index

COURTS - Appeals - Findings - On locus standi - Propriety - Court of Appeal’s finding on locus standi was proper - As it was not merely the locus to sue for professional fees that was in issue - But for other reliefs H4) Carew v. Oguntokun (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 289) 97; (2011) 5 NWLR (Pt.1240) 376

COURTS - Appeals - Fresh evidence - Admission of - Grounds - It must be such that could not have been obtained - With reasonable care at time of trial - And must be material (H5) Onwubuariri v. Igboasoiyi (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 449; (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt.1234) 357

COURTS - Appeals - Fresh evidence - Application to adduce - Basis for the grant - It is granted if applicant is able to prove - Extreme impossibility to obtain evidence before trial - And that it is brought in the interest of justice (H1) Uzodinma v. Izunaso (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 297) 1513; (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt.1275) 30

COURTS - Appeals - Fresh issues - Raised without leave - Fate of - Where a party raises fresh issue on appeal - Without prior leave sought and obtained - The court will not accommodate it (H4) Agboola v. UBA Plc & 2 Ors. (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 293) 725; (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt.1258) 375

COURTS - Appeals - Grounds - Nature of - Is determined by examination - The three grounds are of mixed law and fact - They are questions of resolving conflict in evidence and exercise of jurisdiction (H9) Garuba v. Omokhodion (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1707; (2011) 15 NWLR (Pt.1269) 145

COURTS - Appeals - Grounds of law - Raised without leave - Propriety - By 1999 Constitution s. 233 (2)(a) - Leave of neither Court of Appeal nor that of Supreme Court is required to bring the appeal (H4) Nwaolisah v. Nwabufoh (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 299) 2005; (2011) 14 NWLR (Pt.1268) 600

COURTS - Appeals - Interlocutory applications - Refusal - Justification - Where the grant of such application - Will amount to determination of a pending appeal - The application should be refused (H2) Shinning Star Nig. Ltd. v. Ask Steel Nig. Ltd. (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 290) 233; (2011) 4 NWLR (Pt.1238) 596

COURTS - Appeals - Issues - Determination - Courts are to restrict its deliberations to live issues - Respondent’s issue no.1 is the only relevant live issue in this case (H1) Ogudo v. State (2011) 10-12 KLR (pt. 301) 2373; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 1

COURTS - Appeals - Issues - Determination of - Court should refrain from discussing or making an order - Which will not affect the legal interests of the parties (H5) Nwora v. Nwabunze (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2717; (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt.1277) 699

COURTS - Appeals - Issues - Formulation by court - Propriety - Appellate courts may raise issues - Where those raised do not address the real grievance of appellant (H3) Uzodinma v. Izunaso (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 297) 1513; (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt.1275) 30

COURTS - Appeals - Issues - Fresh issue on jurisdiction - Propriety - Raising an issue of jurisdiction does not require leave of court - And such can be raised at any stage of the proceedings (H4) Opobiyi v. Muniru (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 303) 3007; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 387

COURTS - Appeals - Issues - Not considered - Effect - Failure to consider the propriety of arguments raised by cross appellant - Led to breach of fair hearing - And such was improper and prejudicial (H14) Best (Nig) Ltd v. Blackwood Hodge (Nig) Ltd. (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 289) 47; (2011) 5 NWLR (Pt.1239) 95

COURTS - Appeals - Issues - Point of law not raised in lower court - Determination - Attitude of appellate Court - It is not to decide on it - Except when satisfied that it has all the facts - As if same had been raised in the lower court (H1) Garuba v. Omokhodion (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1707; (2011) 15 NWLR (Pt.1269) 145

COURTS - Appeals - Issues of jurisdiction - Propriety of raising - The issue must be properly raised - As such must be one capable of being disposed of - Without the need to call additional evidence (H3) Agbiti v. The Nigerian Navy (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 339; (2011) 4 NWLR (Pt.1236) 175

COURTS - Appeals - Issues raised - Legitimacy - Any issue mentioned in a judgment - Which has no bearing on the complaints before the court - Is an orbiter dictum - And cannot legitimately arise on appeal against the judgment (H1) APGA v. Umeh (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 293) 755; (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt.1250) 544

COURTS - Appeals - Judgments - Findings of facts - Failure to attack - Effect - Appellant is deemed to have accepted the decisions of the lower court thereto (H6) Amoshima v. State (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 299) 1869; (2011) 14 NWLR (Pt.1268) 530

COURTS - Appeals - Judgments - Right of appeal - 1999 Constitution s. 243(a) - It is a party in a suit that can appeal - Interested party must seek and obtain leave of court in order to appeal (H5) Contract Resource Nig. Ltd v. UBA Plc (2011) 7 KLR (pt. 300) 2131; (2011) 16 NWLR (Pt.1274) 592

COURTS - Appeals - Jurisdiction - Issues - Right to raise - Appellant may raise issue of Jurisdiction on appeal without leave of court - Notwithstanding that fresh issues - Can only be raised on appeal with leave of court (H2) Agbiti v. The Nigerian Navy (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 339; (2011) 4 NWLR (Pt.1236) 175

COURTS - Appeals - Meaning - It is a review of lower court’s decision by a higher court - The purpose is to see if lower court properly considered facts and arrived at a correct decision (H4) Contract Resource Nig. Ltd v. UBA Plc (2011) 7 KLR (pt. 300) 2131; (2011) 16 NWLR (Pt.1274) 592

COURTS - Appeals - Nature & Purpose - Rehearing - An appeal is a continuation of an original case - Confined to the records forwarded from the court below - And may be reheard by the appellate court (H6) Efet v. INEC (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 289) 141; (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt.1247) 423

COURTS - Appeals - Notice of appeal - Court is bound to take judicial notice of all processes filed in a matter before it (H1) Nwora v. Nwabunze (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2717; (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt.1277) 699

COURTS - Appeals - Orders of court - Not in record of appeal - Fate - By s.132 of Evidence Act 2004 - Court does not rely on such orders (H1) Eze v. Spring Bank Plc. (2011) 10-12 KLR (pt. 301) 2347; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 113

COURTS - Appeals - Pending application - Dismissal order - Propriety - Such order becomes a nullity - When proper application is made - And court has inherent jurisdiction to set it aside (H4) Ede v. Mba (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2619; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 236

COURTS - Appeals - Preliminary objection - Hearing - Sufficiency of notice - Where objection is embedded in respondent’s brief - Deemed as filed on the day of hearing - There is insufficient notice to the other party (H8) Carew v. Oguntokun (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 289) 97; (2011) 5 NWLR (Pt.1240) 376

COURTS - Appeals - Record of appeal - Amendment - Procedure - It is done by way of filing an affidavit - Followed by a formal application to court - Which has discretion to grant or refuse the amendment (H6) Garuba v. Omokhodion (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1707; (2011) 15 NWLR (Pt.1269) 145

COURTS - Appeals - Record of appeal - Binding effect - Court and parties as well as their counsel are bound by the record - No Court has jurisdiction to draw conclusions - Not supported by the record (H7) Garuba v. Omokhodion (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1707; (2011) 15 NWLR (Pt.1269) 145

COURTS - Appeals - Rehearing - Invocation of s. 22 Supreme Court Act - Where the issue boarders on credibility of witnesses - Trial court is better equipped to rehear the matter - More so where Court of Appeal expressed no opinion on that issue (H2) Ovunwo v. Woko (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1825; (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt.1277) 522

COURTS - Appeals - Rehearing - Propriety - It is ordered where evidence has not been properly evaluated - As the trial Court has neither seen nor heard the witnesses in that matter (H5) Ovunwo v. Woko (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1825; (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt.1277) 522

COURTS - Appeals - Reply brief - Fresh points on appeal - Leave must be obtained - Failure to file reply brief in answer to respondent’s brief - Means appellant will have nothing to say in court (H1) Olagunju v. PHCN Plc (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 295) 1067; (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1254) 113

COURTS - Appeals - Resolution - Bases - Whether grounds of appeal or issues - Appeals are resolved on issues raised and canvassed - Not on grounds of appeal simpliciter (H5) Adeogun v. Fasogbon (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 292) 663; (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt.1250) 427

COURTS - Appeals - Retrial - Wrong procedure - Appellant misdirected himself in taking a wrong procedure - At the retrial court - And cannot sustain his argument that this appeal arose from the Court of Appeal (H7) Efet v. INEC (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 289) 141; (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt.1247) 423

COURTS - Appeals - Retrial order - Abandonment of - Appellant should be blamed - For discontinuing the matter - Ordered for retrial by the Court of Appeal (H3) Efet v. INEC (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 289) 141; (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt.1247) 423

COURTS - Appeals - Right of appeal - Under ss. 241(1) and 242 of the Constitution - Appeal could be as of right or with leave of court - But failure to obtain leave where necessary - Will render such appeal incompetent (H8) Garuba v. Omokhodion (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1707; (2011) 15 NWLR (Pt.1269) 145

COURTS - Appeals - Unchallenged findings - Appellate court is not to interfere - Save there are exceptional circumstances (H6) Nwaolisah v. Nwabufoh (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 299) 2005; (2011) 14 NWLR (Pt.1268) 600

COURTS - Appellate powers - Basis - Appellate powers of courts are traceable to specific statute - And do not arise from the courts’ inherent jurisdiction (H1) Umaru v. Aliyu (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 513; (2011) 5 NWLR (Pt.1241) 600

COURTS - Applications - Duty to decide - It is the duty of a court to decide any application before it - Notwithstanding its pretrial opinion thereon - It is a party’s constitutional right (H3) Fed. Airports Authority of Nig v. Wamal Express Serv. (Nig) Ltd (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 290) 177; (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt.1249) 219

COURTS - Arbitration - Arbitral proceedings - Jurisdiction of the panel - Governed by s. 12(3) of Arbitration Act - A participating party that failed to raise jurisdiction issue before the panel - Is foreclosed from raising it before the court (H2) NNPC v. Clifco Nig. Ltd (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 295) 1039; (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1255) 209

COURTS - Arbitration - Jurisdiction - Can be raised at any stage of the proceedings - Before the regular courts - As it is the heart of a case - But this does not apply to arbitral proceedings (H1) NNPC v. Clifco Nig. Ltd (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 295) 1039; (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1255) 209

COURTS - Confession - Denial of - Effect - Where accused denies making a statement - Court will admit such statement in evidence - And may determine its probative value - At end of trial (H1) State v. Salawu (2011) 7 KLR (pt. 300) 2205; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 883

COURTS - Confession - Obtained under duress - Effect - Where accused admits making such statement - Court must conduct a trial within trial - To test the voluntariness of same (H2) State v. Salawu (2011) 7 KLR (pt. 300) 2205; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 883

COURTS - Consent judgment - Effect of - Non consenting parties - That took steps unto getting the courts - To set aside the judgment - Are not bound by it (H1) Daniel Tayar Trans. Ent. Ltd. v. Busari (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 290) 271; (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt.1249) 387

COURTS - Consent judgment - Nature & legal effect - It is not like regular judgment of the court - Entered after trial - What matters is the agreement of parties - Which is binding on them (H2) Daniel Tayar Trans. Ent. Ltd. v. Busari (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 290) 271; (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt.1249) 387

COURTS - Constitution - Interpretation - Of the word “decision” - Under s. 318(1) of the Constitution - Court is to employ a liberal principle in the interpretation (H10) Garuba v. Omokhodion (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1707; (2011) 15 NWLR (Pt.1269) 145

COURTS - Constitutional law - Fundamental rights - Right to life - Section 33(1) of the Constitution - Limits - The right under the section is not absolute - It may be deprived in execution of the sentence of a Court of law - In respect of a criminal offence (H7) Amoshima v. State (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 299) 1869; (2011) 14 NWLR (Pt.1268) 530

COURTS - Contracts - Determination of - It is not for court to rewrite contract made by parties - Court is to interpret the contract as contained in the instrument (H3) Ogundepo v. Olumesan (2011) 10-12 KLR (pt. 301) 2413; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 54

COURTS - Contracts - Determination of - It is not the duty of court to make contract between parties - Court is to construe the surrounding circumstances so as to attest the intention of parties (H5) Nwaolisah v. Nwabufoh (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 299) 2005; (2011) 14 NWLR (Pt.1268) 600

COURTS - Contracts - Non performance - Of obligation - Effect - Where appellant failed in its obligation in the contract - Respondent is at liberty to treat same as ended - And court will not make or rewrite a contract for parties (H8) Best (Nig) Ltd v. Blackwood Hodge (Nig) Ltd. (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 289) 47; (2011) 5 NWLR (Pt.1239) 95

COURTS - Contracts - Specific performance - Basis for order - A party seeking for such order must show evidence - Of compliance with terms of contract - And no court of law should hold otherwise (H3) Best (Nig) Ltd v. Blackwood Hodge (Nig) Ltd. (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 289) 47; (2011) 5 NWLR (Pt.1239) 95

COURTS - Contracts - Specific performance - Propriety - As an equitable remedy - Exercised judicially and judiciously - Where no valid contract exist as in this case - Court’s order of same is unwarranted (H11) Best (Nig) Ltd v. Blackwood Hodge (Nig) Ltd. (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 289) 47; (2011) 5 NWLR (Pt.1239) 95

COURTS - Contracts - Terms - Binding nature - Parties are bound by the terms of the contract - And court must give effect to same - Award of the 25% interest rate in this instance is wrong (H2) A.G. Ferrero & Co. Ltd v. Henkel Chemicals Nig. Ltd (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1691; (2011) 13 NWLR (Pt.1265) 592

COURTS - Contracts - Terms - Understanding of - It should be construed in the light of the essential terms - Agreed by parties - As court will not allow a party to dribble the other (H4) Best (Nig) Ltd v. Blackwood Hodge (Nig) Ltd. (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 289) 47; (2011) 5 NWLR (Pt.1239) 95

COURTS - Costs - Discretion - Where exercised judiciously and judicially - In awarding cost to a successful party - Supreme Court will not interfere (H5) NNPC v. Clifco Nig. Ltd (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 295) 1039; (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1255) 209

COURTS - Criminal procedure - Confession - Conviction - Validity of - Court can rightly convict an accused - If it is shown that his confessional statements were voluntarily made (H2) John v. State (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2651; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 353

COURTS - Criminal procedure - Confession - Denial of - Effect - Where accused denies making the statement - Court will admit such statement in evidence - And may determine its probative value - At end of trial (H2) Ismai’l v. State (2011) 7 KLR (pt. 300) 2171; (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt.1277) 601

COURTS - Criminal procedure - Confession - Obtained under duress - Effect - Where accused admits making such statement - Court must conduct a trial within trial - To test the voluntariness of same (H3) Ismai’l v. State (2011) 7 KLR (pt. 300) 2171; (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt.1277) 601

COURTS - Criminal procedure - Conviction - Plea of guilty - Criminal Procedure Code s. 161 (2) - Where an accused pleads guilty to non-capital offence - Trial court has discretion to convict him (H1) Torri v. National Park Service of Nigeria (2011) 7 KLR (pt. 300) 2239; (2011) 13 NWLR (Pt.1264) 365

COURTS - Criminal procedure - Justice - Need to uphold - Courts are to consider the substance of a matter - Rather than insisting on technicalities (H7) State v. Salawu (2011) 7 KLR (pt. 300) 2205; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 883

COURTS - Criminal procedure - Rape - Testimony of victim - Source of corroboration - Court may seek corroboration from doctor’s report - Or other real evidence - Like the torn dress of victim - As was done in this case (H8) Posu v. The State (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 477; (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt.1234) 393

COURTS - Criminal procedure - Trial within trial - Failure to conduct - Effect - Where trial court fails to conduct trial within trial - Such failure will not be fatal - Unless it occasioned miscarriage of justice (H2) Eke v. The State (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 407; (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt.1235) 589

COURTS - Criminal Procedure - Trial within trial - When to hold - When admissibility of a statement is challenged - On ground that it was not made voluntarily - Trial within trial must be conducted - To ascertain whether it was voluntary (H1) Eke v. The State (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 407; (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt.1235) 589

COURTS - Damages - Award by trial court - Interference on appeal - Basis - Appellate court will not interfere - Unless trial court acted under a misrepresentation of facts or law - Or that failure to interfere will amount to injustice (H6) Harka Air Services Ltd v. Keazor (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1771; (2011) 13 NWLR (Pt.1264) 320

COURTS - Damages - General damages - Quantum - Propriety - Appellate court does not interfere with award made by trial court - Save where it is manifestly too high or too low - Or was awarded on wrong principle of law (H4) Union Bank Plc v. Ajabule (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2765; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 152

COURTS - Damages - Special damages - Proof - It must be pleaded and strictly proved - As such court is not entitled - To award same based on speculative estimate (H2) Union Bank Plc v. Ajabule (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2765; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 152

COURTS - Damages - Special damages - Proof - Where it appears to be admitted - Party making the claim is not relieved - From proving it with compelling evidence (H8) NNPC v. Clifco Nig. Ltd (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 295) 1039; (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1255) 209

COURTS - Discretion - Exercise of - Meaning and method of - It is a conferred right to act according to the dictates of one’s conscience - Uncontrolled by the conscience of others - And should be exercised judiciously (H4) Ajuwa v. S. P. D. C. Nig. Ltd (2011) 10-12 KLR (pt. 301) 2305; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 797

COURTS - Discretion - Exercise of - Principle - There is no laid down principle - As a court cannot be bound by previous decision - To exercise its discretion in regimented way (H2) Ajuwa v. S. P. D. C. Nig. Ltd (2011) 10-12 KLR (pt. 301) 2305; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 797

COURTS - Discretion - Exercise of - Relevance - Judicial discretion is a vital tool in the administration of justice - Which must be exercised judicially and judiciously (H3) Ajuwa v. S. P. D. C. Nig. Ltd (2011) 10-12 KLR (pt. 301) 2305; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 797

COURTS - Discretion - Supreme Court - Judgments - Stay of execution - Powers - Supreme Court has the discretion to grant a stay of execution - And such discretion must be exercised judicially and judiciously (H2) SPDC v. Amadi (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 297) 1429; (2011) 14 NWLR (Pt.1266) 157

COURTS - Documents - Exhibit - Materiality - In view of findings of facts by the trial court - To which Court of Appeal agreed - In respect of traditional history and acts of ownership - The Exhibit is not material (H8) Onwubuariri v. Igboasoiyi (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 449; (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt.1234) 357

COURTS - Duty to do justice - Court of law is to do justice according to the law - And not according to sentiments (H4) Nacenn Ltd v. Bewac Ltd (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 296) 1337; (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt.1257) 193

COURTS - Election petitions - Allegation of non compliance - Proof - Petitioner must not only assert non compliance - But must also satisfy the court - That same affected the election result to justify nullification (H8) Congress for Progressive Change v. Independent National Electoral Commission (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 303) 2823; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 493

COURTS - Elections - Conduct - Determination of - Court will assess the pleadings and substance of the complaint - And determine whether the omission complained of - Is substantial to affect conduct of the election (H9) Congress for Progressive Change v. Independent National Electoral Commission (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 303) 2823; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 493

COURTS - Elections - Nomination - Contrary to political party’s constitution - Effect - Aggrieved candidate has right to seek redress from court - And the constitution confers jurisdiction on court to entertain the matter (H6) Uzodinma v. Izunaso (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 297) 1513; (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt.1275) 30

COURTS - Elections - Nomination - Political party has the power to nominate candidates for election - And any question arising therefrom is not justiciable in court (H4) Lado v. Congress for Progressive Change (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2679; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 689

COURTS - Elections - Nomination - Powers of political party - It nominates candidates for an election - And courts do not have jurisdiction to decide on who is sponsored as a candidate (H5) Uzodinma v. Izunaso (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 297) 1513; (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt.1275) 30

COURTS - Elections - Pre election matters - Aggrieved aspirant at primary election - Must come within Electoral Act 2010 as amended ss. 87(4)(b)(ii), (c)(ii) and 9 - In order to make his complaint justiciable in court (H7) Lado v. Congress for Progressive Change (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2679; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 689

COURTS - Elections - Pre election matters - Disqualification of candidate - Power - It exclusively belongs to the Federal High Court or a State High Court - To disqualify a candidate whose name has been submitted to the Electoral Commission (H7) Dingyadi v. INEC (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 294) 911; (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1255) 347

COURTS - Equity - Specific performance - Purpose - It is an equitable remedy - That lies within court’s discretion - To award - When common law remedy is insufficient (H10) Best (Nig) Ltd v. Blackwood Hodge (Nig) Ltd. (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 289) 47; (2011) 5 NWLR (Pt.1239) 95

COURTS - Equity - Third party’s interest - Need to preserve - Courts must protect them - Especially where such interests would be adversely affected (H6) Ajuwa v. S. P. D. C. Nig. Ltd (2011) 10-12 KLR (pt. 301) 2305; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 797

COURTS - Estoppel - Res judicata - Conditions - Party relying on it must establish that - Parties and subject matter are the same - That valid and subsisting judgment had been pronounced - By a competent court (H5) Daniel Tayar Trans. Ent. Ltd. v. Busari (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 290) 271; (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt.1249) 387

COURTS - Estoppel - Res judicata - Nature and effect - It is a doctrine that brings an end to litigation - To the effect that once a matter - Has been pronounced upon by a court of competent jurisdiction - Parties are not allowed to relitigate same (H4) Daniel Tayar Trans. Ent. Ltd. v. Busari (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 290) 271; (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt.1249) 387

COURTS - Evidence - Admissibility - After the close of a case - No further evidence ought to be given by any of the parties - But court may vide Criminal Procedure Act s. 200 - Recall a witness - If his evidence is relevant to the matter (H2) Chukwuma v. FRN (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 296) 1221; (2011) 13 NWLR (Pt.1264) 391

COURTS - Evidence - Admissibility - Facts not pleaded - Fate of - Such facts go to no issue - And should not be admitted in evidence - As such exhibit 1 is inadmissible (H2) Agboola v. UBA Plc & 2 Ors. (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 293) 725; (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt.1258) 375

COURTS - Evidence - Admission - S. 75 of Evidence Act - Conclusiveness of - Where a party agrees to a fact in issue - Proof is no longer necessary - No further dispute on the fact admitted should be entertained by court (H5) Taiwo v. Adegboro (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 297) 1489; (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt.1259) 562

COURTS - Evidence - Appeals - Undisputed findings of lower court - Effect - Since appellant failed to dispute the findings that his acts constitute gross misconduct under exhibit P.18 - He is deemed to have accepted the findings as correct (H1) Imonikhe v. Unity Bank Plc (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 296) 1295; (2011) 12 NWLR (Pt.1262) 624

COURTS - Evidence - Burden of proof - Beyond reasonable doubt - Discharge of - Where on the evidence adduced - The court is left with no doubt of accused person’s guilt - The burden is discharged (H5) Posu v. The State (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 477; (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt.1234) 393

COURTS - Evidence - Civil matters - Facts - Determination - Court must put two sets of facts presented by parties in an imaginary scale - Then decide upon the preponderance of credible evidence - Which weighs more and is preferable to the other (H1) Ogundepo v. Olumesan (2011) 10-12 KLR (pt. 301) 2413; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 54

COURTS - Evidence - Confession - Conviction based on retracted confession - Propriety - Court can convict on retracted confession - But there must be other independent evidence to corroborate it (H6) Ogudo v. State (2011) 10-12 KLR (pt. 301) 2373; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 1

COURTS - Evidence - Confession - Inconsistency rule - Application of - Where witness makes extra judicial statement inconsistent with his testimony at trial - The testimony is to be treated as unreliable - While the statement cannot be relied upon by court (H4) Ogudo v. State (2011) 10-12 KLR (pt. 301) 2373; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 1

