenience - In dissemination of information of interest to the public (H7) Akomolafe v. Guardian Press Ltd. (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 275) 63; (2010) 3 NWLR (Pt.1181) 338

WORDS & PHRASES - Evidence - “Person interested” - S. 91(3) of Evidence Act - Meaning - A person who is performing an act in his official capacity - Cannot be a person interested under the section (H1) NSITF MGT. BOARD v. Klifco Nig. Ltd. (2010) 7 KLR (pt. 284) 2255; (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1211) 307

WORDS & PHRASES - Evidence - “Prima facie” - Meaning - It means the nature of evidence which if accepted - Is sufficient to establish a fact - Unless rebutted (H5) GMBH v. Tunji Ind. Ltd. (2010) 4 KLR (pt. 281) 1485; (2010) 11 NWLR (Pt.1206) 589

WORDS & PHRASES - Exercise of discretion - Purport - It is an act based on ones personal judgment - In accordance with ones conscience - Free and unfettered by any external influence or suggestions (H1) Union Bank v. Astra Builders Ltd. (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 769; (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt.1186) 1

WORDS & PHRASES - Guarantee - Definition - It is a written undertaking made by one person to another - To be responsible to that other - If a third person fails to perform a certain duty (H8) Chami v. UBA Plc. (2010) 2 KLR (pt. 277) 507; (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt.1191) 474

WORDS & PHRASES - Interpretation - Inspection agent - Federal Government Department or agency - The fact of calling appellant inspection agent - Does not make it agent of federal government - Terms used in documents should be given their ordinary meaning - To ascertain the intention of parties (H2) Cotecna Int’l Ltd. v. Churchgate Nig. Ltd. (2010) 12 KLR (pt 287) p. 2871; (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 346

WORDS & PHRASES - Judgments - “Consequential order” - Nature of - It gives effect to the judgment already given - It does not grant fresh relief - But flows naturally from the main relief granted (H3) Ishola v. Falorunso (2010) 6 KLR (pt. 283) 2009; (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1210) 169

WORDS & PHRASES - Judgment on the merits - Meaning - It is one obtained where the case has been argued - And the court has decided - Which party is in the right (H4) Oyegun v. Nzeribe (2010) 1 KLR (pt. 276) 419