COURTS - Evidence - Confession - Obtained under duress - Fate - Where accused alleges that he involuntarily made confession - Court should conduct a trial within trial - Otherwise the confession must be rejected (H3) Ogudo v. State (2011) 10-12 KLR (pt. 301) 2373; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 1

COURTS - Evidence - Confession - Validity - Court must be satisfied that it is voluntary - Where it is voluntary - Accused usually pleads guilty - And a conviction based upon such would not be upset on appeal (H2) Ogudo v. State (2011) 10-12 KLR (pt. 301) 2373; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 1

COURTS - Evidence - Consideration of - Concurrent findings - Where lower courts properly considered evidence of both sides - Their findings would not be disturbed (H5) Ibekwe v. Nwosu (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 294) 1005; (2011) 9 NWLR (Pt.1251) 1

COURTS - Evidence - Evaluation - Appeals - It is the duty of trial court to evaluate evidence - And not that of an appellate court - Except where an appellate court is called upon to reevaluate (H1) Wachukwu v. Owunwanne (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 297) 1581; (2011) 14 NWLR (Pt.1266) 1

COURTS - Evidence - Evaluation - Armed robbery - Wrongful conviction - Corroboration - Retracted confession - Court is to look out for independent evidence - That corroborates the confessional statement - And not merely rely on its belief or disbelief (H11) Ogudo v. State (2011) 10-12 KLR (pt. 301) 2373; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 1

COURTS - Evidence - Evaluation - Duty of trial court - Where parties rely on different versions of traditional history - The duty of the trial court is to determine the preferred version - In view of the evidence led in proof (H10) Onwubuariri v. Igboasoiyi (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 449; (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt.1234) 357

COURTS - Evidence - Evaluation - It is duty of trial court to evaluate evidence - And where it makes finding on credibility of witness - Appellate court will not interfere (H3) Congress for Progressive Change v. Independent National Electoral Commission (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 303) 2823; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 493

COURTS - Evidence - Evaluation - It is the duty of trial court - To evaluate and ascribe probative values to evidence of witnesses (H5) Arowolo v. Olowokere (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 303) 2795; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 280

COURTS - Evidence - Evaluation - It is the primary function of the court that saw and heard the witnesses - To assess their credibility - And to believe or disbelieve any of them (H1) Momoh v. Umoru (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 299) 1953; (2011) 15 NWLR (Pt.1270) 217

COURTS - Evidence - Evaluation - Scope - Court is to weigh the preponderance of evidence - And the balance of probability in determination of civil suits (H4) Ajagbe v. Idowu (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1639; (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt.1276) 422

COURTS - Evidence - Evaluation - Trial court is to evaluate evidence adduced by parties - Before arriving at a decision - Basis of the decision is not on the number of witnesses called - But on the quality or probative value of testimony of those witnesses (H5) Ayuya v. Yonrin (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 294) 877; (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1254) 135

COURTS - Evidence - Evaluation of unchallenged evidence - Where evidence given by a party is not challenged by the adverse party - Who had opportunity to do so - The court ought to act positively thereon (H8) Cameroon Airlines v. Otutuizu (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 373; (2011) 4 NWLR (Pt.1238) 512

COURTS - Evidence - Inconsistency - Criminal procedure - Where previous evidence is inconsistent with the one made at trial - Court should beside regarding the evidence at trial as unreliable - Be directed that the previous evidence is not relevant (H1) State v. Oladotun (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 297) 1461; (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1256) 542

COURTS - Evidence - Proof - Reliance on inadmissible evidence - Effect on appeal - Where there remains other piece of evidence - As may sustain the finding outside that complained of - Such finding will not be reversed on appeal (H3) Eyo v. Onuoha (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 293) 781; (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt.1257) 1

COURTS - Evidence - Public documents - Effect of non-certification - The non-certification of public documents - Such as volume 11 of the record of appeal herein - Makes it an unreliable evidence (H2) Fed. Airports Authority of Nig v. Wamal Express Serv. (Nig) Ltd (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 290) 177; (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt.1249) 219

COURTS - Evidence - Reevaluation - When necessary - Where trial court failed to evaluate a document tendered in evidence - Without involving the credibility of the witness - Appellate court can evaluate - But this is not applicable in the present case (H6) Ayuya v. Yonrin (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 294) 877; (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1254) 135

COURTS - Evidence - Unchallenged evidence - Admissibility - Court to rely on and accept as true - Evidence that was neither challenged nor cross examined by the other party (H2) Nacenn Ltd v. Bewac Ltd (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 296) 1337; (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt.1257) 193

COURTS - Evidence - Unchallenged evidence - Admissibility - Court rightly relied on the pieces of evidence - Since there were no objections to their admissibility (H1) John v. State (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2651; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 353

COURTS - Evidence - Unchallenged evidence - Admissibility of - Such evidence is credible - And court is to rely on same in determination of the case (H4) Yusuf v. State (2011) 7 KLR (pt. 300) 2261; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 853

COURTS - Evidence - Unchallenged evidence - Relevance of - Evidence not challenged nor debunked - Becomes good and credible evidence - To be relied upon by Court (H2) State v. Oladotun (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 297) 1461; (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1256) 542

COURTS - Evidence - Weight - Unsigned confessional statement - Court should exercise extreme caution in respect of such statement - And very little or no weight should be attached to it (H7) Ogudo v. State (2011) 10-12 KLR (pt. 301) 2373; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 1

COURTS - Facts - Judicial notice - Where a Court takes judicial notice of a fact - Proof is no longer necessary - Party who wishes to dispute the fact must provide evidence (H1) Joseph v. State (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1807; (2011) 16 NWLR (Pt.1273) 226

COURTS - Fair hearing - Breach - Effect - Being a constitutionally guaranteed right - Any breach of fair hearing in trials - As in this case - Renders same null and void (H9) Agbiti v. The Nigerian Navy (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 339; (2011) 4 NWLR (Pt.1236) 175

COURTS - Fair hearing - Breach - Proof - Where the circumstances complained of - Are covered by the slip rule as in this case - There is no breach of fair hearing (H6) Adeogun v. Fasogbon (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 292) 663; (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt.1250) 427

COURTS - Findings - Appeals - Retrial - Where trial court failed to make finding on issues joined by parties in pleadings - Appellate Court will order a retrial - When the evidence is of a nature that it cannot make its own finding (H3) Nacenn Ltd v. Bewac Ltd (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 296) 1337; (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt.1257) 193

COURTS - Findings of fact - Validity of 2nd appellant’s expulsion - From his political party - Basis - It was appellants who by their relief - Asked the court to pronounced on same (H2) APGA v. Umeh (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 293) 755; (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt.1250) 544

COURTS - Interlocutory applications - Determination of - It is not for court to determine at interlocutory stage - Any questions that have arisen in the pleadings - Or that would arise for resolution in the substantive suit (H1) Ovunwo v. Woko (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1825; (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt.1277) 522

COURTS - Issues - Determination of - Court is to determine only live issues - And not to engage in academic exercise - The issue of sale of the property herein at gross under value is incompetent - As the auction sale was invalid (H6) Taiwo v. Adegboro (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 297) 1489; (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt.1259) 562

COURTS - Judgment - Delivery of - Basis - Court can only pronounce judgment based on properly adduced credible evidence - And not on extraneous matters (H6) Congress for Progressive Change v. Independent National Electoral Commission (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 303) 2823; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 493

COURTS - Judgments - Appeals - Failure to appeal - Effect - Party that fails to appeal against the decision of trial Court - Cannot on further appeal to Supreme Court - Seek the setting aside of such decision (H1) Adejobi v. State (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1613; (2011) 12 NWLR (Pt.1261) 347

COURTS - Judgments - Appeals - Mistakes - Effect - It is not every mistake that will result in setting aside on appeal - Only such mistake that is material - And has eroded the foundation of the decision (H2) Adeogun v. Fasogbon (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 292) 663; (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt.1250) 427

COURTS - Judgments - Arrest of - Vide stay ordered by appellate court - Propriety - Rules of court do not provide for arrest of judgments about to be delivered - Save to prevent abuse of court process (H6) Shettima v. Goni (2011) 10-12 KLR (pt. 301) 2481; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 413

COURTS - Judgments - Confusion in - Power to correct - Section 22 Supreme Court Act - Empowers Supreme Court to correct any confusion in judgment of Court of Appeal (H3) Institute of Health Ahmadu Bello University Hospital Management Board v. Anyip (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 296) 1319; (2011) 12 NWLR (Pt.1260) 1

COURTS - Judgments - Damages - Award in foreign currency - Propriety of - Nigerian Courts have jurisdiction to make an award in foreign currency - Court of Appeal was correct to have invoked the right process of law - By awarding the damages in foreign currency (H8) Harka Air Services Ltd v. Keazor (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1771; (2011) 13 NWLR (Pt.1264) 320

COURTS - Judgments - Decisions not appealed - Binding nature - Such decision not complained against - Like that of trial court closing the issue of address - Is deemed to have been accepted by appellant (H4) APGA v. Umeh (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 293) 755; (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt.1250) 544

COURTS - Judgments - Errors - Means of correction - It need not be by means of an appeal - Where the error by the court is under the slip rule - Or under its inherent jurisdiction to give effect to its apparent intention (H1) Adeogun v. Fasogbon (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 292) 663; (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt.1250) 427

COURTS - Judgments - Slip - Statement per incuriam - Effect - It is not every imaginary slip made by a court that inevitably tilts the decision - Especially if such slip does not occasion any miscarriage of justice (H4) Chukwuma v. FRN (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 296) 1221; (2011) 13 NWLR (Pt.1264) 391

COURTS - Judgments - Slips - Reference to abandoned notice - Effect on judgment of Court of Appeal - The court dealt with all the material issues raised by appellants - Notwithstanding the slip (H4) Adeogun v. Fasogbon (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 292) 663; (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt.1250) 427

COURTS - Judgments - Style - Resolution of issues - Procedure - Court must pronounce on all issues properly placed before it - Before arriving at a decision - Failure to do so will lead to a miscarriage of justice (H3) Ovunwo v. Woko (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1825; (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt.1277) 522

COURTS - Judgments - Validity - Pending applications - A judgment delivered without first deciding all interlocutory applications - Is a nullity and liable to be set aside (H4) Fed. Airports Authority of Nig v. Wamal Express Serv. (Nig) Ltd (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 290) 177; (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt.1249) 219

COURTS - Judicial notice - Court before whom a proceeding is pending or completed - Is to take judicial notice of all processes filed in the proceeding - As well as the proceeding itself and the judgment (H5) Garuba v. Omokhodion (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1707; (2011) 15 NWLR (Pt.1269) 145

COURTS - Judicial precedents - Abatement of jurisdiction - Judicial precedents - Egypt Air v. Abdullahi - Correctness - The case was wrongly decided - In so far as it held that all proceedings after change of law are a nullity (H5) Obiuweubi v. Central Bank Of Nigeria (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 293) 839; (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt.1247) 465

COURTS - Judicial precedents - Jurisdiction of Courts - Abatement - O.H.M.B v. Garba - The ratio in that case is that an intervening change in the law - Cannot divest a court of jurisdiction - To conclude its part heard matters (H3) Obiuweubi v. Central Bank Of Nigeria (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 293) 839; (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt.1247) 465

COURTS - Judicial precedents - Stare decisis - Application - Caveat - Facts must be examined before following precedents - As judgments can only be understood in the light of facts - On which they were decided (H4) Obiuweubi v. Central Bank Of Nigeria (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 293) 839; (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt.1247) 465

COURTS - Judicial precedents - Stare decisis - Purport - It is to the effect that lower courts are bound to follow the precedents set by higher courts - Even when given per incuriam (H11) Dingyadi v. INEC (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 294) 911; (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1255) 347

COURTS - Jurisdiction - Absence of - Effect - Where a court lacks jurisdiction over a matter - Its proceedings and judgment given therein - Is null and void - And liable to be set aside (H5) Ucha v. Onwe (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 290) 303; (2011) 4 NWLR (Pt.1237) 386

COURTS - Jurisdiction - Armed robbery - S. 2(1) (2) of Tribunal (Certain Consequential Amendment) Decree - Empowers both the Federal and State High courts to try the offence (H8) Amoshima v. State (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 299) 1869; (2011) 14 NWLR (Pt.1268) 530

COURTS - Jurisdiction - Crime - Allegation of - Court is the only authority to assume jurisdiction - When there is an allegation of crime in a matter (H2) Institute of Health Ahmadu Bello University Hospital Management Board v. Anyip (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 296) 1319; (2011) 12 NWLR (Pt.1260) 1

COURTS - Jurisdiction - Defect in competence - Effect - Such defect is fatal to the proceedings - However well conducted - So in the absence of proper parties as in the instant case - The trial proceedings were a nullity (H4) Goodwill & Trust Invest. Ltd. v. Witt & Bush Ltd. (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 292) 697; (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt.1250) 500

COURTS - Jurisdiction - Determination - Principles - Case of Madukolu v. Nkemdilim laid down the guidelines - As such any defect in competence of court - Will render its proceedings null and void (H3) Lado v. Congress for Progressive Change (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2679; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 689

COURTS - Jurisdiction - Determination of - Court may consider totality of facts pleaded and evidence adduced to establish same - In order to determine whether or not it has jurisdiction (H8) Lado v. Congress for Progressive Change (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2679; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 689

COURTS - Jurisdiction - Federal High Court - S. 251 of 1999 Constitution - Conditions - A party must be the Federal Government or its agent - And subject matter must arise from its management decision - Or interpretation of constitution (H1) Obiuweubi v. Central Bank Of Nigeria (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 293) 839; (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt.1247) 465

COURTS - Jurisdiction - Fundamental nature - An issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any time - Even for the first time during argument (H2) Ogembe v. Usman (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 303) 2961; (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt.1277) 638

COURTS - Jurisdiction - Fundamental nature - It is relevant in adjudication of a matter - And it can be raised at any time by parties or by court suo motu (H1) Lado v. Congress for Progressive Change (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2679; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 689

COURTS - Jurisdiction - Fundamental principle - Meaning - Jurisdiction is the legal authority of a court to adjudicate in a matter (H3) Dingyadi v. INEC (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 294) 911; (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1255) 347

COURTS - Jurisdiction - Fundamentality of - It is a radical question of competence - And court is competent when a case comes by due process of law - And upon fulfilment of any condition precedent to exercise of jurisdiction (H3) Opobiyi v. Muniru (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 303) 3007; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 387

COURTS - Jurisdiction - Fundamentality of - Where a court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine a case - Its proceeding remains a nullity ab initio - No matter how well conducted and decided (H1) Governor of Kwara State v. Dada (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1747; (2011) 14 NWLR (Pt.1267) 384

COURTS - Jurisdiction - Governing law - It is the law in force at time of trial - That determines the court vested with jurisdiction to try a case (H2) Obiuweubi v. Central Bank Of Nigeria (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 293) 839; (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt.1247) 465

COURTS - Jurisdiction - How determined - In ascertaining whether or not it has jurisdiction - A court must carefully examine the writ of summons and the statement of claim (H1) Adetona v. Igele General Enterprises Ltd. (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 289) 19; (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt.1247) 535

COURTS - Jurisdiction - Powers of Court of Appeal - Consequential orders - S.16 Court of Appeal Act empowers it to make any order - Necessary for determining the real issue in controversy (H7) Harka Air Services Ltd v. Keazor (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1771; (2011) 13 NWLR (Pt.1264) 320

COURTS - Jurisdiction - Pre-election matters - Authorities - Action Congress v. INEC - The case did not decide the issue - As to whether Election Tribunal had jurisdiction - To hear and determine pre-election matters (H1) Ucha v. Onwe (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 290) 303; (2011) 4 NWLR (Pt.1237) 386

COURTS - Jurisdiction - Pre-election matters - Only the Federal High Court - Or the State High Court - Has jurisdiction over pre election matters (H2) PDP v. Onwe (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 290) 225; (2011) 4 NWLR (Pt.1236) 166

COURTS - Jurisdiction - Suo motu raising by court - Propriety - Court must give fair hearing to parties - But failure to do so may not lead to a reversal - As appellant must also show how the failure has occasioned a miscarriage of justice (H3) Ogembe v. Usman (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 303) 2961; (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt.1277) 638

COURTS - Jurisdiction - Suo motu raising by court - Propriety - Where court decides to suo motu raise the issue of jurisdiction - It must give fair hearing to parties (H2) Lado v. Congress for Progressive Change (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2679; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 689

COURTS - Jurisdiction - Supreme Court - Application for rehearing already concluded matter - Is incompetent and unconstitutional - Vide ss. 235 & 287 (1) of the Constitution - As there must be end to litigation (H12) Dingyadi v. INEC (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 294) 911; (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1255) 347

COURTS - Land law - Assignment - Bona fide purchaser - Propriety - Where 3rd respondent in possession - Transacted earlier in time - Court was right to hold him to be a bona fide purchaser for value - Without notice of prior right or title (H12) Best (Nig) Ltd v. Blackwood Hodge (Nig) Ltd. (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 289) 47; (2011) 5 NWLR (Pt.1239) 95

COURTS - Land law - Documents - Proof - Under Evidence Act s. 123 - Court will presume as valid - Documents which are not less than 20 years at the time of trial (H7) Ayanwale v. Odusami (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2549; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 328

COURTS - Leave - Appeals - Issues - Fresh issue on appeal - Competence - Appellant must seek and obtain leave of court - In order to raise fresh issue on appeal - Failure to do so will lead to striking out (H4) Garuba v. Omokhodion (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1707; (2011) 15 NWLR (Pt.1269) 145

COURTS - Parties - Actions - Consistency in case - Meaning - It means that in an appeal - Parties are to confine their cases to what they pleaded - As to the issues for determination before trial court (H8) Adeogun v. Fasogbon (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 292) 663; (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt.1250) 427

COURTS - Perverse finding - Meaning - Finding is perverse when it runs counter to the evidence and pleadings - Or where it is shown that the judge considered extraneous matters - Or when the finding occasioned a miscarriage of justice (H3) Momoh v. Umoru (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 299) 1953; (2011) 15 NWLR (Pt.1270) 217

COURTS - Pleadings - Binding nature - Effect - Parties are bound by their pleadings - As such evidence not pleaded goes to no issue - But if mistakenly admitted - Appellate court must disregard it (H1) Union Bank Plc v. Ajabule (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2765; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 152

COURTS - Practice & procedure - Actions - Commencement procedure - Propriety - Suit instituted in contravention of a procedure - Is incompetent and court lacks jurisdiction to entertain same (H2) Dingyadi v. INEC (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 294) 911; (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1255) 347

COURTS - Practice & procedure - Substantive appeals - Argument on interlocutory decision - Propriety - Where interlocutory ruling is not appealed against - Appellant may argue the point in a substantive appeal (H1) Agbiti v. The Nigerian Navy (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 339; (2011) 4 NWLR (Pt.1236) 175

COURTS - Receiver/Manager - Courts’ jurisdiction - The mere involvement of a receiver/manager - Does not confer automatic jurisdiction on Federal High Court - It depends on the nature of the action (H4) Adetona v. Igele General Enterprises Ltd. (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 289) 19; (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt.1247) 535

COURTS - Res judicata - Factors that satisfy the plea - Party relying on it must prove sameness of parties and subject matter - And a valid final decision - Delivered by a court of competent jurisdiction (H3) Makun v. Federal University of Technology Minna (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 299) 1919; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 190

COURTS - Res judicata - Plea of - It operates not only against parties - But also robs court of its jurisdiction - To entertain action on same issue - Which has been previously determined by court of competent jurisdiction (H5) Makun v. Federal University of Technology Minna (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 299) 1919; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 190

COURTS - Right of audience - It is a counsel that has the right - Except if a party being a natural person insists on handling its case personally - But with respect to a corporation - Right is restricted to counsel (H7) Contract Resource Nig. Ltd v. UBA Plc (2011) 7 KLR (pt. 300) 2131; (2011) 16 NWLR (Pt.1274) 592

COURTS - Statement of claim - Relevance - Statement of claim supersedes writ of summons - As such court should consider the content of same - In determining a case (H1) Onyero v. Nwadike (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 303) 2981; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 954

COURTS - Statutes - Imposition of sentence - Regulated by statute - Where a statute prescribes a mandatory sentence - Courts are without jurisdiction to impose anything less - Except where there is provision for imposition of a minimum or maximum sentence (H4) Amoshima v. State (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 299) 1869; (2011) 14 NWLR (Pt.1268) 530

COURTS - Statutes - Interpretation - Ouster clause - It is not for the court to inquire - Why its jurisdiction is ousted in statutory interpretation - It can only inquire into whether or not its jurisdiction has been ousted (H2) Governor of Kwara State v. Dada (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1747; (2011) 14 NWLR (Pt.1267) 384

COURTS - Statutes - Interpretation - S. 19 of Auction Law of Northern Nigeria - Court is to seek the intention of the legislature - And the words used in a law are to be literally interpreted (H1) Taiwo v. Adegboro (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 297) 1489; (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt.1259) 562

COURTS - Statutes - Performance of duty - Regulated by statute - Methods - Where a statute provides for a particular method of performing a duty - That method and no other must have to be adopted (H5) Amoshima v. State (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 299) 1869; (2011) 14 NWLR (Pt.1268) 530

COURTS - Supreme Court - Appeals - Filing - Procedure - Appeal to Supreme Court must relate to the decision of Court of Appeal - And not that of Federal or State High courts (H1) Ogembe v. Usman (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 303) 2961; (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt.1277) 638

COURTS - Supreme Court - Where the trial tribunal and Court of Appeal lack jurisdiction in the matter - Supreme Court will decline jurisdiction (H2) Ogboru v. Uduaghan (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 303) 2935; (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt.1277) 727

COURTS - Title - Proof - Plaintiff seeking a declaration of title to land - Is to establish his case on preponderance of evidence - Whereupon the court weighs evidence of the parties in imaginary scale - In order to make its finding (H3) Wachukwu v. Owunwanne (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 297) 1581; (2011) 14 NWLR (Pt.1266) 1

COURTS - Title - Proof - Plaintiff succeeds on strength of his case - Not on weakness of defence - And court is to decide on preponderance of evidence (H3) Dakolo v. Dakolo (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1663; (2011) 16 NWLR (Pt.1272) 22

COURTS - Title - Proof - Standard of proof required is on the preponderance of evidence - Appellants herein have the burden to prove that the said boundary extends over surrounding land and bushes - As pleaded by them - Which they discharged (H1) Ayuya v. Yonrin (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 294) 877; (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1254) 135

COURTS - Trial - Need for consistency - There should be consistency in prosecuting a case at trial and appellate courts - Appellant herein has no justification to stay away from court on the date fixed for hearing (H2) S & D Construction Co. Ltd v. Ayoku (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 299) 2109; (2011) 13 NWLR (Pt.1265) 487

COURTS - Trials - Irregular procedure - Acquiescence - Effect - Where parties acquiesce to adoption of such procedure by court - They are foreclosed from subsequently complaining about it (H7) Adeogun v. Fasogbon (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 292) 663; (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt.1250) 427

COURTS - Undefended list - Leave to defend - How obtained - The defendant must deliver a notice of such intention - With an affidavit setting forth his defence - Within five days before the date of hearing (H6) Fed. Airports Authority of Nig v. Wamal Express Serv. (Nig) Ltd (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 290) 177; (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt.1249) 219

COURTS - Undefended list - Transfer to general cause list - Basis - Where there was conflicting affidavit evidence of parties - A triable issue had risen - Which should be transferred to the general cause list (H7) Fed. Airports Authority of Nig v. Wamal Express Serv. (Nig) Ltd (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 290) 177; (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt.1249) 219

COURTS - Vacation period - Computation of - Applicable law - Constitutional provisions take priority over rules of court (H4) Peoples Democratic Party v. Congress for Progressive Change (2011) 10-12 KLR (pt. 301) 2459; (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt.1277) 485

COURTS - Words & phrases - Abuse of court processes - Definition - It includes the improper use of judicial process by a party - To annoy an opponent - Or interfere with the administration of justice (H1) ACB Plc v. Nwaigwe (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 289) 1; (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt.1246) 380

CRIME - Civil proceedings - Allegation of crime - Standard of proof - Where directly in issue - It must be specifically pleaded and proved beyond reasonable doubt (H4) Eya v. Olopade (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 296) 1271; (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt.1259) 505

CRIME - Courts - Jurisdiction - Crime - Allegation of - Court is the only authority to assume jurisdiction - When there is an allegation of crime in a matter (H2) Institute of Health Ahmadu Bello University Hospital Management Board v. Anyip (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 296) 1319; (2011) 12 NWLR (Pt.1260) 1

CRIMINAL LAW - Armed robbery - Ingredients - The essential ingredients are that - There was a robbery - In which the robbers were armed - And that the accused person was one of the robbers (H1) Nwaturuocha v. The State (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 293) 821; (2011) 6 NWLR (Pt.1242) 170

CRIMINAL LAW - Murder - Ingredients - Proof - Under s. 221(b) Penal Code - Prosecution must establish death of deceased - And that the death was caused by accused - Whose act was intentional (H1) Ismai’l v. State (2011) 7 KLR (pt. 300) 2171; (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt.1277) 601

CRIMINAL LAW - Parties to an offence - Accomplice - Status - Unless it can be shown that a person did something - To further or aid the commission of an offence - He cannot be said to be an accomplice to that offence (H6) Posu v. The State (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 477; (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt.1234) 393

CRIMINAL LAW - Rape - Ingredients - The most essential ingredient of rape - Is penetration - However slight (H1) Posu v. The State (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 477; (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt.1234) 393

CRIMINAL LAW - Stealing - Mens rea - Consists of an intention not only to take away - Property in question from possession of the owner - But also an intention to permanently deprive him of it (H3) Adejobi v. State (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1613; (2011) 12 NWLR (Pt.1261) 347

CRIMINAL LAW - Words & phrases - Conspiracy - Meaning - It consists of intention of two or more persons by agreement - To do an unlawful act - Or to do lawful act by an unlawful means (H7) Posu v. The State (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 477; (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt.1234) 393

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Admission - Unsigned confessional statement - The statement should be admitted in evidence - But judge is to decide at the end of trial - The weight to be attached to it (H8) Ogudo v. State (2011) 10-12 KLR (pt. 301) 2373; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 1

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Alibi - Plea - Sustainability - Where there is evidence identifying an accused person - Who has pleaded alibi - At the scene of crime - The accused person has to call evidence in proof of his alibi (H4) Nwaturuocha v. The State (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 293) 821; (2011) 6 NWLR (Pt.1242) 170

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Alibi - Plea - When to raise - Accused person who relies on defence of alibi - Must raise it at time of investigating - Not during trial - Else it equates to an after thought (H6) Eke v. The State (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 407; (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt.1235) 589

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Appeals - Retrial order - Propriety - For valid determination of the grievous offence charged against appellant - Retrial order is proper irrespective of long incarceration (H5) Yusuf v. State (2011) 7 KLR (pt. 300) 2261; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 853

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Armed robbery - Evidence - Burden of proof - Prosecution must prove the offence charged beyond reasonable doubt - By producing enough evidence (H10) Ogudo v. State (2011) 10-12 KLR (pt. 301) 2373; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 1

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Armed robbery - Identification parade - Necessity of - There must be real doubt as to the identity of a culprit - To require an identification parade - And no such doubt exists in this case (H2) Nwaturuocha v. The State (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 293) 821; (2011) 6 NWLR (Pt.1242) 170

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Armed robbery - Identity of appellant - Whether proved - In view of the testimony of PW1 - Which trial judge believed - It is established that appellant committed the robbery (H3) Nwaturuocha v. The State (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 293) 821; (2011) 6 NWLR (Pt.1242) 170

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Armed robbery - Ingredients - Proof - Prosecution must establish - That there was robbery in which accused participated - And that a person was wounded before or afterwards (H4) John v. State (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2651; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 353

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Armed robbery - Ingredients - proof - The essential ingredients of the offence are - That there was robbery - In which the robbers were armed - And the accused person one of the robbers (H5) Eke v. The State (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 407; (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt.1235) 589

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Armed robbery - Proof - Failure to tender the robbed motorcycle - Does not destroy the conclusive evidence led - As its description and whereabouts were consistently explained in court (H3) Ebeinwe v. The State (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 289) 125; (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt.1246) 402

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Arraignment - Principles - Charge will be read to accused - And he will be asked if he understands same - And his plea thereto shall be taken (H1) Yusuf v. State (2011) 7 KLR (pt. 300) 2261; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 853

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Burden of proof - Beyond reasonable doubt - Discharge of - Where on the evidence adduced - The court is left with no doubt of accused person’s guilt - The burden is discharged (H5) Posu v. The State (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 477; (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt.1234) 393

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Burden of proof - Beyond reasonable doubt - Meaning - Where essential ingredients of the offence have been proved - As done in this matter - The offence is proved beyond reasonable doubt (H5) Nwaturuocha v. The State (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 293) 821; (2011) 6 NWLR (Pt.1242) 170

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Burden of proof - Evidence Act ss. 135-137 - Burden of proof is on a party who asserts the existence or otherwise of a particular thing (H4) Torri v. National Park Service of Nigeria (2011) 7 KLR (pt. 300) 2239; (2011) 13 NWLR (Pt.1264) 365

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Confession - Admissibility - If the confession is positive and direct - It is sufficient to convict an accused - Without any corroboration (H6) State v. Salawu (2011) 7 KLR (pt. 300) 2205; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 883

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Confession - Admissibility - Statement made by accused to the police becomes objectionable - And inadmissible - If it is obtained under duress or by inducement (H3) State v. Salawu (2011) 7 KLR (pt. 300) 2205; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 883

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Confession - Conviction - Validity of - Court can rightly convict an accused - If it is shown that his confessional statements were voluntarily made (H2) John v. State (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2651; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 353

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Confession - Denial of - Effect - Where accused denies making the statement - Court will admit such statement in evidence - And may determine its probative value - At end of trial (H2) Ismai’l v. State (2011) 7 KLR (pt. 300) 2171; (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt.1277) 601

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Confession - Denial of - Effect - Where accused denies making a statement - Court will admit such statement in evidence - And may determine its probative value - At end of trial (H1) State v. Salawu (2011) 7 KLR (pt. 300) 2205; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 883

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Confession - Evidence Act s. 27(1) - Where accused confesses to a crime voluntarily - The burden of proving the offence is no longer required (H2) Torri v. National Park Service of Nigeria (2011) 7 KLR (pt. 300) 2239; (2011) 13 NWLR (Pt.1264) 365

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Confession - Inconsistency rule - Application of - Where witness makes extra judicial statement inconsistent with his testimony at trial - The testimony is to be treated as unreliable - While the statement cannot be relied upon by court (H4) Ogudo v. State (2011) 10-12 KLR (pt. 301) 2373; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 1

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Confession - Inconsistency rule - Limitation of - It is restricted to evidence of witness who made extra judicial statement inconsistent with evidence given at trial (H5) Ogudo v. State (2011) 10-12 KLR (pt. 301) 2373; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 1

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Confession - Obtained under duress - Effect - Where accused admits making such statement - Court must conduct a trial within trial - To test the voluntariness of same (H3) Ismai’l v. State (2011) 7 KLR (pt. 300) 2171; (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt.1277) 601

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Confession - Obtained under duress - Effect - Where accused admits making such statement - Court must conduct a trial within trial - To test the voluntariness of same (H2) State v. Salawu (2011) 7 KLR (pt. 300) 2205; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 883

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Confession - Obtained under duress - Fate - Where accused alleges that he involuntarily made confession - Court should conduct a trial within trial - Otherwise the confession must be rejected (H3) Ogudo v. State (2011) 10-12 KLR (pt. 301) 2373; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 1

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Confession - Proof - It is the duty of appellant herein - To prove that exhibit 4 was voluntarily made by respondent (H3) State v. Salawu (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 303) 3027; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 659

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Confession - Significance and meaning of - It is an admission by an accused - That he committed the offence (H5) State v. Salawu (2011) 7 KLR (pt. 300) 2205; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 883

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Confession - Validity - Court must be satisfied that it is voluntary - Where it is voluntary - Accused usually pleads guilty - And a conviction based upon such would not be upset on appeal (H2) Ogudo v. State (2011) 10-12 KLR (pt. 301) 2373; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 1

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Confession - Voluntariness - Statement made by respondent on demand by the police officer - Cannot be said to have been voluntarily made (H1) State v. Salawu (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 303) 3027; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 659

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Contradiction - Effect - Inconsistency in evidence of prosecution must be significant - In order to negatively affect the substance of the case (H6) John v. State (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2651; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 353

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Conviction - Based on circumstantial evidence - Propriety - Where such evidence is positive and direct - An accused can be properly convicted (H4) Ismai’l v. State (2011) 7 KLR (pt. 300) 2171; (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt.1277) 601

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Conviction - Based on confession - Validity of - Where it is proved that the statement is made voluntarily - Accused can properly be convicted (H6) Ismai’l v. State (2011) 7 KLR (pt. 300) 2171; (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt.1277) 601

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Conviction - Plea of guilty - Criminal Procedure Code s. 161 (2) - Where an accused pleads guilty to non-capital offence - Trial court has discretion to convict him (H1) Torri v. National Park Service of Nigeria (2011) 7 KLR (pt. 300) 2239; (2011) 13 NWLR (Pt.1264) 365

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Courts - Justice - Need to uphold - Courts are to consider the substance of a matter - Rather than insisting on technicalities (H7) State v. Salawu (2011) 7 KLR (pt. 300) 2205; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 883

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Crime - Proof - It is left to the prosecution to call the number of witnesses required to prove its case - It is immaterial that the customers whose accounts were manipulated were not called as witnesses (H4) Adejobi v. State (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1613; (2011) 12 NWLR (Pt.1261) 347

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Criminal Procedure Code - Mandatory provisions of - Compliance - Where there are such provisions - Any act stipulated therein must be strictly complied with (H2) Yusuf v. State (2011) 7 KLR (pt. 300) 2261; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 853

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Evidence - Admissibility - After the close of a case - No further evidence ought to be given by any of the parties - But court may vide Criminal Procedure Act s. 200 - Recall a witness - If his evidence is relevant to the matter (H2) Chukwuma v. FRN (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 296) 1221; (2011) 13 NWLR (Pt.1264) 391

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Evidence - Contradictions - Effect - For contradictions in evidence to vitiate a decision - They must be material and substantial - Which is not the case herein (H4) Eke v. The State (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 407; (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt.1235) 589

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Evidence - Contradictions - Effect - The alleged contradictions in the prosecution’s case - Are not such as would have affected the substance of its case (H1) Ebeinwe v. The State (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 289) 125; (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt.1246) 402

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Evidence - Defence - Evaluation - Where appellants’ evidence differed from their extrajudicial statements - And no explanation was given for such discrepancy - Trial judge was right - To hold their defence as an after thought (H4) Posu v. The State (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 477; (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt.1234) 393

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Evidence - Documents - Exhibit C - Genuineness - In the absence of evidence to the contrary - Exhibit C is presumed to be genuine - By section 44 of Evidence Act (H3) Posu v. The State (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 477; (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt.1234) 393

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Evidence - Evaluation - Armed robbery - Wrongful conviction - Corroboration - Retracted confession - Court is to look out for independent evidence - That corroborates the confessional statement - And not merely rely on its belief or disbelief (H11) Ogudo v. State (2011) 10-12 KLR (pt. 301) 2373; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 1

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Evidence - Inconsistency of - Where previous evidence is inconsistent with the one made at trial - Court should beside regarding the evidence at trial as unreliable - Be directed that the previous evidence is not relevant (H1) State v. Oladotun (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 297) 1461; (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1256) 542

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Evidence - Proof beyond reasonable doubt - Meaning - It does not mean proof beyond shadow of doubt - It is attained where the evidence leave a remote possibility in favour of accused person (H4) Ebeinwe v. The State (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 289) 125; (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt.1246) 402

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Evidence - Weight - Unsigned confessional statement - Court should exercise extreme caution in respect of such statement - And very little or no weight should be attached to it (H7) Ogudo v. State (2011) 10-12 KLR (pt. 301) 2373; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 1

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Failure to call vital witness - Effect - It is fatal to prosecution’s case - Because Evidence Act s.149 (d) raises presumption that the evidence if led - It will be unfavourable to prosecution (H9) Ogudo v. State (2011) 10-12 KLR (pt. 301) 2373; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 1

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Failure to cross examine - Effect - Where an accused fails to dislodge the evidence of prosecution - Prosecution’s case is deemed proved beyond reasonable doubt (H6) State v. Oladotun (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 297) 1461; (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1256) 542

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Fair hearing - Breach - Failure to read and explain the charge of culpable homicide to accused - Constitutes a violation of the rules of fair hearing (H3) Yusuf v. State (2011) 7 KLR (pt. 300) 2261; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 853

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Fundamental rights - Right to life - Section 33(1) of the Constitution - Limits - The right under the section is not absolute - It may be deprived in execution of the sentence of a Court of law - In respect of a criminal offence (H7) Amoshima v. State (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 299) 1869; (2011) 14 NWLR (Pt.1268) 530

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Identification parade - Relevancy - The adduced facts warrant conduct of identification - But the police adopted a procedure fatal to appellant’s case (H4) State v. Salawu (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 303) 3027; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 659

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Imposition of sentence - Regulated by statute - Where a statute prescribes a mandatory sentence - Courts are without jurisdiction to impose anything less - Except where there is provision for imposition of a minimum or maximum sentence (H4) Amoshima v. State (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 299) 1869; (2011) 14 NWLR (Pt.1268) 530

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Master & servant - Termination - Validity - Since appellant was given fair hearing before the Tribunal - His dismissal cannot be set aside merely because he was not subjected to criminal prosecution (H5) Imonikhe v. Unity Bank Plc (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 296) 1295; (2011) 12 NWLR (Pt.1262) 624

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Murder - Standard of proof - Since the crime has been established beyond reasonable doubt - Appellant’s contention is of no moment (H2) Ochiba v. State (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2741; (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt.1277) 663

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Proof - Duty of prosecution - Though prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt - It is not bound to call every eye witness at the scene of the crime (H3) Ochiba v. State (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2741; (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt.1277) 663

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Proof beyond reasonable doubt - Burden - Discharge of - When all the essential ingredients of the offence charged have been proved - The burden has been discharged (H7) Eke v. The State (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 407; (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt.1235) 589

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Proof beyond reasonable doubt - Meaning - Does not mean proof beyond all shadow of doubt - Prosecution must not call several witnesses - Testimony of a quality witness can be sufficient - Save corroboration is needed (H2) Joseph v. State (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1807; (2011) 16 NWLR (Pt.1273) 226

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Rape - Proof of penetration - Evidence of PW2 showed that appellants penetrated her - Which evidence is confirmed by the doctor’s report (H2) Posu v. The State (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 477; (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt.1234) 393

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Rape - Testimony of victim - Source of corroboration - Court may seek corroboration from doctor’s report - Or other real evidence - Like the torn dress of victim - As was done in this case (H8) Posu v. The State (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 477; (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt.1234) 393

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Standard of proof - Prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt - As required by Evidence Act s. 138 (H5) John v. State (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2651; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 353

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Testimonies - Contradictions - Existence - Testimonies of witnesses can only be said to be contradictory - When they give inconsistent accounts - Of the same event (H3) Eke v. The State (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 407; (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt.1235) 589

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Trial within trial - Failure to conduct - Effect - Where trial court fails to conduct trial within trial - Such failure will not be fatal - Unless it occasioned miscarriage of justice (H2) Eke v. The State (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 407; (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt.1235) 589

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Trial within trial - When to hold - When admissibility of a statement is challenged - On ground that it was not made voluntarily - Trial within trial must be conducted - To ascertain whether it was voluntary (H1) Eke v. The State (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 407; (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt.1235) 589

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Withholding of evidence - Effect - By virtue of s. 149 (d) Evidence Act - Court is entitled to hold that - Evidence withheld by the police - Is unfavourable to the party withholding same (H2) State v. Salawu (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 303) 3027; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 659

CROSS EXAMINATION - Evidence - Unchallenged evidence - Admissibility - Court to rely on and accept as true - Evidence that was neither challenged nor cross examined by the other party (H2) Nacenn Ltd v. Bewac Ltd (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 296) 1337; (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt.1257) 193

CROSS EXAMINATION - Failure of - Effect - Where an accused fails to dislodge the evidence of prosecution - Prosecution’s case is deemed proved beyond reasonable doubt (H6) State v. Oladotun (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 297) 1461; (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1256) 542

CUSTOMARY LAW - Evidence - Betrothal custom - Cogency of - All things considered the evidence adduced by appellant - On the custom as pleaded by him - Is neither cogent nor credible (H1) Eyo v. Onuoha (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 293) 781; (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt.1257) 1

CUSTOMARY LAW - Land law - Customary rights - Conferment of chieftaincy - Condition precedent - Right to create and confer chieftaincy is tied to ownership of the land - But appellants have failed to establish their title - As such they cannot be granted the reliefs (H3) Dauda v. A-G Lagos State (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 296) 1251; (2011) 13 NWLR (Pt.1265) 427

DAMAGES - Appeals - Interference - Discretion - Libel - Damages - Supreme Court would interfere - Where the estimate is erroneous - Or wrong principle of law was applied - Or the award is ridiculously low or so high - Which is not so in this case (H5) Guardian v. Ajeh (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 294) 979; (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1256) 574

DAMAGES - Appeals - Quantum - Interference by appellate court - It will review an award of damages downwards - Where it finds the amount excessive or not in accordance with principle of law (H5) Ajagbe v. Idowu (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1639; (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt.1276) 422

DAMAGES - Award by trial court - Interference on appeal - Basis - Appellate court will not interfere - Unless trial court acted under a misrepresentation of facts or law - Or that failure to interfere will amount to injustice (H6) Harka Air Services Ltd v. Keazor (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1771; (2011) 13 NWLR (Pt.1264) 320

DAMAGES - Award in foreign currency - Propriety of - Nigerian Courts have jurisdiction to make an award in foreign currency - Court of Appeal was correct to have invoked the right process of law - By awarding the damages in foreign currency (H8) Harka Air Services Ltd v. Keazor (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1771; (2011) 13 NWLR (Pt.1264) 320

DAMAGES - Contracts - Breach - Quantum of damages - Justification - Damages are awarded to restore plaintiff - To where he would have been if there were no breach - So N500,000 general damages is justified in this case (H6) Cameroon Airlines v. Otutuizu (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 373; (2011) 4 NWLR (Pt.1238) 512

DAMAGES - Contracts - Breach - Remedies - In consideration of remedies for breach - Aggrieved party can institute action for compensation in the form of damages (H10) Nwaolisah v. Nwabufoh (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 299) 2005; (2011) 14 NWLR (Pt.1268) 600

DAMAGES - General damages - Proof - The quantum need not be pleaded and proved - As such it does not depend on calculation from specific items (H3) Union Bank Plc v. Ajabule (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2765; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 152

DAMAGES - General damages - Quantum - Propriety - Appellate court does not interfere with award made by trial court - Save where it is manifestly too high or too low - Or was awarded on wrong principle of law (H4) Union Bank Plc v. Ajabule (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2765; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 152

DAMAGES - Libel - Discretion - Factors Court should consider - Where there is absolute lack of remorse - Trial Court rightly awarded the sum of N500,000.00 (H4) Guardian v. Ajeh (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 294) 979; (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1256) 574

DAMAGES - Pleadings - Damages - Special damages - It must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved - With sufficient and credible evidence in support (H3) Ajagbe v. Idowu (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1639; (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt.1276) 422

DAMAGES - Quantum - Sustainability - $20,000 special damages - The award is correct in the circumstances - Appellant having lost its statutory protection - By reason of its wilful misconduct (H7) Cameroon Airlines v. Otutuizu (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 373; (2011) 4 NWLR (Pt.1238) 512

DAMAGES - Special damages - Proof - It must be pleaded and strictly proved - As such court is not entitled - To award same based on speculative estimate (H2) Union Bank Plc v. Ajabule (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2765; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 152

DAMAGES - Special damages - Proof - Where it appears to be admitted - Party making the claim is not relieved - From proving it with compelling evidence (H8) NNPC v. Clifco Nig. Ltd (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 295) 1039; (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1255) 209

DAMAGES - Torts - Detinue - Successful plaintiff in action for detinue - Is entitled to an order of specific restitution of the chattel - And also damages for its detention up to the date of judgment (H1) Nacenn Ltd v. Bewac Ltd (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 296) 1337; (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt.1257) 193

DEFAMATION - Libel - Fair comment - Where statements published by a newspaper - Are not true - It will not succeed on a defence of fair comment (H7) Guardian v. Ajeh (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 294) 979; (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1256) 574

DOCUMENTS - Admissibility - Certificate of incorporation - Certified copy - Is inadmissible in evidence - Unless certification was done by corporate affairs Commission (H1) Goodwill & Trust Invest. Ltd. v. Witt & Bush Ltd. (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 292) 697; (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt.1250) 500

DOCUMENTS - Appeals - Exhibit - Status - It was obvious that it could have been obtained - With reasonable care and diligence - For use at the time of trial - If formerly briefed counsel went to archives for it (H6) Onwubuariri v. Igboasoiyi (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 449; (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt.1234) 357

DOCUMENTS - Appeals - Reevaluation - When necessary - Where trial court failed to evaluate a document tendered in evidence - Without involving the credibility of the witness - Appellate court can evaluate - But this is not applicable in the present case (H6) Ayuya v. Yonrin (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 294) 877; (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1254) 135

DOCUMENTS - Contracts - Binding nature - Where parties have embodied the terms of their contract in a written document - Extrinsic evidence is not admissible to contradict the terms therein (H1) Babatunde v. Bank of the North Ltd (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2567; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 738

DOCUMENTS - Contracts - Determination of - It is not for court to rewrite contract made by parties - Court is to interpret the contract as contained in the instrument (H3) Ogundepo v. Olumesan (2011) 10-12 KLR (pt. 301) 2413; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 54

DOCUMENTS - Conveyance - Evidence - Conclusiveness - Where parties have embodied the terms of their relevant agreements into written documents - No extrinsic evidence is admissible to contradict the terms therein (H2) Ogundepo v. Olumesan (2011) 10-12 KLR (pt. 301) 2413; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 54

DOCUMENTS - Evidence - Weight - Unsigned confessional statement - Court should exercise extreme caution in respect of such statement - And very little or no weight should be attached to it (H7) Ogudo v. State (2011) 10-12 KLR (pt. 301) 2373; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 1

DOCUMENTS - Exhibit - Admissibility - Being evidence in a previous proceedings - Which can only be admissible under the provisions of s. 34 (1) of Evidence Act - Having not met the requirements - It was wrongly admitted (H9) Onwubuariri v. Igboasoiyi (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 449; (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt.1234) 357

DOCUMENTS - Exhibit - Materiality - In view of findings of facts by the trial court - To which Court of Appeal agreed - In respect of traditional history and acts of ownership - The Exhibit is not material (H8) Onwubuariri v. Igboasoiyi (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 449; (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt.1234) 357

DOCUMENTS - Exhibit C - Genuineness - In the absence of evidence to the contrary - Exhibit C is presumed to be genuine - By section 44 of Evidence Act (H3) Posu v. The State (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 477; (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt.1234) 393

DOCUMENTS - Land law - Evidence - Unregistered registerable instrument - When admissible - Though such document be inadmissible in proof of title - It is nevertheless admissible to prove there was a transaction between the parties thereto (H6) Agboola v. UBA Plc & 2 Ors. (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 293) 725; (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt.1258) 375

DOCUMENTS - Land law - Proof - Under Evidence Act s. 123 - Court will presume as valid - Documents which are not less than 20 years at the time of trial (H7) Ayanwale v. Odusami (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2549; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 328

DOCUMENTS - Pleaded but not tendered - Effect - Non-tendering of such document at trial - Means that paragraphs of the pleadings in which it was pleaded - Have been abandoned (H3) Onwubuariri v. Igboasoiyi (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 449; (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt.1234) 357

DOCUMENTS - Pleadings - Averments - Documents relied on - How pleaded - Pleadings are meant to be specific - So such documents must be specifically pleaded - Which was not the case with exhibit 1 herein (H1) Agboola v. UBA Plc & 2 Ors. (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 293) 725; (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt.1258) 375

DOCUMENTS - Public document - Admission - Evidence Act s. 111 (1) - Condition precedent - Appellants must pay the legal fees stipulated - Without which their documents cannot be admitted in evidence (H3) Tabik Investment Ltd v. Guaranty Trust Bank Plc (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1853; (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt.1276) 240

DOCUMENTS - Public document - Application to secure - Evidence Act s. 111 (1) - Condition precedent - Approved legal fees must be paid by person seeking to secure it (H1) Tabik Investment Ltd v. Guaranty Trust Bank Plc (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1853; (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt.1276) 240

DOCUMENTS - Public documents - Effect of non-certification - The non-certification of public documents - Such as volume 11 of the record of appeal herein - Makes it an unreliable evidence (H2) Fed. Airports Authority of Nig v. Wamal Express Serv. (Nig) Ltd (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 290) 177; (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt.1249) 219

DOCUMENTS - Record of earlier proceedings - Admissibility - It ought to be shown that the party against whom it is sought to be admitted - Was a party to that earlier proceedings (H7) Onwubuariri v. Igboasoiyi (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 449; (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt.1234) 357

ELECTION PETITIONS - Allegation of non compliance - Proof - Petitioner must not only assert non compliance - But must also satisfy the court - That same affected the election result to justify nullification (H8) Congress for Progressive Change v. Independent National Electoral Commission (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 303) 2823; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 493

ELECTION PETITIONS - Appeals - Application preceding prehearing notice - Mode of presentation - Since no mode is stipulated - Appellant’s letter is valid under Electoral Act 2010 as amended paragraph 18(1) 1st Schedule (H1) Abubakar v. Nasamu (2011) 10-12 KLR (pt. 301) 2283; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1330) 523

ELECTION PETITIONS - Appeals - Interpretation of the word ‘shall’ in Section 246 (3) Constitution of FRN - National assembly election petition - Court of Appeal has ultimate and final jurisdiction (H4) Emordi v. Igbeke (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 294) 967; (2011) 9 NWLR (Pt.1251) 24

ELECTION PETITIONS - Appeals - Judgments - National Assembly Election - Finality of decision applies - To interlocutory decision and judgment of Court of Appeal (H3) Emordi v. Igbeke (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 294) 967; (2011) 9 NWLR (Pt.1251) 24

ELECTION PETITIONS - Appeals - Order made to arrest judgment - Propriety - The order is contrary to the accelerated hearing of the petition - And the provisions of paragraph 18(1) Practice Directions 2011 (H5) Shettima v. Goni (2011) 10-12 KLR (pt. 301) 2481; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 413

ELECTION PETITIONS - Bases - Candidates - Disqualification of - Where the reason for such disqualification arose from party nomination process - It cannot validly be a basis for an election petition (H4) Ucha v. Onwe (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 290) 303; (2011) 4 NWLR (Pt.1237) 386

ELECTION PETITIONS - Constitutional law - Ambiguity - Election Appeals - Section 246 (3) Constitution of FRN - That clearly provides for its termination before the Court of Appeal - Is not ambiguous (H1) Emordi v. Igbeke (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 294) 967; (2011) 9 NWLR (Pt.1251) 24

ELECTION PETITIONS - Jurisdiction - Supreme Court - 1999 Constitution s. 233(2)(e)(iv) as amended - Confers jurisdiction on Supreme Court to hear appeal - From decisions of Court of Appeal in Governorship election matter (H1) Hope Democratic Party v. Obi (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 303) 2885; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 80

ELECTION PETITIONS - Proceedings - Time limit - By 1999 Constitution (as amended) s. 285(5)(b) - The proceedings must be concluded within 180 days (H4) Shettima v. Goni (2011) 10-12 KLR (pt. 301) 2481; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 413

ELECTION PETITIONS - Stare decisis - Appeals - Jurisdiction - Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal - From decisions of Court of Appeal - Arising from election petition appeal - As decided in Sha’aban case (H2) Umaru v. Aliyu (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 513; (2011) 5 NWLR (Pt.1241) 600

ELECTION PETITIONS - Tribunals - Jurisdiction - Pre-election matters - Authorities - Action Congress v. INEC - The case did not decide the issue - As to whether Election Tribunal had jurisdiction - To hear and determine pre-election matters (H1) Ucha v. Onwe (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 290) 303; (2011) 4 NWLR (Pt.1237) 386

ELECTIONS - Claims - Form - Clear claim under s. 34 Electoral Act 2006 - That failed to state the subsection in issue - Cannot be defeated as the omission is inconsequential (H6) Bwacha v. Ikenya (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 289) 75; (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt.1235) 610

ELECTIONS - Conduct - Determination of - Court will assess the pleadings and substance of the complaint - And determine whether the omission complained of - Is substantial to affect conduct of the election (H9) Congress for Progressive Change v. Independent National Electoral Commission (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 303) 2823; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 493

ELECTIONS - Courts - Jurisdiction - Pre-election matters - Only the Federal High Court - Or the State High Court - Has jurisdiction over pre election matters (H2) PDP v. Onwe (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 290) 225; (2011) 4 NWLR (Pt.1236) 166

ELECTIONS - Evidence - Presumption - Regularity of an act - It is presumed that election result declared by a returning officer is correct - As such the burden of rebutting is on the party who denies its correctness (H7) Congress for Progressive Change v. Independent National Electoral Commission (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 303) 2823; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 493

ELECTIONS - Judicial precedents - Nature of dispute - Substitution of candidates - Enemuo v. Duru - The case is distinguishable from the instant case - As the substitution on which the petition therein was predicated - Was made after the election (H3) Ucha v. Onwe (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 290) 303; (2011) 4 NWLR (Pt.1237) 386

ELECTIONS - Nomination - Contrary to political party’s constitution - Effect - Aggrieved candidate has right to seek redress from court - And the constitution confers jurisdiction on court to entertain the matter (H6) Uzodinma v. Izunaso (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 297) 1513; (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt.1275) 30

ELECTIONS - Nomination - Decision of political party is of paramount importance - INEC is merely a nominal party - And should remain neutral (H8) Uzodinma v. Izunaso (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 297) 1513; (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt.1275) 30

ELECTIONS - Nomination - Political party has the power to nominate candidates for election - And any question arising therefrom is not justiciable in court (H4) Lado v. Congress for Progressive Change (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2679; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 689

ELECTIONS - Nomination - Powers of political party - It nominates candidates for an election - And courts do not have jurisdiction to decide on who is sponsored as a candidate (H5) Uzodinma v. Izunaso (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 297) 1513; (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt.1275) 30

ELECTIONS - Political parties - Internal affairs - The control of internal affairs of a political party - Must comply with the Constitution and the Electoral Act (H8) Dingyadi v. INEC (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 294) 911; (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1255) 347

ELECTIONS - Political parties - Substitution of candidates - Under Electoral Act 2010 s. 33 - It has no power to substitute - Except in the case of death or withdrawal by candidate (H7) Uzodinma v. Izunaso (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 297) 1513; (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt.1275) 30

ELECTIONS - Pre election matters - Aggrieved aspirant at primary election - Must come within Electoral Act 2010 as amended ss. 87(4)(b)(ii), (c)(ii) and 9 - In order to make his complaint justiciable in court (H7) Lado v. Congress for Progressive Change (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2679; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 689

ELECTIONS - Pre election matters - Disqualification of candidate - Power - It exclusively belongs to the Federal High Court or a State High Court - To disqualify a candidate whose name has been submitted to the Electoral Commission (H7) Dingyadi v. INEC (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 294) 911; (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1255) 347

ELECTIONS - Qualification of candidate - Challenge of - S. 145(1)(a) Electoral Act 2006 - Qualification of a candidate to contest an election can be challenged before a Tribunal - Even where he is validly nominated (H10) Dingyadi v. INEC (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 294) 911; (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1255) 347

ELECTIONS - Qualification of candidate - Rules - The Electoral Act and the Constitution stipulate the rules governing preliminaries to an election - And that governing the conduct of an election (H9) Dingyadi v. INEC (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 294) 911; (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1255) 347

ELECTIONS - Substitution of candidates - Cogency of reason - Where the reason given - Is that earlier submission was made “without enough information” - It is neither cogent nor verifiable (H5) Bwacha v. Ikenya (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 289) 75; (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt.1235) 610

ELECTIONS - Substitution of candidates - Cogency of reasons - Where the reason given is that the earlier name was forwarded in error - As in the instant case - Such reason is neither cogent nor verifiable (H12) Adeogun v. Fasogbon (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 292) 663; (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt.1250) 427

ELECTIONS - Substitution of candidates - Electoral Act 2010 as amended - Does not contain any provision for substitution after nomination (H6) Lado v. Congress for Progressive Change (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2679; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 689

ELECTIONS - Substitution of candidates - Information to INEC - Validity - Such information is invalid in the case of PDP - Unless it is given by its National Chairman and National Secretary (H10) Adeogun v. Fasogbon (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 292) 663; (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt.1250) 427

ELECTIONS - Substitution of candidates - Reasons - Source of - The reason for substitution in the case of PDP - Must be given sufficiently - By its National Chairman and National Secretary only (H11) Adeogun v. Fasogbon (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 292) 663; (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt.1250) 427

ELECTIONS - Substitution of candidates - Under Electoral Act 2006 s. 34 - Political party must inform INEC of any substitution not later than sixty days to election - And it must proffer cogent and verifiable reasons - Save in case of death (H5) Lado v. Congress for Progressive Change (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2679; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 689

ELECTIONS - Tribunals - Jurisdiction - S. 285 (1) (a) of 1999 Constitution - Scope - The provision confers jurisdiction on Election Tribunals over post election disputes - And not pre-election disputes (H2) Ucha v. Onwe (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 290) 303; (2011) 4 NWLR (Pt.1237) 386

ELECTIONS - Tribunals - Jurisdiction - Scope of s. 285 (1) (a) of the Constitution - By the authority of Ededo v. INEC - The sub paragraph creates jurisdiction over post-election matters - Not pre-election proceedings (H1) PDP v. Onwe (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 290) 225; (2011) 4 NWLR (Pt.1236) 166

EQUITY - Actions - Contracts - Alternative Claim - Where there was a contractual obligation - Lower Court’s granting of the alternative claim - Is equitable and in the interest of justice (H7) NNPC v. Clifco Nig. Ltd (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 295) 1039; (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1255) 209

EQUITY - Contracts - Specific performance - Propriety - As an equitable remedy - Exercised judicially and judiciously - Where no valid contract exist as in this case - Court’s order of same is unwarranted (H11) Best (Nig) Ltd v. Blackwood Hodge (Nig) Ltd. (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 289) 47; (2011) 5 NWLR (Pt.1239) 95

EQUITY - Land law - Constructive trust - Where not contemplated in the parties’ agreement - Appellant acted under a misconception - In moving into respondent’s newly allocated State land - Based on supposed existence of trust (H1) Ibekwe v. Nwosu (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 294) 1005; (2011) 9 NWLR (Pt.1251) 1

EQUITY - Land law - Rules of equity - When two equities are equal - The first in time prevails - Exhibits 6 and 7 made in 1976 and 1978 take priority over exhibit 1 made in 1982 (H6) Babatunde v. Bank of the North Ltd (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2567; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 738

EQUITY - Specific performance - Purpose - It is an equitable remedy - That lies within court’s discretion - To award - When common law remedy is insufficient (H10) Best (Nig) Ltd v. Blackwood Hodge (Nig) Ltd. (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 289) 47; (2011) 5 NWLR (Pt.1239) 95

EQUITY - Third party’s interest - Need to preserve - Courts must protect them - Especially where such interests would be adversely affected (H6) Ajuwa v. S. P. D. C. Nig. Ltd (2011) 10-12 KLR (pt. 301) 2305; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 797

ESTOPPEL - Evidence - Estoppel by conduct - Effect - It forbids a person who has led another to believe and act on a state of affairs - From turning round to disclaim that state of affairs (H2) A-G Rivers State v. A-G Akwa Ibom State (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 292) 525; (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt.1248) 31

ESTOPPEL - Evidence - Status - It is equivalent to an admission - And the party whom it affects will not be allowed - To plead against it or adduce evidence to contradict it (H3) A-G Rivers State v. A-G Akwa Ibom State (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 292) 525; (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt.1248) 31

ESTOPPEL - Issue estoppel - Finality of decision - Absence of - Where the relevant issue was not determined with finality in the earlier suit - The doctrine will not apply to bar it from being raised in another suit (H4) Bwacha v. Ikenya (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 289) 75; (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt.1235) 610

ESTOPPEL - Issue estoppel - Identity of parties - Essence of - This requirement does not mean that the parties in both suits must be identical - It suffices that necessary parties to the relevant issue are the same (H2) Bwacha v. Ikenya (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 289) 75; (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt.1235) 610

ESTOPPEL - Issue estoppel - Sameness of parties - Absence of - Where two necessary parties to the issue were absent in the earlier suit - The condition is not met - And the principle cannot be applied (H3) Bwacha v. Ikenya (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 289) 75; (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt.1235) 610

ESTOPPEL - Issue estoppel - Scope of - Flexibility - The formulation of issue estoppel has not been static - It has been expanded to meet circumstances calling for application of the policy - That there must be an end to litigation (H1) Bwacha v. Ikenya (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 289) 75; (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt.1235) 610

ESTOPPEL - Res judicata - Applicability - Where court of competent jurisdiction finally decides on a matter between parties - The parties thereto are precluded from re-litigating on the same matter (H1) Makun v. Federal University of Technology Minna (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 299) 1919; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 190

ESTOPPEL - Res judicata - Applicability - Where judgment in a suit is decided on same subject matter and between same parties - The suit cannot be relitigated by any of the parties (H1) Dakolo v. Dakolo (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1663; (2011) 16 NWLR (Pt.1272) 22

ESTOPPEL - Res judicata - Classification - The two categories are cause of action estoppel - Which bars a party from denying a determined cause of action - And issue estoppel - Which precludes a party from re-litigating on same issue (H2) Makun v. Federal University of Technology Minna (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 299) 1919; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 190

ESTOPPEL - Res judicata - Conclusive nature of judgment - Applies in this case - A successful plea of res judicata precludes an attempt to relitigate the action (H2) Dauda v. A-G Lagos State (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 296) 1251; (2011) 13 NWLR (Pt.1265) 427

ESTOPPEL - Res judicata - Conditions - Party relying on it must establish that - Parties and subject matter are the same - That valid and subsisting judgment had been pronounced - By a competent court (H5) Daniel Tayar Trans. Ent. Ltd. v. Busari (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 290) 271; (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt.1249) 387

ESTOPPEL - Res judicata - Determination of - Court is to study the pleadings as well as the proceedings - And judgment given in the previous action (H4) Makun v. Federal University of Technology Minna (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 299) 1919; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 190

ESTOPPEL - Res judicata - Factors that satisfy the plea - Party relying on it must prove sameness of parties and subject matter - And a valid final decision - Delivered by a court of competent jurisdiction (H3) Makun v. Federal University of Technology Minna (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 299) 1919; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 190

ESTOPPEL - Res judicata - Judgments - Declaratory judgment - Nature of - It essentially creates a res judicata and can be relied upon as an estoppel - As such it cannot be stayed (H3) SPDC v. Amadi (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 297) 1429; (2011) 14 NWLR (Pt.1266) 157

ESTOPPEL - Res judicata - Jurisdiction - Successful plea of res judicata means that - The court is without jurisdiction to hear the new matter - It is accordingly not available to a plaintiff in his statement of claim (H3) Ayuya v. Yonrin (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 294) 877; (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1254) 135

ESTOPPEL - Res judicata - Nature and effect - It is a doctrine that brings an end to litigation - To the effect that once a matter - Has been pronounced upon by a court of competent jurisdiction - Parties are not allowed to relitigate same (H4) Daniel Tayar Trans. Ent. Ltd. v. Busari (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 290) 271; (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt.1249) 387

ESTOPPEL - Res judicata - Rationale - It is necessary to ensure conclusiveness of judgments - And to prevent multiplicity of suits (H2) Dakolo v. Dakolo (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1663; (2011) 16 NWLR (Pt.1272) 22

ESTOPPEL - Res Judicata plea - To succeed party raising it must inter alia establish - Sameness of parties, issue and subject matter (H2) Ayuya v. Yonrin (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 294) 877; (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1254) 135

ESTOPPEL - Title - Estoppel - Plaintiff may plead and rely on a previous judgment in his favour - Not as res judicata - But as an estoppel - In the sense that it constitutes a relevant fact to the issue in the present action - And the judgment will be conclusive of the facts which it decided (H4) Ayuya v. Yonrin (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 294) 877; (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1254) 135

EVIDENCE - Accidents - Negligence - Proof - Prosecution must show that the accident - Was due to reckless manner in which accused drove the vehicle - Slightest negligence is sufficient to hold an accused guilty of dangerous driving (H3) Joseph v. State (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1807; (2011) 16 NWLR (Pt.1273) 226

EVIDENCE - Actions - Counterclaim - Features - It is a separate and independent action in its own right - Respondent ought to have adduced oral evidence in support of its claim (H6) Bilante International Ltd. v. NDIC (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 299) 1895; (2011) 15 NWLR (Pt.1270) 407

EVIDENCE - Actions - Declaration of right - Proof - Onus is on plaintiff to establish his claim upon the strength of his case - And not upon the weakness of the defence (H5) Congress for Progressive Change v. Independent National Electoral Commission (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 303) 2823; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 493

EVIDENCE - Actions - Declaratory action - Burden of establishing same is on plaintiff - Whose evidence must be credible and in accordance with his pleadings (H4) Arowolo v. Olowokere (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 303) 2795; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 280

EVIDENCE - Actions - Proof - Weakness of defence - Effect - Plaintiff cannot rely on the weakness of defendant’s case - But on the strength of his own case - To succeed in his action (H4) Eyo v. Onuoha (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 293) 781; (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt.1257) 1

EVIDENCE - Actions - Statute of limitation - Defendant who pleads defence of same - Need not adduce evidence - If the facts needed to establish the defence - Are apparent in the case presented by plaintiff (H5) Olagunju v. PHCN Plc (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 295) 1067; (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1254) 113

EVIDENCE - Admiralty - Limitation of liability - Competence of crew - Need to prove - Onus is on the appellant seeking to limit liability - To prove competence of the crew - When the damage occurred (H2) Shipcare Nig. Ltd. v. The Owners of The M/V Fortunato (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 499; (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt.1246) 205

EVIDENCE - Admiralty - Limitation of liability - Incompetent crew - Proof of fault - Where a ship is shown to be manned by an incompetent crew - At the time of damage - The owners must be taken to be at fault (H3) Shipcare Nig. Ltd. v. The Owners of The M/V Fortunato (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 499; (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt.1246) 205

EVIDENCE - Admiralty - Limitation of liability - S. 363 of Merchant Shipping Act - Conditions - A ship owner who pleads the section to limit his liability - Where there is damage - Must prove that he was not at fault or privy to what occurred (H1) Shipcare Nig. Ltd. v. The Owners of The M/V Fortunato (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 499; (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt.1246) 205

EVIDENCE - Admissibility - Admission without objection - Effect - Where such evidence is in no circumstance admissible in law - As opposed to where it is admissible under certain conditions - It remains inadmissible though not objected to (H2) Goodwill & Trust Invest. Ltd. v. Witt & Bush Ltd. (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 292) 697; (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt.1250) 500

EVIDENCE - Admissibility - After the close of a case - No further evidence ought to be given by any of the parties - But court may vide Criminal Procedure Act s. 200 - Recall a witness - If his evidence is relevant to the matter (H2) Chukwuma v. FRN (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 296) 1221; (2011) 13 NWLR (Pt.1264) 391

EVIDENCE - Admissibility - Certificate of incorporation - Certified copy - Is inadmissible in evidence - Unless certification was done by corporate affairs Commission (H1) Goodwill & Trust Invest. Ltd. v. Witt & Bush Ltd. (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 292) 697; (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt.1250) 500

EVIDENCE - Admissibility - Facts not pleaded - Fate of - Such facts go to no issue - And should not be admitted in evidence - As such exhibit 1 is inadmissible (H2) Agboola v. UBA Plc & 2 Ors. (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 293) 725; (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt.1258) 375

EVIDENCE - Admission - S. 75 of Evidence Act - Conclusiveness of - Where a party agrees to a fact in issue - Proof is no longer necessary - No further dispute on the fact admitted should be entertained by court (H5) Taiwo v. Adegboro (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 297) 1489; (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt.1259) 562

EVIDENCE - Admission - Unsigned confessional statement - The statement should be admitted in evidence - But judge is to decide at the end of trial - The weight to be attached to it (H8) Ogudo v. State (2011) 10-12 KLR (pt. 301) 2373; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 1

EVIDENCE - Affidavits - Averments - Failure to deny - Effect - Any fact which has not been categorically denied - By a party - Is deemed to be admitted (H2) Efet v. INEC (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 289) 141; (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt.1247) 423

EVIDENCE - Affidavits - Averments - Failure to object - Averments in an affidavit which are not directly denied - Are deemed admitted - As in the case of appellant - With respect to the record of appeal (H1) Fed. Airports Authority of Nig v. Wamal Express Serv. (Nig) Ltd (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 290) 177; (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt.1249) 219

EVIDENCE - Affidavits - Depositions - Not challenged - Since paragraphs 13 and 14 of 3rd further affidavit were not disputed by appellants - They are deemed admitted (H5) Ajuwa v. S. P. D. C. Nig. Ltd (2011) 10-12 KLR (pt. 301) 2305; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 797

EVIDENCE - Appeals - Additional evidence - Appellate court can admit such evidence - On pleaded fact - Though such facts had earlier been deemed abandoned - For not being supported by evidence (H4) Onwubuariri v. Igboasoiyi (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 449; (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt.1234) 357

EVIDENCE - Appeals - Aviation matters - Plane crash - Evidence - Unchallenged at trial court - Effect - Supreme Court relied on same to hold that appellant was guilty of wilful misconduct (H2) Harka Air Services Ltd v. Keazor (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1771; (2011) 13 NWLR (Pt.1264) 320

EVIDENCE - Appeals - Concurrent findings - Attitude of appellate courts - Such findings are not ordinarily disturbed - Unless shown to be perverse - Or unsupported by evidence (H6) Eyo v. Onuoha (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 293) 781; (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt.1257) 1

EVIDENCE - Appeals - Concurrent findings - Attitude of Supreme Court - It will not disturb such findings - Unless they are shown to be perverse - Or not supported by evidence on record (H11) Onwubuariri v. Igboasoiyi (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 449; (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt.1234) 357

EVIDENCE - Appeals - Concurrent findings - Where the findings of libel are correct - As in this case - Supreme Court will not interfere (H6) Guardian v. Ajeh (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 294) 979; (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1256) 574

EVIDENCE - Appeals - Determination of - Role of appellate court - Is to assess evidence contained in judgment of trial court - In order to determine whether they are perverse - And are in consonance with applicable principles of law (H3) John v. State (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2651; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 353

EVIDENCE - Appeals - Documents - Exhibit - Status - It was obvious that it could have been obtained - With reasonable care and diligence - For use at the time of trial - If formerly briefed counsel went to archives for it (H6) Onwubuariri v. Igboasoiyi (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 449; (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt.1234) 357

EVIDENCE - Appeals - Evaluation - Findings of facts - Appellate court does not interfere - More so where it involves assessment of credibility of witnesses (H6) Arowolo v. Olowokere (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 303) 2795; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 280

EVIDENCE - Appeals - Finding of fact - Appellate court should not interfere with finding of fact if supported by evidence - Save where the finding is perverse (H6) Ogundepo v. Olumesan (2011) 10-12 KLR (pt. 301) 2413; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 54

EVIDENCE - Appeals - Findings of lower court - Interference by appellate court - It will interfere where the findings are not supported by credible evidence - Or are perverse and may have occasioned miscarriage of justice (H6) Ajagbe v. Idowu (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1639; (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt.1276) 422

EVIDENCE - Appeals - Fresh evidence - Admission of - Grounds - It must be such that could not have been obtained - With reasonable care at time of trial - And must be material (H5) Onwubuariri v. Igboasoiyi (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 449; (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt.1234) 357

EVIDENCE - Appeals - Fresh evidence - Application to adduce - Basis for the grant - It is granted if applicant is able to prove - Extreme impossibility to obtain evidence before trial - And that it is brought in the interest of justice (H1) Uzodinma v. Izunaso (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 297) 1513; (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt.1275) 30

EVIDENCE - Appeals - Grounds - Nature of - Is determined by examination - The three grounds are of mixed law and fact - They are questions of resolving conflict in evidence and exercise of jurisdiction (H9) Garuba v. Omokhodion (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1707; (2011) 15 NWLR (Pt.1269) 145

EVIDENCE - Appeals - Issues - Basis - Issues must be distilled from the grounds of appeal and not from abstract legal issues - Which have no reference to the facts of the case as herein (H2) Garuba v. Omokhodion (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1707; (2011) 15 NWLR (Pt.1269) 145

EVIDENCE - Appeals - Issues - Point of law not raised in lower court - Determination - Attitude of appellate Court - It is not to decide on it - Except when satisfied that it has all the facts - As if same had been raised in the lower court (H1) Garuba v. Omokhodion (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1707; (2011) 15 NWLR (Pt.1269) 145

EVIDENCE - Appeals - Issues of jurisdiction - Propriety of raising - The issue must be properly raised - As such must be one capable of being disposed of - Without the need to call additional evidence (H3) Agbiti v. The Nigerian Navy (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 339; (2011) 4 NWLR (Pt.1236) 175

EVIDENCE - Appeals - Reevaluation - When necessary - Where trial court failed to evaluate a document tendered in evidence - Without involving the credibility of the witness - Appellate court can evaluate - But this is not applicable in the present case (H6) Ayuya v. Yonrin (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 294) 877; (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1254) 135

EVIDENCE - Appeals - Rehearing - Invocation of s. 22 Supreme Court Act - Where the issue boarders on credibility of witnesses - Trial court is better equipped to rehear the matter - More so where Court of Appeal expressed no opinion on that issue (H2) Ovunwo v. Woko (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1825; (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt.1277) 522

EVIDENCE - Appeals - Rehearing - Propriety - It is ordered where evidence has not been properly evaluated - As the trial Court has neither seen nor heard the witnesses in that matter (H5) Ovunwo v. Woko (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1825; (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt.1277) 522

EVIDENCE - Appeals - Undisputed findings of lower court - Effect - Since appellant failed to dispute the findings that his acts constitute gross misconduct under exhibit P.18 - He is deemed to have accepted the findings as correct (H1) Imonikhe v. Unity Bank Plc (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 296) 1295; (2011) 12 NWLR (Pt.1262) 624

EVIDENCE - Armed robbery - Burden of proof - Prosecution must prove the offence charged beyond reasonable doubt - By producing enough evidence (H10) Ogudo v. State (2011) 10-12 KLR (pt. 301) 2373; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 1

EVIDENCE - Armed robbery - Identification parade - Necessity of - There must be real doubt as to the identity of a culprit - To require an identification parade - And no such doubt exists in this case (H2) Nwaturuocha v. The State (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 293) 821; (2011) 6 NWLR (Pt.1242) 170

EVIDENCE - Armed robbery - Identity of appellant - Whether proved - In view of the testimony of PW1 - Which trial judge believed - It is established that appellant committed the robbery (H3) Nwaturuocha v. The State (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 293) 821; (2011) 6 NWLR (Pt.1242) 170

EVIDENCE - Armed robbery - Ingredients - Proof - Prosecution must establish - That there was robbery in which accused participated - And that a person was wounded before or afterwards (H4) John v. State (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2651; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 353

EVIDENCE - Armed robbery - Ingredients - proof - The essential ingredients of the offence are - That there was robbery - In which the robbers were armed - And the accused person one of the robbers (H5) Eke v. The State (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 407; (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt.1235) 589

EVIDENCE - Armed robbery - Proof - Failure to tender the robbed motorcycle - Does not destroy the conclusive evidence led - As its description and whereabouts were consistently explained in court (H3) Ebeinwe v. The State (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 289) 125; (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt.1246) 402

EVIDENCE - Betrothal custom - Cogency of - All things considered the evidence adduced by appellant - On the custom as pleaded by him - Is neither cogent nor credible (H1) Eyo v. Onuoha (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 293) 781; (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt.1257) 1

EVIDENCE - Burden of proof - Beyond reasonable doubt - Discharge of - Where on the evidence adduced - The court is left with no doubt of accused person’s guilt - The burden is discharged (H5) Posu v. The State (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 477; (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt.1234) 393

EVIDENCE - Civil matters - Facts - Determination - Court must put two sets of facts presented by parties in an imaginary scale - Then decide upon the preponderance of credible evidence - Which weighs more and is preferable to the other (H1) Ogundepo v. Olumesan (2011) 10-12 KLR (pt. 301) 2413; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 54

EVIDENCE - Civil proceedings - Allegation of crime - Standard of proof - Where directly in issue - It must be specifically pleaded and proved beyond reasonable doubt (H4) Eya v. Olopade (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 296) 1271; (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt.1259) 505

EVIDENCE - Confession - Admissibility - If the confession is positive and direct - It is sufficient to convict an accused - Without any corroboration (H6) State v. Salawu (2011) 7 KLR (pt. 300) 2205; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 883

EVIDENCE - Confession - Admissibility - Statement made by accused to the police becomes objectionable - And inadmissible - If it is obtained under duress or by inducement (H3) State v. Salawu (2011) 7 KLR (pt. 300) 2205; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 883

EVIDENCE - Confession - Conviction based on retracted confession - Propriety - Court can convict on retracted confession - But there must be other independent evidence to corroborate it (H6) Ogudo v. State (2011) 10-12 KLR (pt. 301) 2373; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 1

EVIDENCE - Confession - Denial of - Effect - Where accused denies making the statement - Court will admit such statement in evidence - And may determine its probative value - At end of trial (H2) Ismai’l v. State (2011) 7 KLR (pt. 300) 2171; (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt.1277) 601

EVIDENCE - Confession - Denial of - Effect - Where accused denies making a statement - Court will admit such statement in evidence - And may determine its probative value - At end of trial (H1) State v. Salawu (2011) 7 KLR (pt. 300) 2205; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 883

EVIDENCE - Confession - Evidence Act s. 27(1) - Where accused confesses to a crime voluntarily - The burden of proving the offence is no longer required (H2) Torri v. National Park Service of Nigeria (2011) 7 KLR (pt. 300) 2239; (2011) 13 NWLR (Pt.1264) 365

EVIDENCE - Confession - Inconsistency rule - Application of - Where witness makes extra judicial statement inconsistent with his testimony at trial - The testimony is to be treated as unreliable - While the statement cannot be relied upon by court (H4) Ogudo v. State (2011) 10-12 KLR (pt. 301) 2373; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 1

EVIDENCE - Confession - Inconsistency rule - Limitation of - It is restricted to evidence of witness who made extra judicial statement inconsistent with evidence given at trial (H5) Ogudo v. State (2011) 10-12 KLR (pt. 301) 2373; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 1

EVIDENCE - Confession - Obtained under duress - Fate - Where accused alleges that he involuntarily made confession - Court should conduct a trial within trial - Otherwise the confession must be rejected (H3) Ogudo v. State (2011) 10-12 KLR (pt. 301) 2373; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 1

EVIDENCE - Confession - Proof - It is the duty of appellant herein - To prove that exhibit 4 was voluntarily made by respondent (H3) State v. Salawu (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 303) 3027; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 659

EVIDENCE - Confession - Validity - Court must be satisfied that it is voluntary - Where it is voluntary - Accused usually pleads guilty - And a conviction based upon such would not be upset on appeal (H2) Ogudo v. State (2011) 10-12 KLR (pt. 301) 2373; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 1

EVIDENCE - Confession - Voluntariness - Statement made by respondent on demand by the police officer - Cannot be said to have been voluntarily made (H1) State v. Salawu (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 303) 3027; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 659

EVIDENCE - Consideration of - Concurrent findings - Where lower courts properly considered evidence of both sides - Their findings would not be disturbed (H5) Ibekwe v. Nwosu (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 294) 1005; (2011) 9 NWLR (Pt.1251) 1

EVIDENCE - Contracts - Binding nature - Where parties have embodied the terms of their contract in a written document - Extrinsic evidence is not admissible to contradict the terms therein (H1) Babatunde v. Bank of the North Ltd (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2567; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 738

EVIDENCE - Contracts - Breach - Where evidence on record shows that - Appellant failed to pay consent fee - Such has occasioned breach of contract (H7) Best (Nig) Ltd v. Blackwood Hodge (Nig) Ltd. (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 289) 47; (2011) 5 NWLR (Pt.1239) 95

EVIDENCE - Contracts - Nonexistent contract - Binding nature - It is not binding on the parties - And there can be no breach of same - Appellant in this instance failed to prove any enforceable contract (H5) Bilante International Ltd. v. NDIC (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 299) 1895; (2011) 15 NWLR (Pt.1270) 407

EVIDENCE - Contracts - Specific performance - Basis for order - A party seeking for such order must show evidence - Of compliance with terms of contract - And no court of law should hold otherwise (H3) Best (Nig) Ltd v. Blackwood Hodge (Nig) Ltd. (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 289) 47; (2011) 5 NWLR (Pt.1239) 95

EVIDENCE - Contradiction - Effect - Inconsistency in evidence of prosecution must be significant - In order to negatively affect the substance of the case (H6) John v. State (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2651; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 353

EVIDENCE - Contradiction in - Effect - It is not all contradictions that result in rejection of evidence - It is only the contradiction that results in miscarriage of justice - That would warrant a rejection (H5) Wachukwu v. Owunwanne (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 297) 1581; (2011) 14 NWLR (Pt.1266) 1

EVIDENCE - Contradictions - Effect - The alleged contradictions in the prosecution’s case - Are not such as would have affected the substance of its case (H1) Ebeinwe v. The State (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 289) 125; (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt.1246) 402

EVIDENCE - Contradictions - Effect of - An accused that gave contradictory evidence - About his possession of firearms - Is guilty within the ambit of s.3 Robbery and Firearms Act (H5) State v. Oladotun (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 297) 1461; (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1256) 542

EVIDENCE - Contradictions - Warranting reversal of judgment - Nature of - To succeed in upturning a decision - The contradiction must be relevant and of great magnitude - That would cause a miscarriage of justice (H2) Ebeinwe v. The State (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 289) 125; (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt.1246) 402

EVIDENCE - Conviction - Based on circumstantial evidence - Propriety - Where such evidence is positive and direct - An accused can be properly convicted (H4) Ismai’l v. State (2011) 7 KLR (pt. 300) 2171; (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt.1277) 601

EVIDENCE - Courts - Evaluation of unchallenged evidence - Where evidence given by a party is not challenged by the adverse party - Who had opportunity to do so - The court ought to act positively thereon (H8) Cameroon Airlines v. Otutuizu (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 373; (2011) 4 NWLR (Pt.1238) 512

EVIDENCE - Courts - Facts - Where a Court takes judicial notice of a fact - Proof is no longer necessary - Party who wishes to dispute the fact must provide evidence (H1) Joseph v. State (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1807; (2011) 16 NWLR (Pt.1273) 226

EVIDENCE - Courts - Findings - Retrial - Where trial court failed to make finding on issues joined by parties in pleadings - Appellate Court will order a retrial - When the evidence is of a nature that it cannot make its own finding (H3) Nacenn Ltd v. Bewac Ltd (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 296) 1337; (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt.1257) 193

EVIDENCE - Crime - Alibi - Plea - Sustainability - Where there is evidence identifying an accused person - Who has pleaded alibi - At the scene of crime - The accused person has to call evidence in proof of his alibi (H4) Nwaturuocha v. The State (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 293) 821; (2011) 6 NWLR (Pt.1242) 170

EVIDENCE - Crime - Burden - Discharge of - When all the essential ingredients of the offence charged have been proved - The burden has been discharged (H7) Eke v. The State (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 407; (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt.1235) 589

EVIDENCE - Crime - Burden of proof - Beyond reasonable doubt - Meaning - Where essential ingredients of the offence have been proved - As done in this matter - The offence is proved beyond reasonable doubt (H5) Nwaturuocha v. The State (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 293) 821; (2011) 6 NWLR (Pt.1242) 170

EVIDENCE - Crime - Burden of proof - He who asserts the affirmative must prove same - No duty on a party to prove the negative - Appellant herein has a duty to prove that the fraud is within the contemplation of Criminal Code (H7) Imonikhe v. Unity Bank Plc (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 296) 1295; (2011) 12 NWLR (Pt.1262) 624

EVIDENCE - Crime - Defence - Evaluation - Where appellants’ evidence differed from their extrajudicial statements - And no explanation was given for such discrepancy - Trial judge was right - To hold their defence as an after thought (H4) Posu v. The State (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 477; (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt.1234) 393

EVIDENCE - Crime - Parties to an offence - Accomplice - Status - Unless it can be shown that a person did something - To further or aid the commission of an offence - He cannot be said to be an accomplice to that offence (H6) Posu v. The State (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 477; (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt.1234) 393

EVIDENCE - Crime - Rape - Ingredients - The most essential ingredient of rape - Is penetration - However slight (H1) Posu v. The State (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 477; (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt.1234) 393

EVIDENCE - Crime - Trial within trial - Failure to conduct - Effect - Where trial court fails to conduct trial within trial - Such failure will not be fatal - Unless it occasioned miscarriage of justice (H2) Eke v. The State (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 407; (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt.1235) 589

EVIDENCE - Criminal procedure - Failure to call vital witness - Effect - It is fatal to prosecution’s case - Because Evidence Act s.149 (d) raises presumption that the evidence if led - It will be unfavourable to prosecution (H9) Ogudo v. State (2011) 10-12 KLR (pt. 301) 2373; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 1

EVIDENCE - Criminal procedure - Failure to cross examine - Effect - Where an accused fails to dislodge the evidence of prosecution - Prosecution’s case is deemed proved beyond reasonable doubt (H6) State v. Oladotun (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 297) 1461; (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1256) 542

EVIDENCE - Criminal procedure - Proof - Duty of prosecution - Though prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt - It is not bound to call every eye witness at the scene of the crime (H3) Ochiba v. State (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2741; (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt.1277) 663

EVIDENCE - Criminal procedure - Standard of proof - Prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt - As required by Evidence Act s. 138 (H5) John v. State (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2651; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 353

EVIDENCE - Damages - Special damages - Proof - It must be pleaded and strictly proved - As such court is not entitled - To award same based on speculative estimate (H2) Union Bank Plc v. Ajabule (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2765; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 152

EVIDENCE - Damages - Special damages - Proof - Where it appears to be admitted - Party making the claim is not relieved - From proving it with compelling evidence (H8) NNPC v. Clifco Nig. Ltd (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 295) 1039; (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1255) 209

EVIDENCE - Defamation - Fair comment - Where statements published by a newspaper - Are not true - It will not succeed on a defence of fair comment (H7) Guardian v. Ajeh (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 294) 979; (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1256) 574

EVIDENCE - Documents - Conveyance - Evidence - Conclusiveness - Where parties have embodied the terms of their relevant agreements into written documents - No extrinsic evidence is admissible to contradict the terms therein (H2) Ogundepo v. Olumesan (2011) 10-12 KLR (pt. 301) 2413; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 54

EVIDENCE - Documents - Exhibit - Admissibility - Being evidence in a previous proceedings - Which can only be admissible under the provisions of s. 34 (1) of Evidence Act - Having not met the requirements - It was wrongly admitted (H9) Onwubuariri v. Igboasoiyi (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 449; (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt.1234) 357

EVIDENCE - Documents - Exhibit - Materiality - In view of findings of facts by the trial court - To which Court of Appeal agreed - In respect of traditional history and acts of ownership - The Exhibit is not material (H8) Onwubuariri v. Igboasoiyi (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 449; (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt.1234) 357

EVIDENCE - Documents - Exhibit C - Genuineness - In the absence of evidence to the contrary - Exhibit C is presumed to be genuine - By section 44 of Evidence Act (H3) Posu v. The State (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 477; (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt.1234) 393

EVIDENCE - Documents - Pleaded but not tendered - Effect - Non-tendering of such document at trial - Means that paragraphs of the pleadings in which it was pleaded - Have been abandoned (H3) Onwubuariri v. Igboasoiyi (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 449; (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt.1234) 357

EVIDENCE - Documents - Record of earlier proceedings - Admissibility - It ought to be shown that the party against whom it is sought to be admitted - Was a party to that earlier proceedings (H7) Onwubuariri v. Igboasoiyi (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 449; (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt.1234) 357

EVIDENCE - Estoppel - Issue estoppel - Finality of decision - Absence of - Where the relevant issue was not determined with finality in the earlier suit - The doctrine will not apply to bar it from being raised in another suit (H4) Bwacha v. Ikenya (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 289) 75; (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt.1235) 610

EVIDENCE - Estoppel - Issue estoppel - Identity of parties - Essence of - This requirement does not mean that the parties in both suits must be identical - It suffices that necessary parties to the relevant issue are the same (H2) Bwacha v. Ikenya (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 289) 75; (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt.1235) 610

EVIDENCE - Estoppel - Issue estoppel - Sameness of parties - Absence of - Where two necessary parties to the issue were absent in the earlier suit - The condition is not met - And the principle cannot be applied (H3) Bwacha v. Ikenya (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 289) 75; (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt.1235) 610

EVIDENCE - Estoppel - Issue estoppel - Scope of - Flexibility - The formulation of issue estoppel has not been static - It has been expanded to meet circumstances calling for application of the policy - That there must be an end to litigation (H1) Bwacha v. Ikenya (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 289) 75; (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt.1235) 610

EVIDENCE - Estoppel - Status - It is equivalent to an admission - And the party whom it affects will not be allowed - To plead against it or adduce evidence to contradict it (H3) A-G Rivers State v. A-G Akwa Ibom State (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 292) 525; (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt.1248) 31

EVIDENCE - Estoppel by conduct - Effect - It forbids a person who has led another to believe and act on a state of affairs - From turning round to disclaim that state of affairs (H2) A-G Rivers State v. A-G Akwa Ibom State (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 292) 525; (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt.1248) 31

EVIDENCE - Evaluation - Appeals - It is the duty of trial court to evaluate evidence - And not that of an appellate court - Except where an appellate court is called upon to reevaluate (H1) Wachukwu v. Owunwanne (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 297) 1581; (2011) 14 NWLR (Pt.1266) 1

EVIDENCE - Evaluation - Armed robbery - Wrongful conviction - Corroboration - Retracted confession - Court is to look out for independent evidence - That corroborates the confessional statement - And not merely rely on its belief or disbelief (H11) Ogudo v. State (2011) 10-12 KLR (pt. 301) 2373; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 1

EVIDENCE - Evaluation - Duty of trial court - Where parties rely on different versions of traditional history - The duty of the trial court is to determine the preferred version - In view of the evidence led in proof (H10) Onwubuariri v. Igboasoiyi (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 449; (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt.1234) 357

EVIDENCE - Evaluation - It is duty of trial court to evaluate evidence - And where it makes finding on credibility of witness - Appellate court will not interfere (H3) Congress for Progressive Change v. Independent National Electoral Commission (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 303) 2823; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 493

EVIDENCE - Evaluation - It is the duty of trial court - To evaluate and ascribe probative values to evidence of witnesses (H5) Arowolo v. Olowokere (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 303) 2795; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 280

EVIDENCE - Evaluation - It is the primary function of the court that saw and heard the witnesses - To assess their credibility - And to believe or disbelieve any of them (H1) Momoh v. Umoru (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 299) 1953; (2011) 15 NWLR (Pt.1270) 217

EVIDENCE - Evaluation - Scope - Court is to weigh the preponderance of evidence - And the balance of probability in determination of civil suits (H4) Ajagbe v. Idowu (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1639; (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt.1276) 422

EVIDENCE - Evaluation - Trial court is to evaluate evidence adduced by parties - Before arriving at a decision - Basis of the decision is not on the number of witnesses called - But on the quality or probative value of testimony of those witnesses (H5) Ayuya v. Yonrin (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 294) 877; (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1254) 135

EVIDENCE - Evaluation of - Is primary function of trial Court - Where such evaluation is justified - Appellate Court cannot disturb the findings (H2) Guardian v. Ajeh (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 294) 979; (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1256) 574

EVIDENCE - Facts not in dispute - Relevance of - Evidence of fact that is not in dispute - But is relevant to the matter in controversy - Is credible evidence that can be relied upon - For the determination of the matter (H1) Ajagbe v. Idowu (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1639; (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt.1276) 422

EVIDENCE - Fair hearing - Breach - Allegation of bias - Proof - What needs to be proved is real likelihood of bias - And no more (H7) Agbiti v. The Nigerian Navy (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 339; (2011) 4 NWLR (Pt.1236) 175

EVIDENCE - General damages - Proof - The quantum need not be pleaded and proved - As such it does not depend on calculation from specific items (H3) Union Bank Plc v. Ajabule (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2765; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 152

EVIDENCE - Inconsistency of - Criminal procedure - Where previous evidence is inconsistent with the one made at trial - Court should beside regarding the evidence at trial as unreliable - Be directed that the previous evidence is not relevant (H1) State v. Oladotun (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 297) 1461; (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1256) 542

EVIDENCE - Judgments - Contradictions - Effect - For contradictions in evidence to vitiate a decision - They must be material and substantial - Which is not the case herein (H4) Eke v. The State (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 407; (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt.1235) 589

EVIDENCE - Land law - Burden of proof - Balance of probability - How discharged - It is discharged only by adducing cogent and credible evidence - That has direct relevance to the matter in controversy - Which has not been done in this case (H5) Agboola v. UBA Plc & 2 Ors. (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 293) 725; (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt.1258) 375

EVIDENCE - Land law - Documents - Proof - Under Evidence Act s. 123 - Court will presume as valid - Documents which are not less than 20 years at the time of trial (H7) Ayanwale v. Odusami (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2549; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 328

EVIDENCE - Land law - Identity of the land - Counsel’s argument on same without pleadings is irrelevant - Since submissions cannot take the place of legal proof (H2) Ayanwale v. Odusami (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2549; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 328

EVIDENCE - Land law - Proof - Duty on claimant - There are five methods of proving title to land - And a claimant is not required to prove more than one of the methods - To succeed in his claim (H12) Onwubuariri v. Igboasoiyi (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 449; (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt.1234) 357

EVIDENCE - Land law - Proof - S.135 of Evidence Act 1990 - Since plaintiff herein has asserted that he was entitled to the land - Onus is on him to prove same (H5) Ogundepo v. Olumesan (2011) 10-12 KLR (pt. 301) 2413; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 54

EVIDENCE - Land law - Proof - Weakness of defence - Effect - Plaintiff cannot rely on weakness of defendant’s case - But on the strength of his own case - To succeed in his case (H7) Agboola v. UBA Plc & 2 Ors. (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 293) 725; (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt.1258) 375

EVIDENCE - Land law - Rule in Kojo v. Bonsie - Applicability - It applies where there is conflict in traditional histories - Presented by opposing parties - But not where the conflict is in a party’s presentation of his own traditional history (H5) Eyo v. Onuoha (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 293) 781; (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt.1257) 1

EVIDENCE - Land law - Unregistered registerable instrument - When admissible - Though such document be inadmissible in proof of title - It is nevertheless admissible to prove there was a transaction between the parties thereto (H6) Agboola v. UBA Plc & 2 Ors. (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 293) 725; (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt.1258) 375

EVIDENCE - Libel - Fair comment - Evaluation of evidence - Where appellants’ defence is that of fair comment - They should justify it - Rather than pursuing imaginary loophole on evaluation of evidence (H3) Guardian v. Ajeh (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 294) 979; (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1256) 574

EVIDENCE - Libel - Proof - Where plaintiff proved he was the person referred to in the article - And the relevant portion of the statement of claim is libelous - Trial Court complied with O. 9 r. 4 - And the principle in Okafor case - In finding defendants liable (H1) Guardian v. Ajeh (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 294) 979; (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1256) 574

EVIDENCE - Master & servant - Allegation of fraud - Proof - Alleged fraud can be proved - By considering the issued queries and replies thereto - Without a formal testimony of appellant before the disciplinary committee (H2) Imonikhe v. Unity Bank Plc (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 296) 1295; (2011) 12 NWLR (Pt.1262) 624

EVIDENCE - Murder - Standard of proof - Since the crime has been established beyond reasonable doubt - Appellant’s contention is of no moment (H2) Ochiba v. State (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2741; (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt.1277) 663

EVIDENCE - Perverse finding - Meaning - Finding is perverse when it runs counter to the evidence and pleadings - Or where it is shown that the judge considered extraneous matters - Or when the finding occasioned a miscarriage of justice (H3) Momoh v. Umoru (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 299) 1953; (2011) 15 NWLR (Pt.1270) 217

EVIDENCE – Pleadings - Averments - Bad traverse - Defendant’s averment to put the plaintiff to the strictest proof without more is a bad defence - And is deemed an admission by inference - In the absence of a clear denial (H2) Cameroon Airlines v. Otutuizu (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 373; (2011) 4 NWLR (Pt.1238) 512

EVIDENCE - Pleadings - Averments - Documents relied on - How pleaded - Pleadings are meant to be specific - So such documents must be specifically pleaded - Which was not the case with exhibit 1 herein (H1) Agboola v. UBA Plc & 2 Ors. (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 293) 725; (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt.1258) 375

EVIDENCE - Pleadings - Binding nature - Effect - Parties are bound by their pleadings - As such evidence not pleaded goes to no issue - But if mistakenly admitted - Appellate court must disregard it (H1) Union Bank Plc v. Ajabule (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2765; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 152

EVIDENCE - Pleadings - Damages - Special damages - It must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved - With sufficient and credible evidence in support (H3) Ajagbe v. Idowu (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1639; (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt.1276) 422

EVIDENCE - Pleadings - Land law - Averments - Scope - Though parties are not expected to plead evidence - Every fact touching on the root of claim of title - Must be pleaded specifically (H3) Agboola v. UBA Plc & 2 Ors. (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 293) 725; (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt.1258) 375

EVIDENCE - Presumption - Regularity of an act - It is presumed that election result declared by a returning officer is correct - As such the burden of rebutting is on the party who denies its correctness (H7) Congress for Progressive Change v. Independent National Electoral Commission (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 303) 2823; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 493

EVIDENCE - Proof - Company law - Incorporation of 1st plaintiff - Whether established - Appellants as plaintiffs failed to prove the fact of incorporation - Though they pleaded it in their pleadings - As the tendered copy of certificate is inadmissible in law (H3) Goodwill & Trust Invest. Ltd. v. Witt & Bush Ltd. (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 292) 697; (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt.1250) 500

EVIDENCE - Proof - Master & servant - Termination - Validity - Dismissal of appellant - Complied with the contract of employment - Since the allegation of his misconduct was satisfactorily proved before the disciplinary committee (H4) Imonikhe v. Unity Bank Plc (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 296) 1295; (2011) 12 NWLR (Pt.1262) 624

EVIDENCE - Proof - Reliance on inadmissible evidence - Effect on appeal - Where there remains other piece of evidence - As may sustain the finding outside that complained of - Such finding will not be reversed on appeal (H3) Eyo v. Onuoha (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 293) 781; (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt.1257) 1

EVIDENCE - Proof - Words & phrases - Contract of employment - Use of “fraud” and “dishonesty” in exhibit P.18 - The words are used in general sense and not with criminal flavour - As such standard of proof in this case is on balance of probability (H3) Imonikhe v. Unity Bank Plc (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 296) 1295; (2011) 12 NWLR (Pt.1262) 624

EVIDENCE - Proof beyond reasonable doubt - Meaning - Does not mean proof beyond all shadow of doubt - Prosecution must not call several witnesses - Testimony of a quality witness can be sufficient - Save corroboration is needed (H2) Joseph v. State (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1807; (2011) 16 NWLR (Pt.1273) 226

EVIDENCE - Proof beyond reasonable doubt - Meaning - It does not mean proof beyond shadow of doubt - It is attained where the evidence leave a remote possibility in favour of accused person (H4) Ebeinwe v. The State (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 289) 125; (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt.1246) 402

EVIDENCE - Public document - Admission - Evidence Act s. 111 (1) - Condition precedent - Appellants must pay the legal fees stipulated - Without which their documents cannot be admitted in evidence (H3) Tabik Investment Ltd v. Guaranty Trust Bank Plc (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1853; (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt.1276) 240

EVIDENCE - Public document - Application to secure - Evidence Act s. 111 (1) - Condition precedent - Approved legal fees must be paid by person seeking to secure it (H1) Tabik Investment Ltd v. Guaranty Trust Bank Plc (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1853; (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt.1276) 240

EVIDENCE - Public documents - Effect of non-certification - The non-certification of public documents - Such as volume 11 of the record of appeal herein - Makes it an unreliable evidence (H2) Fed. Airports Authority of Nig v. Wamal Express Serv. (Nig) Ltd (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 290) 177; (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt.1249) 219

EVIDENCE - Rape - Proof of penetration - Evidence of PW2 showed that appellants penetrated her - Which evidence is confirmed by the doctor’s report (H2) Posu v. The State (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 477; (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt.1234) 393

EVIDENCE - Rape - Testimony of victim - Source of corroboration - Court may seek corroboration from doctor’s report - Or other real evidence - Like the torn dress of victim - As was done in this case (H8) Posu v. The State (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 477; (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt.1234) 393

EVIDENCE - Reevaluation - Justification - Where credibility of witness is not in issue - Appellate court is in good position as trial court - To reevaluate a piece of evidence (H7) Ogundepo v. Olumesan (2011) 10-12 KLR (pt. 301) 2413; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 54

EVIDENCE - Reevaluation on appeal - Propriety - Provided it does not involve credibility of witnesses - Appellate court can reevaluate evidence and make its own findings (H4) Congress for Progressive Change v. Independent National Electoral Commission (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 303) 2823; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 493

EVIDENCE - Testimonies - Contradictions - Existence - Testimonies of witnesses can only be said to be contradictory - When they give inconsistent accounts - Of the same event (H3) Eke v. The State (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 407; (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt.1235) 589

EVIDENCE - Title - Arising from a common owner - Proof - Where both parties trace their title to a common owner - The 1st party to purchase the land has a better claim in law and equity (H6) Ayanwale v. Odusami (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2549; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 328

EVIDENCE - Title - Establishment of - Idundun v. Okumagba - Lays down five ways to prove ownership of a piece of land (H4) Ayanwale v. Odusami (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2549; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 328

EVIDENCE - Title - Pleadings and evidence - Sufficiency of - Plaintiffs failed to establish a better title - Since they merely stated that their grandfathers settled on the land many years ago (H1) Dauda v. A-G Lagos State (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 296) 1251; (2011) 13 NWLR (Pt.1265) 427

EVIDENCE - Title - Presumption - It is presumed that the person with title is in possession - And once ascertained - Claim for trespass and injunction is sustained (H8) Ayanwale v. Odusami (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2549; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 328

EVIDENCE - Title - Proof - Onus on plaintiff - He needs to succeed on the strength of his own case - And not to rely on the weakness of defence (H4) Ogundepo v. Olumesan (2011) 10-12 KLR (pt. 301) 2413; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 54

EVIDENCE - Title - Proof - Plaintiff is to plead his root of title - And he must lead evidence to sustain his pleadings (H5) Ayanwale v. Odusami (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2549; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 328

EVIDENCE - Title - Proof - Plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his case - And not on the weakness of the defence - Except where the case of the defence supports that of plaintiff (H2) Eya v. Olopade (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 296) 1271; (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt.1259) 505

EVIDENCE - Title - Proof - Plaintiff seeking a declaration of title to land - Is to establish his case on preponderance of evidence - Whereupon the court weighs evidence of the parties in imaginary scale - In order to make its finding (H3) Wachukwu v. Owunwanne (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 297) 1581; (2011) 14 NWLR (Pt.1266) 1

EVIDENCE - Title - Proof - Plaintiff succeeds on strength of his case - Not on weakness of defence - And court is to decide on preponderance of evidence (H3) Dakolo v. Dakolo (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1663; (2011) 16 NWLR (Pt.1272) 22

EVIDENCE - Title - Proof - Plaintiff succeeds on the strength of his case - And not on the weakness of the defence (H3) Ayanwale v. Odusami (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2549; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 328

EVIDENCE - Title - Proof - Standard of proof required is on the preponderance of evidence - Appellants herein have the burden to prove that the said boundary extends over surrounding land and bushes - As pleaded by them - Which they discharged (H1) Ayuya v. Yonrin (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 294) 877; (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1254) 135

EVIDENCE - Trial within trial - When to hold - When admissibility of a statement is challenged - On ground that it was not made voluntarily - Trial within trial must be conducted - To ascertain whether it was voluntary (H1) Eke v. The State (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 407; (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt.1235) 589

EVIDENCE - Unchallenged evidence - Admissibility - Court rightly relied on the pieces of evidence - Since there were no objections to their admissibility (H1) John v. State (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2651; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 353

EVIDENCE - Unchallenged evidence - Admissibility - Court to rely on and accept as true - Evidence that was neither challenged nor cross examined by the other party (H2) Nacenn Ltd v. Bewac Ltd (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 296) 1337; (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt.1257) 193

EVIDENCE - Unchallenged evidence - Admissibility of - Such evidence is credible - And court is to rely on same in determination of the case (H4) Yusuf v. State (2011) 7 KLR (pt. 300) 2261; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 853

EVIDENCE - Unchallenged evidence - Relevance of - Evidence not challenged nor debunked - Becomes good and credible evidence - To be relied upon by Court (H2) State v. Oladotun (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 297) 1461; (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1256) 542

EVIDENCE - Undefended list - Transfer to general cause list - Basis - Where there was conflicting affidavit evidence of parties - A triable issue had risen - Which should be transferred to the general cause list (H7) Fed. Airports Authority of Nig v. Wamal Express Serv. (Nig) Ltd (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 290) 177; (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt.1249) 219

EVIDENCE - Weight - Unsigned confessional statement - Court should exercise extreme caution in respect of such statement - And very little or no weight should be attached to it (H7) Ogudo v. State (2011) 10-12 KLR (pt. 301) 2373; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 1

EVIDENCE - Withholding of evidence - Effect - By virtue of s. 149 (d) Evidence Act - Court is entitled to hold that - Evidence withheld by the police - Is unfavourable to the party withholding same (H2) State v. Salawu (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 303) 3027; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 659

EVIDENCE - Witnesses - Crime - Proof - It is left to the prosecution to call the number of witnesses required to prove its case - It is immaterial that the customers whose accounts were manipulated were not called as witnesses (H4) Adejobi v. State (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1613; (2011) 12 NWLR (Pt.1261) 347

EVIDENCE - Words & phrases - Cogency and credibility - Meaning - For evidence to be cogent and credible - It must be strong and uncontroverted - And must not be self-contradicting (H2) Eyo v. Onuoha (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 293) 781; (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt.1257) 1

EVIDENCE - Words & phrases - Contradictions - Meaning - The word ‘contradiction’ traces its lexical roots to two Latin words - Namely ‘contra’ and ‘dictum’ - Which means the opposite (H3) Eke v. The State (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 407; (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt.1235) 589

EVIDENCE - Wrongful admission - Effect - Evidence which is wrongfully admitted - Cannot be a ground for the reversal of any decision - Which could otherwise be sustained by any standard (H3) Chukwuma v. FRN (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 296) 1221; (2011) 13 NWLR (Pt.1264) 391

FAIR HEARING - Appeals - Complaint of breach - Propriety - Since appellant failed to utilize the opportunities to argue his defence - He cannot be heard to complain of denial of fair hearing (H2) Ogunsanya v. State (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 299) 2081; (2011) 12 NWLR (Pt.1261) 401

FAIR HEARING - Appeals - Courts - Issues - Not considered - Effect - Failure to consider the propriety of arguments raised by cross appellant - Led to breach of fair hearing - And such was improper and prejudicial (H14) Best (Nig) Ltd v. Blackwood Hodge (Nig) Ltd. (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 289) 47; (2011) 5 NWLR (Pt.1239) 95

FAIR HEARING - Breach - Allegation of bias - Proof - What needs to be proved is real likelihood of bias - And no more (H7) Agbiti v. The Nigerian Navy (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 339; (2011) 4 NWLR (Pt.1236) 175

FAIR HEARING - Breach - Effect - Being a constitutionally guaranteed right - Any breach of fair hearing in trials - As in this case - Renders same null and void (H9) Agbiti v. The Nigerian Navy (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 339; (2011) 4 NWLR (Pt.1236) 175

FAIR HEARING - Breach - Effect on judgment - Such judgment will be discountenanced on appeal - As right to fair hearing is entrenched in the Constitution (H4) Ovunwo v. Woko (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1825; (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt.1277) 522

FAIR HEARING - Breach - Failure to read and explain the charge of culpable homicide to accused - Constitutes a violation of the rules of fair hearing (H3) Yusuf v. State (2011) 7 KLR (pt. 300) 2261; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 853

FAIR HEARING - Breach - Proof - Where the circumstances complained of - Are covered by the slip rule as in this case - There is no breach of fair hearing (H6) Adeogun v. Fasogbon (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 292) 663; (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt.1250) 427

FAIR HEARING - Breach of - Complaint against - Propriety - Appellant who had the opportunity of being heard - But failed to utilize same - Cannot complain of breach of fair hearing (H3) S & D Construction Co. Ltd v. Ayoku (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 299) 2109; (2011) 13 NWLR (Pt.1265) 487

FAIR HEARING - Jurisdiction - Suo motu raising by court - Propriety - Where court decides to suo motu raise the issue of jurisdiction - It must give fair hearing to parties (H2) Lado v. Congress for Progressive Change (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2679; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 689

FAIR HEARING - Jurisdiction - Suo motu raising by court - Propriety - Court must give fair hearing to parties - But failure to do so may not lead to a reversal - As appellant must also show how the failure has occasioned a miscarriage of justice (H3) Ogembe v. Usman (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 303) 2961; (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt.1277) 638

FAIR HEARING - Legal Practitioners - Arbitration - Since counsel is free to conduct his case - As he decides barring fraud against his client - He cannot say fair hearing was denied - Where he acquiesced to the procedure in issue (H3) NNPC v. Clifco Nig. Ltd (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 295) 1039; (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1255) 209

FAIR HEARING - Master & servant - Dismissal - Complaint of breach of fair hearing - Propriety - Since appellant was given fair hearing prior to his dismissal - His complaint of denial of same has no basis (H4) Eze v. Spring Bank Plc. (2011) 10-12 KLR (pt. 301) 2347; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 113

FAIR HEARING - Master & servant - Termination - Validity - Since appellant was given fair hearing before the Tribunal - His dismissal cannot be set aside merely because he was not subjected to criminal prosecution (H5) Imonikhe v. Unity Bank Plc (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 296) 1295; (2011) 12 NWLR (Pt.1262) 624

FAIR HEARING - Meaning - It entails compliance with 1999 Constitution s. 36 - And proper administration of justice and equity in a particular matter (H1) Ogunsanya v. State (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 299) 2081; (2011) 12 NWLR (Pt.1261) 401

FAIR HEARING - Objection - On likelihood of bias - Need to decide - Where there is objection on grounds of bias - A tribunal should give a ruling on the objection - Else it will be acting in breach of objector’s right to fair hearing (H6) Agbiti v. The Nigerian Navy (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 339; (2011) 4 NWLR (Pt.1236) 175

FAIR HEARING - On real likelihood of bias - Test of - The test is that there must be circumstances - From which a reasonable man would think it likely - That the decision maker would favour one side unfairly (H8) Agbiti v. The Nigerian Navy (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 339; (2011) 4 NWLR (Pt.1236) 175

FAIR HEARING - Principles - Application of principles of natural justice is not limited to judicial proceedings - It is applicable to every situation involving determination of right of a person (H2) Eze v. Spring Bank Plc. (2011) 10-12 KLR (pt. 301) 2347; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 113

FAIR HEARING - Principles - Basis - It entails a trial conducted in accordance with the rules of natural justice - There is no denial of fair hearing in this case - Since appellant failed to complain of irregularity in judicial procedure (H3) Torri v. National Park Service of Nigeria (2011) 7 KLR (pt. 300) 2239; (2011) 13 NWLR (Pt.1264) 365

FAIR HEARING - Principles - Basis - It is determined from the facts of a case - The facts of this case do not reveal any infraction of appellant’s right to fair hearing (H2) Olowu v. Nigerian Navy (2011) 10-12 KLR (pt. 301) 2435; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 659

FAMILY LAW - Chieftaincy matters - Right of action - Since respondent asserted his family’s right and his interest to the stool of Itele - He has locus standi to bring the action - By virtue of 1999 Constitution s. 6(6) (H2) Arowolo v. Olowokere (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 303) 2795; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 280

FRAUD - Appeals - Issues - Joinder of - Issues between parties are joined in the pleadings - The parties joined issues as to whether the alleged fraud is as defined under the Criminal Code or used in ordinary general sense (H6) Imonikhe v. Unity Bank Plc (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 296) 1295; (2011) 12 NWLR (Pt.1262) 624

FRAUD - Evidence - Crime - Burden of proof - He who asserts the affirmative must prove same - No duty on a party to prove the negative - Appellant herein has a duty to prove that the fraud is within the contemplation of Criminal Code (H7) Imonikhe v. Unity Bank Plc (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 296) 1295; (2011) 12 NWLR (Pt.1262) 624

FRAUD - Master & servant - Allegation of fraud - Proof - Alleged fraud can be proved - By considering the issued queries and replies thereto - Without a formal testimony of appellant before the disciplinary committee (H2) Imonikhe v. Unity Bank Plc (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 296) 1295; (2011) 12 NWLR (Pt.1262) 624

FRAUD - Pleadings - Fraud - Allegation of - The particulars of alleged fraud must be specifically pleaded - Before a party can rely on fraud (H3) Eya v. Olopade (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 296) 1271; (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt.1259) 505

FRAUD - Words & phrases - Contract of employment - Use of “fraud” and “dishonesty” in exhibit P.18 - The words are used in general sense and not with criminal flavour - As such standard of proof in this case is on balance of probability (H3) Imonikhe v. Unity Bank Plc (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 296) 1295; (2011) 12 NWLR (Pt.1262) 624

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS - Fair hearing - Breach - Effect - Being a constitutionally guaranteed right - Any breach of fair hearing in trials - As in this case - Renders same null and void (H9) Agbiti v. The Nigerian Navy (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 339; (2011) 4 NWLR (Pt.1236) 175

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS - Fair hearing - Breach - Effect on judgment - Such judgment will be discountenanced on appeal - As right to fair hearing is entrenched in the Constitution (H4) Ovunwo v. Woko (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1825; (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt.1277) 522

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS - Right to life - Section 33(1) of the Constitution - Limits - The right under the section is not absolute - It may be deprived in execution of the sentence of a Court of law - In respect of a criminal offence (H7) Amoshima v. State (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 299) 1869; (2011) 14 NWLR (Pt.1268) 530

IDENTIFICATION PARADE - Necessity of - There must be real doubt as to the identity of a culprit - To require an identification parade - And no such doubt exists in this case (H2) Nwaturuocha v. The State (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 293) 821; (2011) 6 NWLR (Pt.1242) 170

IDENTIFICATION PARADE - Relevancy - The adduced facts warrant conduct of identification - But the police adopted a procedure fatal to appellant’s case (H4) State v. Salawu (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 303) 3027; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 659

INJUNCTION - Title - Presumption - It is presumed that the person with title is in possession - And once ascertained - Claim for trespass and injunction is sustained (H8) Ayanwale v. Odusami (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2549; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 328

INTERESTS - Commercial law - Unlawful withholding of money - Remedy applicable - A party who unlawfully withholds another’s money - Is liable to pay compensation by way of interest (H1) A.G. Ferrero & Co. Ltd v. Henkel Chemicals Nig. Ltd (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1691; (2011) 13 NWLR (Pt.1265) 592

INTERESTS - Contracts - Terms - Binding nature - Parties are bound by the terms of the contract - And court must give effect to same - Award of the 25% interest rate in this instance is wrong (H2) A.G. Ferrero & Co. Ltd v. Henkel Chemicals Nig. Ltd (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1691; (2011) 13 NWLR (Pt.1265) 592

INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS - Appeals - Briefs - Competence - Mohammed v. Bamgbose - Distinguished - Where an appeal has already been filed - The brief is not made incompetent - For being filed before the appeal is entered - As distinguished from this case (H2) National Inland Waterways Authority v. SPDC Nig. Ltd (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 290) 211; (2011) 6 NWLR (Pt.1244) 618

INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS - Appeals - Refusal - Justification - Where the grant of such application - Will amount to determination of a pending appeal - The application should be refused (H2) Shinning Star Nig. Ltd. v. Ask Steel Nig. Ltd. (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 290) 233; (2011) 4 NWLR (Pt.1238) 596

INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS - Courts - Applications - Duty to decide - It is the duty of a court to decide any application before it - Notwithstanding its pretrial opinion thereon - It is a party’s constitutional right (H3) Fed. Airports Authority of Nig v. Wamal Express Serv. (Nig) Ltd (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 290) 177; (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt.1249) 219

INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS - Courts - Determination of - It is not for court to determine at interlocutory stage - Any questions that have arisen in the pleadings - Or that would arise for resolution in the substantive suit (H1) Ovunwo v. Woko (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1825; (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt.1277) 522

INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS - Judgments - Validity - Pending applications - A judgment delivered without first deciding all interlocutory applications - Is a nullity and liable to be set aside (H4) Fed. Airports Authority of Nig v. Wamal Express Serv. (Nig) Ltd (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 290) 177; (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt.1249) 219

INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS - Treatment of - Appeals - Where such application seeks the same reliefs - As the substantive suit - The end of justice may be better served in hearing the main suit (H1) Shinning Star Nig. Ltd. v. Ask Steel Nig. Ltd. (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 290) 233; (2011) 4 NWLR (Pt.1238) 596

INTERLOCUTORY PROCEEDINGS - Appeals - Extension of time - The word ‘prepare’ - Purpose - Respondent’s submission that the application is incompetent - Was misconceived - As shown by the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the word ‘prepare’ (H1) National Inland Waterways Authority v. SPDC Nig. Ltd (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 290) 211; (2011) 6 NWLR (Pt.1244) 618

INTERLOCUTORY PROCEEDINGS - Appeals - Interlocutory decision - Within a final decision - Appellant can appeal against it - In an appeal against the final decision of a court - Without filing separate notice of appeal (H2) Onwubuariri v. Igboasoiyi (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 449; (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt.1234) 357

INTERNATIONAL LAW - Carriage by air - Rights and liabilities of carriers - Applicable law - The Warsaw Convention is the applicable law - Having been incorporated into Nigerian law in 1953 - It is an existing law under the Constitution (H4) Cameroon Airlines v. Otutuizu (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 373; (2011) 4 NWLR (Pt.1238) 512

INTERNATIONAL LAW - Domestic application - Where domestic or common law right has been enacted into a statutory provision - It is to that statutory provision that resort must be had for such right - And not the domestic or common law (H4) Harka Air Services Ltd v. Keazor (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1771; (2011) 13 NWLR (Pt.1264) 320

ISLAMIC LAW - Actions - Locus standi - Islamic law - The present parties who have substituted the original parties - Must continue to keep the suit alive (H5) Opobiyi v. Muniru (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 303) 3007; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 387

JUDGMENTS - Appeals - Application for extension of time - Reason for delay - When irrelevant - It is not considered where ground of appeal is on lack of jurisdiction - Arising prima facie from the judgment (H5) Nwora v. Nwabueze (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 299) 2041; (2011) 15 NWLR (Pt.1271) 467

JUDGMENTS - Appeals - Challenge - Procedure - By s. 233 of the Constitution - An aggrieved party cannot challenge a decision by filing a preliminary objection - He must come by filing an appeal (H1) SPDC v. Amadi (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 297) 1429; (2011) 14 NWLR (Pt.1266) 157

JUDGMENTS - Appeals - Determination of - Role of appellate court - Is to assess evidence contained in judgment of trial court - In order to determine whether they are perverse - And are in consonance with applicable principles of law (H3) John v. State (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2651; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 353

JUDGMENTS - Appeals - Failure to appeal - Effect - Party that fails to appeal against the decision of trial Court - Cannot on further appeal to Supreme Court - Seek the setting aside of such decision (H1) Adejobi v. State (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1613; (2011) 12 NWLR (Pt.1261) 347

JUDGMENTS - Appeals - Findings of facts - Failure to attack - Effect - Appellant is deemed to have accepted the decisions of the lower court thereto (H6) Amoshima v. State (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 299) 1869; (2011) 14 NWLR (Pt.1268) 530

JUDGMENTS - Appeals - Grounds of appeal - Must correlate with as well as arise from the decision appealed against - And should attack the ratio of the decision - Otherwise it is baseless and liable to be struck out (H3) Garuba v. Omokhodion (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1707; (2011) 15 NWLR (Pt.1269) 145

JUDGMENTS - Appeals - Grounds of appeal - Purpose of - They attack the defects in the ratio decidendi - Thus deciding an issue based on a ground - That will not secure setting aside of judgment - Is an exercise in futility (H7) Daniel Tayar Trans. Ent. Ltd. v. Busari (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 290) 271; (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt.1249) 387

JUDGMENTS - Appeals - Grounds of appeal - Validity - It must be against a decision being appealed - And should constitute a challenge to the ratio of the decision - And not obiter dictum (H1) Onafowokan v. Wema Bank Plc. (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 297) 1395; (2011) 12 NWLR (Pt.1260) 24

JUDGMENTS - Appeals - Interlocutory decision - Within a final decision - Appellant can appeal against it - In an appeal against the final decision of a court - Without filing separate notice of appeal (H2) Onwubuariri v. Igboasoiyi (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 449; (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt.1234) 357

JUDGMENTS - Appeals - Issue for determination - Essence of - Is that a decision thereon - Will affect the fate of the appeal (H6) Daniel Tayar Trans. Ent. Ltd. v. Busari (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 290) 271; (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt.1249) 387

JUDGMENTS - Appeals - Issues - Argument of counsel - Propriety - Issue of immediate delivery of judgment - Did not feature significantly before the Court of Appeal - So argument of appellants’ counsel on the point did not arise for determination (H3) APGA v. Umeh (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 293) 755; (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt.1250) 544

JUDGMENTS - Appeals - Issues - Point of law not raised in lower court - Determination - Attitude of appellate Court - It is not to decide on it - Except when satisfied that it has all the facts - As if same had been raised in the lower court (H1) Garuba v. Omokhodion (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1707; (2011) 15 NWLR (Pt.1269) 145

JUDGMENTS - Appeals - Issues raised - Legitimacy - Any issue mentioned in a judgment - Which has no bearing on the complaints before the court - Is an orbiter dictum - And cannot legitimately arise on appeal against the judgment (H1) APGA v. Umeh (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 293) 755; (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt.1250) 544

JUDGMENTS - Appeals - Leave - Grant of the application - Condition precedent - Applicant must prove that his interest has been prejudicially affected - By the decision he is seeking leave to appeal against (H2) CPC v. Nyako (2011) 7 KLR (pt. 300) 2147; (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt.1277) 451

JUDGMENTS - Appeals - Meaning - It is a review of lower court’s decision by a higher court - The purpose is to see if lower court properly considered facts and arrived at a correct decision (H4) Contract Resource Nig. Ltd v. UBA Plc (2011) 7 KLR (pt. 300) 2131; (2011) 16 NWLR (Pt.1274) 592

JUDGMENTS - Appeals - Mistakes - Effect - It is not every mistake that will result in setting aside on appeal - Only such mistake that is material - And has eroded the foundation of the decision (H2) Adeogun v. Fasogbon (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 292) 663; (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt.1250) 427

JUDGMENTS - Appeals - Right of appeal - 1999 Constitution s. 243(a) - It is a party in a suit that can appeal - Interested party must seek and obtain leave of court in order to appeal (H5) Contract Resource Nig. Ltd v. UBA Plc (2011) 7 KLR (pt. 300) 2131; (2011) 16 NWLR (Pt.1274) 592

JUDGMENTS - Arrest of - Vide stay ordered by appellate court - Propriety - Rules of court do not provide for arrest of judgments about to be delivered - Save to prevent abuse of court process (H6) Shettima v. Goni (2011) 10-12 KLR (pt. 301) 2481; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 413

JUDGMENTS - Certiorari - Remedy of - Relation to right of appeal - Where the remedy is available to a party - As well as an option to appeal - He may only choose between the two options (H5) ACB Plc v. Nwaigwe (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 289) 1; (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt.1246) 380

JUDGMENTS - Confusion in - Power to correct - Section 22 Supreme Court Act - Empowers Supreme Court to correct any confusion in judgment of Court of Appeal (H3) Institute of Health Ahmadu Bello University Hospital Management Board v. Anyip (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 296) 1319; (2011) 12 NWLR (Pt.1260) 1

JUDGMENTS - Consent judgment - Effect of - Non consenting parties - That took steps unto getting the courts - To set aside the judgment - Are not bound by it (H1) Daniel Tayar Trans. Ent. Ltd. v. Busari (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 290) 271; (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt.1249) 387

JUDGMENTS - Consent judgment - Nature & legal effect - It is not like regular judgment of the court - Entered after trial - What matters is the agreement of parties - Which is binding on them (H2) Daniel Tayar Trans. Ent. Ltd. v. Busari (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 290) 271; (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt.1249) 387

JUDGMENTS - Courts - Delivery of judgment - Basis - Court can only pronounce judgment based on properly adduced credible evidence - And not on extraneous matters (H6) Congress for Progressive Change v. Independent National Electoral Commission (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 303) 2823; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 493

JUDGMENTS - Courts - Errors - Means of correction - It need not be by means of an appeal - Where the error by the court is under the slip rule - Or under its inherent jurisdiction to give effect to its apparent intention (H1) Adeogun v. Fasogbon (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 292) 663; (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt.1250) 427

JUDGMENTS - Courts - Jurisdiction - Absence of - Effect - Where a court lacks jurisdiction over a matter - Its proceedings and judgment given therein - Is null and void - And liable to be set aside (H5) Ucha v. Onwe (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 290) 303; (2011) 4 NWLR (Pt.1237) 386

JUDGMENTS - Criminal procedure - Trial within trial - Failure to conduct - Effect - Where trial court fails to conduct trial within trial - Such failure will not be fatal - Unless it occasioned miscarriage of justice (H2) Eke v. The State (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 407; (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt.1235) 589

JUDGMENTS - Damages - Award in foreign currency - Propriety of - Nigerian Courts have jurisdiction to make an award in foreign currency - Court of Appeal was correct to have invoked the right process of law - By awarding the damages in foreign currency (H8) Harka Air Services Ltd v. Keazor (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1771; (2011) 13 NWLR (Pt.1264) 320

JUDGMENTS - Decisions not appealed - Binding nature - Such decision not complained against - Like that of trial court closing the issue of address - Is deemed to have been accepted by appellant (H4) APGA v. Umeh (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 293) 755; (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt.1250) 544

JUDGMENTS - Declaratory judgment - Further orders made - Stay of execution - Further orders may be subject to a stay - Onus is on the judge to examine the judgment - And decide if it contains further orders that cannot be stayed (H4) SPDC v. Amadi (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 297) 1429; (2011) 14 NWLR (Pt.1266) 157

JUDGMENTS - Declaratory judgment - Nature of - It essentially creates a res judicata and can be relied upon as an estoppel - As such it cannot be stayed (H3) SPDC v. Amadi (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 297) 1429; (2011) 14 NWLR (Pt.1266) 157

JUDGMENTS - Election petitions - Appeals - National Assembly Election - Finality of decision applies - To interlocutory decision and judgment of Court of Appeal (H3) Emordi v. Igbeke (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 294) 967; (2011) 9 NWLR (Pt.1251) 24

JUDGMENTS - Election petitions - Appeals - Order made to arrest judgment - Propriety - The order is contrary to the accelerated hearing of the petition - And the provisions of paragraph 18(1) Practice Directions 2011 (H5) Shettima v. Goni (2011) 10-12 KLR (pt. 301) 2481; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 413

JUDGMENTS - Estoppel - Res judicata - Applicability - Where judgment in a suit is decided on same subject matter and between same parties - The suit cannot be relitigated by any of the parties (H1) Dakolo v. Dakolo (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1663; (2011) 16 NWLR (Pt.1272) 22

JUDGMENTS - Estoppel - Res judicata - Conclusive nature of judgment - Applies in this case - A successful plea of res judicata precludes an attempt to relitigate the action (H2) Dauda v. A-G Lagos State (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 296) 1251; (2011) 13 NWLR (Pt.1265) 427

JUDGMENTS - Evidence - Contradictions - Effect - For contradictions in evidence to vitiate a decision - They must be material and substantial - Which is not the case herein (H4) Eke v. The State (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 407; (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt.1235) 589

JUDGMENTS - Evidence - Contradictions - Warranting reversal of judgment - Nature of - To succeed in upturning a decision - The contradiction must be relevant and of great magnitude - That would cause a miscarriage of justice (H2) Ebeinwe v. The State (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 289) 125; (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt.1246) 402

JUDGMENTS - Evidence - Conviction based on retracted confession - Propriety - Court can convict on retracted confession - But there must be other independent evidence to corroborate it (H6) Ogudo v. State (2011) 10-12 KLR (pt. 301) 2373; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 1

JUDGMENTS - Evidence - Evaluation - Armed robbery - Wrongful conviction - Retracted confession - Court is to look out for independent evidence - That corroborates the confessional statement - And not merely rely on its belief or disbelief (H11) Ogudo v. State (2011) 10-12 KLR (pt. 301) 2373; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 1

JUDGMENTS - Evidence - Evaluation - Trial court is to evaluate evidence adduced by parties - Before arriving at a decision - Basis of the decision is not on the number of witnesses called - But on the quality or probative value of testimony of those witnesses (H5) Ayuya v. Yonrin (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 294) 877; (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1254) 135

JUDGMENTS - Evidence - Wrongful admission - Effect - Evidence which is wrongfully admitted - Cannot be a ground for the reversal of any decision - Which could otherwise be sustained by any standard (H3) Chukwuma v. FRN (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 296) 1221; (2011) 13 NWLR (Pt.1264) 391

JUDGMENTS - Fair hearing - Breach - Effect on judgment - Such judgment will be discountenanced on appeal - As right to fair hearing is entrenched in the Constitution (H4) Ovunwo v. Woko (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1825; (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt.1277) 522

JUDGMENTS - Judicial notice - Court before whom a proceeding is pending or completed - Is to take judicial notice of all processes filed in the proceeding - As well as the proceeding itself and the judgment (H5) Garuba v. Omokhodion (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1707; (2011) 15 NWLR (Pt.1269) 145

JUDGMENTS - Judicial precedents - Application of - Guiding principle - Underlying principles of earlier decisions have no application to subsequent cases - Unless the facts in the two cases are on all fours (H3) Adeogun v. Fasogbon (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 292) 663; (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt.1250) 427

JUDGMENTS - Judicial precedents - Stare decisis - Application - Caveat - Facts must be examined before following precedents - As judgments can only be understood in the light of facts - On which they were decided (H4) Obiuweubi v. Central Bank Of Nigeria (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 293) 839; (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt.1247) 465

JUDGMENTS - Land law - Consent judgment - Basis & effect - Parties agreed to exclude the parcel of land claimed by 6th to 8th defendants - And as such recognised their rights to the said portion of land (H3) Daniel Tayar Trans. Ent. Ltd. v. Busari (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 290) 271; (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt.1249) 387

JUDGMENTS - Res judicata - Applicability - Where court of competent jurisdiction finally decides on a matter between parties - The parties thereto are precluded from re-litigating on the same matter (H1) Makun v. Federal University of Technology Minna (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 299) 1919; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 190

JUDGMENTS - Res judicata - Determination of - Court is to study the pleadings as well as the proceedings - And judgment given in the previous action (H4) Makun v. Federal University of Technology Minna (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 299) 1919; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 190

JUDGMENTS - Res judicata - Rationale - It is necessary to ensure conclusiveness of judgments - And to prevent multiplicity of suits (H2) Dakolo v. Dakolo (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1663; (2011) 16 NWLR (Pt.1272) 22

JUDGMENTS - Slip - Statement per incuriam - Effect - It is not every imaginary slip made by a court that inevitably tilts the decision - Especially if such slip does not occasion any miscarriage of justice (H4) Chukwuma v. FRN (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 296) 1221; (2011) 13 NWLR (Pt.1264) 391

JUDGMENTS - Slips - Reference to abandoned notice - Effect on judgment of Court of Appeal - The court dealt with all the material issues raised by appellants - Notwithstanding the slip (H4) Adeogun v. Fasogbon (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 292) 663; (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt.1250) 427

JUDGMENTS - Stay of execution - Basis for grant - It would be granted - If applicant is able to show special and exceptional reasons - Applicant herein has provided such reasons (H5) SPDC v. Amadi (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 297) 1429; (2011) 14 NWLR (Pt.1266) 157

JUDGMENTS - Style - Resolution of issues - Procedure - Court must pronounce on all issues properly placed before it - Before arriving at a decision - Failure to do so will lead to a miscarriage of justice (H3) Ovunwo v. Woko (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1825; (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt.1277) 522

JUDGMENTS - Supreme Court - Binding nature of - All persons and institutions in Nigeria are bound by the decision of Supreme Court (H9) Amoshima v. State (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 299) 1869; (2011) 14 NWLR (Pt.1268) 530

JUDGMENTS - Supreme Court - Judgment of - Review - Conditions precedent - Supreme Court does not set aside its judgments - Save to correct clerical mistakes or accidental slip - Or to make its intention plain (H2) Ede v. Mba (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2619; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 236

JUDGMENTS - Supreme Court - Judgments - Finality of - Where it has properly decided on a matter - It becomes functus officio to review the decision - Except to correct clerical errors arising from accidental slip (H4) Dingyadi v. INEC (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 294) 911; (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1255) 347

JUDGMENTS - Supreme Court - Judgments - Setting aside - Instances - It possesses inherent power to set aside its judgment in appropriate cases (H5) Dingyadi v. INEC (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 294) 911; (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1255) 347

JUDGMENTS - Supreme Court - Stay of execution - Powers - Supreme Court has the discretion to grant a stay of execution - And such discretion must be exercised judicially and judiciously (H2) SPDC v. Amadi (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 297) 1429; (2011) 14 NWLR (Pt.1266) 157

JUDGMENTS - Title - Estoppel - Plaintiff may plead and rely on a previous judgment in his favour - Not as res judicata - But as an estoppel - In the sense that it constitutes a relevant fact to the issue in the present action - And the judgment will be conclusive of the facts which it decided (H4) Ayuya v. Yonrin (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 294) 877; (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1254) 135

JUDGMENTS - Torts - Detinue - Successful plaintiff in action for detinue - Is entitled to an order of specific restitution of the chattel - And also damages for its detention up to the date of judgment (H1) Nacenn Ltd v. Bewac Ltd (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 296) 1337; (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt.1257) 193

JUDGMENTS - Validity - Pending applications - A judgment delivered without first deciding all interlocutory applications - Is a nullity and liable to be set aside (H4) Fed. Airports Authority of Nig v. Wamal Express Serv. (Nig) Ltd (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 290) 177; (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt.1249) 219

JUDICIAL NOTICE - Court - Before whom a proceeding is pending or completed - Is to take judicial notice of all processes filed in the proceeding - As well as the proceeding itself and the judgment (H5) Garuba v. Omokhodion (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1707; (2011) 15 NWLR (Pt.1269) 145

JUDICIAL NOTICE - Courts - Facts - Where a Court takes judicial notice of a fact - Proof is no longer necessary - Party who wishes to dispute the fact must provide evidence (H1) Joseph v. State (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1807; (2011) 16 NWLR (Pt.1273) 226

JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS - Jurisdiction - Determination - Principles - Case of Madukolu v. Nkemdilim laid down the guidelines - As such any defect in competence of court - Will render its proceedings null and void (H3) Lado v. Congress for Progressive Change (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2679; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 689

JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS - Abatement of jurisdiction - Egypt Air v. Abdullahi - Correctness - The case was wrongly decided - In so far as it held that all proceedings after change of law are a nullity (H5) Obiuweubi v. Central Bank Of Nigeria (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 293) 839; (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt.1247) 465

JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS - Appeals - Briefs - Competence - Mohammed v. Bamgbose - Distinguished - Where an appeal has already been filed - The brief is not made incompetent - For being filed before the appeal is entered - As distinguished from this case (H2) National Inland Waterways Authority v. SPDC Nig. Ltd (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 290) 211; (2011) 6 NWLR (Pt.1244) 618

JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS - Application of - Guiding principle - Underlying principles of earlier decisions have no application to subsequent cases - Unless the facts in the two cases are on all fours (H3) Adeogun v. Fasogbon (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 292) 663; (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt.1250) 427

JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS - Election petitions - Stare decisis - Appeals - Jurisdiction - Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal - From decisions of Court of Appeal - Arising from election petition appeal - As decided in Sha’aban case (H2) Umaru v. Aliyu (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 513; (2011) 5 NWLR (Pt.1241) 600

JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS - Elections - Nature of dispute - Substitution of candidates - Enemuo v. Duru - The case is distinguishable from the instant case - As the substitution on which the petition therein was predicated - Was made after the election (H3) Ucha v. Onwe (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 290) 303; (2011) 4 NWLR (Pt.1237) 386

JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS - Elections - Tribunals - Jurisdiction - Scope of s. 285 (1) (a) of the Constitution - By the authority of Ededo v. INEC - The sub paragraph creates jurisdiction over post-election matters - Not pre-election proceedings (H1) PDP v. Onwe (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 290) 225; (2011) 4 NWLR (Pt.1236) 166

JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS - Jurisdiction - Courts - Pre-election matters - Authorities - Action Congress v. INEC - The case did not decide the issue - As to whether Election Tribunal had jurisdiction - To hear and determine pre-election matters (H1) Ucha v. Onwe (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 290) 303; (2011) 4 NWLR (Pt.1237) 386

JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS - Jurisdiction of Courts - Abatement - O.H.M.B v. Garba - The ratio in that case is that an intervening change in the law - Cannot divest a court of jurisdiction - To conclude its part heard matters (H3) Obiuweubi v. Central Bank Of Nigeria (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 293) 839; (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt.1247) 465

JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS - Land law - Evidence - Rule in Kojo v. Bonsie - Applicability - It applies where there is conflict in traditional histories - Presented by opposing parties - But not where the conflict is in a party’s presentation of his own traditional history (H5) Eyo v. Onuoha (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 293) 781; (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt.1257) 1

JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS - Libel - Proof - Where plaintiff proved he was the person referred to in the article - And the relevant portion of the statement of claim is libelous - Trial Court complied with O. 9 r. 4 - And the principle in Okafor case - In finding defendants liable (H1) Guardian v. Ajeh (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 294) 979; (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1256) 574

JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS - Stare decisis - Application - Caveat - Facts must be examined before following precedents - As judgments can only be understood in the light of facts - On which they were decided (H4) Obiuweubi v. Central Bank Of Nigeria (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 293) 839; (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt.1247) 465

JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS - Stare decisis - Contradictory authorities - Duty of counsel - Where there are contradictory Supreme Court authorities on a point - Counsel should follow that which is more recent (H6) Obiuweubi v. Central Bank Of Nigeria (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 293) 839; (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt.1247) 465

JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS - Stare decisis - Purport - It is to the effect that lower courts are bound to follow the precedents set by higher courts - Even when given per incuriam (H11) Dingyadi v. INEC (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 294) 911; (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1255) 347

JUDICIAL REVIEW - Certiorari - Remedy of - Relation to right of appeal - Where the remedy is available to a party - As well as an option to appeal - He may only choose between the two options (H5) ACB Plc v. Nwaigwe (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 289) 1; (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt.1246) 380

JURISDICTION - Abatement - Judicial precedents - Egypt Air v. Abdullahi - Correctness - The case was wrongly decided - In so far as it held that all proceedings after change of law are a nullity (H5) Obiuweubi v. Central Bank Of Nigeria (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 293) 839; (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt.1247) 465

JURISDICTION - Actions - Cause of action - Competence - S. 3(3) Public Officers (Special Provision) Act precludes a cause of action - And grants no jurisdiction to court to entertain same (H3) Governor of Kwara State v. Dada (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1747; (2011) 14 NWLR (Pt.1267) 384

JURISDICTION - Actions - Locus standi - Meaning - It is the legal capacity to institute an action in court - But where a party lacks same - Court is denied jurisdiction to determine the action (H2) Opobiyi v. Muniru (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 303) 3007; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 387

JURISDICTION - Actions - Torts - Jurisdiction - Where an action is founded in tort - As in the instant case - A State High Court has jurisdiction - By virtue of s. 272 of the 1999 Constitution (H2) Adetona v. Igele General Enterprises Ltd. (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 289) 19; (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt.1247) 535

JURISDICTION - Actions - Where an action is found to be statute barred - It means that court has no jurisdiction to entertain it (H2) Olagunju v. PHCN Plc (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 295) 1067; (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1254) 113

JURISDICTION - Appeals - Appellate jurisdiction - Source - Appellate jurisdiction is not inherent in the court - It is statutory or constitutionally conferred (H1) Amoshima v. State (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 299) 1869; (2011) 14 NWLR (Pt.1268) 530

JURISDICTION - Appeals - Application for extension of time - Reason for delay - When irrelevant - It is not considered where ground of appeal is on lack of jurisdiction - Arising prima facie from the judgment (H5) Nwora v. Nwabueze (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 299) 2041; (2011) 15 NWLR (Pt.1271) 467

JURISDICTION - Appeals - Fresh issue on jurisdiction - Propriety - Raising an issue of jurisdiction does not require leave of court - And such can be raised at any stage of the proceedings (H4) Opobiyi v. Muniru (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 303) 3007; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 387

JURISDICTION - Appeals - Grounds - Nature of - Is determined by examination - The three grounds are of mixed law and fact - They are questions of resolving conflict in evidence and exercise of jurisdiction (H9) Garuba v. Omokhodion (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1707; (2011) 15 NWLR (Pt.1269) 145

JURISDICTION - Appeals - Issue of Jurisdiction is fundamental to adjudication - It can be raised at any stage in the proceedings - Even for the first time in the Supreme Court (H4) SLB Consortium Ltd v. NNPC (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 295) 1085; (2011) 9 NWLR (Pt.1252) 317

JURISDICTION - Appeals - Issues - Propriety of raising - The issue must be properly raised - As such must be one capable of being disposed of - Without the need to call additional evidence (H3) Agbiti v. The Nigerian Navy (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 339; (2011) 4 NWLR (Pt.1236) 175

JURISDICTION - Appeals - Issues - Right to raise - Appellant may raise issue of Jurisdiction on appeal without leave of court - Notwithstanding that fresh issues - Can only be raised on appeal with leave of court (H2) Agbiti v. The Nigerian Navy (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 339; (2011) 4 NWLR (Pt.1236) 175

JURISDICTION - Appeals - Leave - Failure to obtain - Effect - Where it is required - Such failure will render the appeal incompetent - As no jurisdiction is conferred on the appellate court (H2) Nwaolisah v. Nwabufoh (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 299) 2005; (2011) 14 NWLR (Pt.1268) 600

JURISDICTION - Appeals - Pending application - Dismissal order - Propriety - Such order becomes a nullity - When proper application is made - And court has inherent jurisdiction to set it aside (H4) Ede v. Mba (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2619; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 236

JURISDICTION - Arbitration - Arbitral proceedings - Jurisdiction of the panel - Governed by s. 12(3) of Arbitration Act - A participating party that failed to raise jurisdiction issue before the panel - Is foreclosed from raising it before the court (H2) NNPC v. Clifco Nig. Ltd (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 295) 1039; (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1255) 209

JURISDICTION - Arbitration - Jurisdiction - Can be raised at any stage of the proceedings - Before the regular courts - As it is the heart of a case - But this does not apply to arbitral proceedings (H1) NNPC v. Clifco Nig. Ltd (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 295) 1039; (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1255) 209

JURISDICTION - Court martial - Improper constitution - Effect - Where improperly constituted - It lacks jurisdiction to try appellant - And any process issued or trial conducted by it - Is a nullity ab initio (H5) Agbiti v. The Nigerian Navy (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 339; (2011) 4 NWLR (Pt.1236) 175

JURISDICTION - Courts - Absence of - Effect - Where a court lacks jurisdiction over a matter - Its proceedings and judgment given therein - Is null and void - And liable to be set aside (H5) Ucha v. Onwe (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 290) 303; (2011) 4 NWLR (Pt.1237) 386

JURISDICTION - Courts - Appeals - Record of appeal - Binding effect - Court and parties as well as their counsel are bound by the record - No Court has jurisdiction to draw conclusions - Not supported by the record (H7) Garuba v. Omokhodion (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1707; (2011) 15 NWLR (Pt.1269) 145

JURISDICTION - Courts - Appellate powers - Basis - Appellate powers of courts are traceable to specific statute - And do not arise from the courts’ inherent jurisdiction (H1) Umaru v. Aliyu (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 513; (2011) 5 NWLR (Pt.1241) 600

JURISDICTION - Courts - Crime - Allegation of - Court is the only authority to assume jurisdiction - When there is an allegation of crime in a matter (H2) Institute of Health Ahmadu Bello University Hospital Management Board v. Anyip (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 296) 1319; (2011) 12 NWLR (Pt.1260) 1

JURISDICTION - Courts - How determined - In ascertaining whether or not it has jurisdiction - A court must carefully examine the writ of summons and the statement of claim (H1) Adetona v. Igele General Enterprises Ltd. (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 289) 19; (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt.1247) 535

JURISDICTION - Courts - Judgments - Errors - Means of correction - It need not be by means of an appeal - Where the error by the court is under the slip rule - Or under its inherent jurisdiction to give effect to its apparent intention (H1) Adeogun v. Fasogbon (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 292) 663; (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt.1250) 427

JURISDICTION - Courts - Judicial precedents - Abatement - O.H.M.B v. Garba - The ratio in that case is that an intervening change in the law - Cannot divest a court of jurisdiction - To conclude its part heard matters (H3) Obiuweubi v. Central Bank Of Nigeria (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 293) 839; (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt.1247) 465

JURISDICTION - Courts - Jurisdiction - Armed robbery - S. 2(1) (2) of Tribunal (Certain Consequential Amendment) Decree - Empowers both the Federal and State High courts to try the offence (H8) Amoshima v. State (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 299) 1869; (2011) 14 NWLR (Pt.1268) 530

JURISDICTION - Courts - Practice & procedure - Actions - Commencement procedure - Propriety - Suit instituted in contravention of a procedure - Is incompetent and court lacks jurisdiction to entertain same (H2) Dingyadi v. INEC (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 294) 911; (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1255) 347

JURISDICTION - Courts - Pre-election matters - Authorities - Action Congress v. INEC - The case did not decide the issue - As to whether Election Tribunal had jurisdiction - To hear and determine pre-election matters (H1) Ucha v. Onwe (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 290) 303; (2011) 4 NWLR (Pt.1237) 386

JURISDICTION - Courts - Pre-election matters - Only the Federal High Court - Or the State High Court - Has jurisdiction over pre election matters (H2) PDP v. Onwe (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 290) 225; (2011) 4 NWLR (Pt.1236) 166

JURISDICTION - Courts - Supreme Court - Application for rehearing already concluded matter - Is incompetent and unconstitutional - Vide ss. 235 & 287 (1) of the Constitution - As there must be end to litigation (H12) Dingyadi v. INEC (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 294) 911; (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1255) 347

JURISDICTION - Courts - Trial - Governing law - It is the law in force at time of trial - That determines the court vested with jurisdiction to try a case (H2) Obiuweubi v. Central Bank Of Nigeria (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 293) 839; (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt.1247) 465

JURISDICTION - Determination - Basis - It is determined based on plaintiff’s claim or petition - Which must come within the ambit of the law (H2) Abubakar v. Nasamu (2011) 10-12 KLR (pt. 301) 2283; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1330) 523

JURISDICTION - Determination - Principles - Case of Madukolu v. Nkemdilim laid down the guidelines - As such any defect in competence of court - Will render its proceedings null and void (H3) Lado v. Congress for Progressive Change (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2679; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 689

JURISDICTION - Determination of - Court may consider totality of facts pleaded and evidence adduced to establish same - In order to determine whether or not it has jurisdiction (H8) Lado v. Congress for Progressive Change (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2679; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 689

JURISDICTION - Determination of - Statement of claim - It is the case presented by plaintiff in statement of claim - That determines jurisdiction of court (H4) Olagunju v. PHCN Plc (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 295) 1067; (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1254) 113

JURISDICTION - Election - Appeals - Interpretation of the word ‘shall’ in Section 246 (3) Constitution of FRN - National assembly election petition - Court of Appeal has ultimate and final jurisdiction (H4) Emordi v. Igbeke (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 294) 967; (2011) 9 NWLR (Pt.1251) 24

JURISDICTION - Election petitions - Bases - Candidates - Disqualification of - Where the reason for such disqualification arose from party nomination process - It cannot validly be a basis for an election petition (H4) Ucha v. Onwe (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 290) 303; (2011) 4 NWLR (Pt.1237) 386

JURISDICTION - Election petitions - Stare decisis - Appeals - Jurisdiction - Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal - From decisions of Court of Appeal - Arising from election petition appeal - As decided in Sha’aban case (H2) Umaru v. Aliyu (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 513; (2011) 5 NWLR (Pt.1241) 600

JURISDICTION - Election petitions - Supreme Court - 1999 Constitution s. 233(2)(e)(iv) as amended - Confers jurisdiction on Supreme Court to hear appeal - From decisions of Court of Appeal in Governorship election matter (H1) Hope Democratic Party v. Obi (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 303) 2885; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 80

JURISDICTION - Elections - Nomination - Contrary to political party’s constitution - Effect - Aggrieved candidate has right to seek redress from court - And the constitution confers jurisdiction on court to entertain the matter (H6) Uzodinma v. Izunaso (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 297) 1513; (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt.1275) 30

JURISDICTION - Elections - Nomination - Powers of political party - It nominates candidates for an election - And courts do not have jurisdiction to decide on who is sponsored as a candidate (H5) Uzodinma v. Izunaso (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 297) 1513; (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt.1275) 30

JURISDICTION - Elections - Tribunals - S. 285 (1) (a) of 1999 Constitution - Scope - The provision confers jurisdiction on Election Tribunals over post election disputes - And not pre-election disputes (H2) Ucha v. Onwe (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 290) 303; (2011) 4 NWLR (Pt.1237) 386

JURISDICTION - Elections - Tribunals - Scope of s. 285 (1) (a) of the Constitution - By the authority of Ededo v. INEC - The sub paragraph creates jurisdiction over post-election matters - Not pre-election proceedings (H1) PDP v. Onwe (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 290) 225; (2011) 4 NWLR (Pt.1236) 166

JURISDICTION - Federal High Court - S. 251 of 1999 Constitution - Conditions - A party must be the Federal Government or its agent - And subject matter must arise from its management decision - Or interpretation of constitution (H1) Obiuweubi v. Central Bank Of Nigeria (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 293) 839; (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt.1247) 465

JURISDICTION - Fundamental nature - An issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any time - Even for the first time during argument (H2) Ogembe v. Usman (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 303) 2961; (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt.1277) 638

JURISDICTION - Fundamental nature - It is relevant in adjudication of a matter - And it can be raised at any time by parties or by court suo motu (H1) Lado v. Congress for Progressive Change (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2679; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 689

JURISDICTION - Fundamental principle - Meaning - Jurisdiction is the legal authority of a court to adjudicate in a matter (H3) Dingyadi v. INEC (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 294) 911; (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1255) 347

JURISDICTION - Fundamentality of - Appeals - When an issue of jurisdiction is raised - It is proper to dispose of that question first - As to do otherwise may be time wasting (H2) Nwora v. Nwabunze (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2717; (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt.1277) 699

JURISDICTION - Fundamentality of - It is a radical question of competence - And court is competent when a case comes by due process of law - And upon fulfilment of any condition precedent to exercise of jurisdiction (H3) Opobiyi v. Muniru (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 303) 3007; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 387

JURISDICTION - Fundamentality of - Where a court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine a case - Its proceeding remains a nullity ab initio - No matter how well conducted and decided (H1) Governor of Kwara State v. Dada (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1747; (2011) 14 NWLR (Pt.1267) 384

JURISDICTION - Judgments - Damages - Award in foreign currency - Propriety of - Nigerian Courts have jurisdiction to make an award in foreign currency - Court of Appeal was correct to have invoked the right process of law - By awarding the damages in foreign currency (H8) Harka Air Services Ltd v. Keazor (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1771; (2011) 13 NWLR (Pt.1264) 320

JURISDICTION - Parties - Courts - Defect in competence - Effect - Such defect is fatal to the proceedings - However well conducted - So in the absence of proper parties as in the instant case - The trial proceedings were a nullity (H4) Goodwill & Trust Invest. Ltd. v. Witt & Bush Ltd. (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 292) 697; (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt.1250) 500

JURISDICTION - Powers of Court of Appeal - Consequential orders - S.16 Court of Appeal Act empowers it to make any order - Necessary for determining the real issue in controversy (H7) Harka Air Services Ltd v. Keazor (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1771; (2011) 13 NWLR (Pt.1264) 320

JURISDICTION - Receiver/Manager - Courts’ jurisdiction - The mere involvement of a receiver/manager - Does not confer automatic jurisdiction on Federal High Court - It depends on the nature of the action (H4) Adetona v. Igele General Enterprises Ltd. (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 289) 19; (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt.1247) 535

JURISDICTION - Res judicata - Plea of - It operates not only against parties - But also robs court of its jurisdiction - To entertain action on same issue - Which has been previously determined by court of competent jurisdiction (H5) Makun v. Federal University of Technology Minna (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 299) 1919; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 190

JURISDICTION - Res judicata - Successful plea of res judicata means that - The court is without jurisdiction to hear the new matter - It is accordingly not available to a plaintiff in his statement of claim (H3) Ayuya v. Yonrin (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 294) 877; (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1254) 135

JURISDICTION - Statutes - Imposition of sentence - Regulated by statute - Where a statute prescribes a mandatory sentence - Courts are without jurisdiction to impose anything less - Except where there is provision for imposition of a minimum or maximum sentence (H4) Amoshima v. State (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 299) 1869; (2011) 14 NWLR (Pt.1268) 530

JURISDICTION - Statutes - Interpretation - Ouster clause - It is not for the court to inquire - Why its jurisdiction is ousted in statutory interpretation - It can only inquire into whether or not its jurisdiction has been ousted (H2) Governor of Kwara State v. Dada (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1747; (2011) 14 NWLR (Pt.1267) 384

JURISDICTION - Suo motu raising by court - Propriety - Court must give fair hearing to parties - But failure to do so may not lead to a reversal - As appellant must also show how the failure has occasioned a miscarriage of justice (H3) Ogembe v. Usman (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 303) 2961; (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt.1277) 638

JURISDICTION - Suo motu raising by court - Propriety - Where court decides to suo motu raise the issue of jurisdiction - It must give fair hearing to parties (H2) Lado v. Congress for Progressive Change (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2679; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 689

JURISDICTION - Supreme Court - Abuse of process - Power to protect sanctity of justice - S. 6(6)(a) of the Constitution - It is empowered to protect itself from abuse of its processes - And to make consequential order - Where there is an element of public policy in a matter (H1) Dingyadi v. INEC (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 294) 911; (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1255) 347

JURISDICTION - Supreme Court - Appeals - Interlocutory appeal - Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to decide at interlocutory stage - Any substantive issue for the trial court to decide (H5) Adetona v. First Bank of Nig. Plc. (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2521

JURISDICTION - Supreme Court - Appellate jurisdiction of - It cannot assume jurisdiction for the sake of doing justice - Where none is given to it by Constitution or any statute (H2) Emordi v. Igbeke (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 294) 967; (2011) 9 NWLR (Pt.1251) 24

JURISDICTION - Supreme Court - It can exercise its power under s. 22 Supreme Court Act - Where Court of Appeal has jurisdiction over the matter in issue (H9) Shettima v. Goni (2011) 10-12 KLR (pt. 301) 2481; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 413

JURISDICTION - Supreme Court - It is a misnomer for Supreme Court to decide substantive matter at interlocutory stage (H3) Nwora v. Nwabueze (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 299) 2041; (2011) 15 NWLR (Pt.1271) 467

JURISDICTION - Supreme Court - Original jurisdiction - Activation - It could be activated where a dispute is between States inter se - Or between a State and Federal Government - Even where the latter acted and is sued through an agency (H4) A-G Rivers State v. A-G Akwa Ibom State (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 292) 525; (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt.1248) 31

JURISDICTION - Supreme Court - Statutory and inherent jurisdiction of the Court - Are geared towards doing substantial justice - Devoid of technicalities (H1) Ede v. Mba (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2619; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 236

JURISDICTION - Supreme Court - Where the trial tribunal and Court of Appeal lack jurisdiction in the matter - Supreme Court will decline jurisdiction (H2) Ogboru v. Uduaghan (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 303) 2935; (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt.1277) 727

JURISPRUDENCE - Company law - Legal personality - Incorporation or registration - Effect - It confers on a company a distinct legal personality from its members - Once the formal procedure of incorporation has been complied with (H1) Onuekwusi v. The Registered Trustees Christ Methodist Zion Church (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 423; (2011) 6 NWLR (Pt.1243) 341

JURISPRUDENCE - Evidence - Cogency and credibility - Meaning - For evidence to be cogent and credible - It must be strong and uncontroverted - And must not be self-contradicting (H2) Eyo v. Onuoha (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 293) 781; (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt.1257) 1

JUSTICE - Actions - Contracts - Alternative Claim - Where there was a contractual obligation - Lower Court’s granting of the alternative claim - Is equitable and in the interest of justice (H7) NNPC v. Clifco Nig. Ltd (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 295) 1039; (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1255) 209

JUSTICE - Actions - Locus standi - Principles - Application of - The principle that locus standi should be dealt with first - Should not stand in the way of doing justice in a matter (H7) Adetona v. First Bank of Nig. Plc. (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2521

JUSTICE - Appeals - Courts - Issues - Not considered - Effect - Failure to consider the propriety of arguments raised by cross appellant - Led to breach of fair hearing - And such was improper and prejudicial (H14) Best (Nig) Ltd v. Blackwood Hodge (Nig) Ltd. (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 289) 47; (2011) 5 NWLR (Pt.1239) 95

JUSTICE - Appeals - Fresh evidence - Application to adduce - Basis for the grant - It is granted if applicant is able to prove - Extreme impossibility to obtain evidence before trial - And that it is brought in the interest of justice (H1) Uzodinma v. Izunaso (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 297) 1513; (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt.1275) 30

JUSTICE - Appeals - Misjoinder of prayer - Effect - The procedure was mere irregularity - Which was rightly waived by Court of Appeal - As doing substantial justice is of paramount importance (H7) Ajuwa v. S. P. D. C. Nig. Ltd (2011) 10-12 KLR (pt. 301) 2305; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 797

JUSTICE - Courts - Discretion - Exercise of - Relevance - Judicial discretion is a vital tool in the administration of justice - Which must be exercised judicially and judiciously (H3) Ajuwa v. S. P. D. C. Nig. Ltd (2011) 10-12 KLR (pt. 301) 2305; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 797

JUSTICE - Courts - Duty to do justice - Court of law is to do justice according to the law - And not according to sentiments (H4) Nacenn Ltd v. Bewac Ltd (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 296) 1337; (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt.1257) 193

JUSTICE - Courts - Justice - Need to uphold - Courts are to consider the substance of a matter - Rather than insisting on technicalities (H7) State v. Salawu (2011) 7 KLR (pt. 300) 2205; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 883

JUSTICE - Criminal procedure - Trial within trial - Failure to conduct - Effect - Where trial court fails to conduct trial within trial - Such failure will not be fatal - Unless it occasioned miscarriage of justice (H2) Eke v. The State (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 407; (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt.1235) 589

JUSTICE - Evidence - Contradictions - Warranting reversal of judgment - Nature of - To succeed in upturning a decision - The contradiction must be relevant and of great magnitude - That would cause a miscarriage of justice (H2) Ebeinwe v. The State (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 289) 125; (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt.1246) 402

JUSTICE - Evidence - Perverse finding - Meaning - Finding is perverse when it runs counter to the evidence and pleadings - Or where it is shown that the judge considered extraneous matters - Or when the finding occasioned a miscarriage of justice (H3) Momoh v. Umoru (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 299) 1953; (2011) 15 NWLR (Pt.1270) 217

JUSTICE - Fair hearing - Meaning - It entails compliance with 1999 Constitution s. 36 - And proper administration of justice and equity in a particular matter (H1) Ogunsanya v. State (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 299) 2081; (2011) 12 NWLR (Pt.1261) 401

JUSTICE - Fair hearing - Principles - Application of principles of natural justice is not limited to judicial proceedings - It is applicable to every situation involving determination of right of a person (H2) Eze v. Spring Bank Plc. (2011) 10-12 KLR (pt. 301) 2347; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 113

JUSTICE - Fair hearing - Principles - Basis - It entails a trial conducted in accordance with the rules of natural justice - There is no denial of fair hearing in this case - Since appellant failed to complain of irregularity in judicial procedure (H3) Torri v. National Park Service of Nigeria (2011) 7 KLR (pt. 300) 2239; (2011) 13 NWLR (Pt.1264) 365

JUSTICE - Interlocutory applications - Treatment of - Appeals - Where such application seeks the same reliefs - As the substantive suit - The end of justice may be better served in hearing the main suit (H1) Shinning Star Nig. Ltd. v. Ask Steel Nig. Ltd. (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 290) 233; (2011) 4 NWLR (Pt.1238) 596

JUSTICE - Judgments - Slip - Statement per incuriam - Effect - It is not every imaginary slip made by a court that inevitably tilts the decision - Especially if such slip does not occasion any miscarriage of justice (H4) Chukwuma v. FRN (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 296) 1221; (2011) 13 NWLR (Pt.1264) 391

JUSTICE - Miscarriage - Judgments - Resolution of issues - Procedure - Court must pronounce on all issues properly placed before it - Before arriving at a decision - Failure to do so will lead to a miscarriage of justice (H3) Ovunwo v. Woko (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1825; (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt.1277) 522

JUSTICE - Supreme Court - Abuse of process - Power to protect sanctity of justice - S. 6(6)(a) of the Constitution - It is empowered to protect itself from abuse of its processes - And to make consequential order - Where there is an element of public policy in a matter (H1) Dingyadi v. INEC (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 294) 911; (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1255) 347

JUSTICE - Supreme Court - Jurisdiction - Statutory and inherent jurisdiction of the Court - Are geared towards doing substantial justice - Devoid of technicalities (H1) Ede v. Mba (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2619; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 236

LAND LAW - Assignment - Bona fide purchaser - Propriety - Where 3rd respondent in possession - Transacted earlier in time - Court was right to hold him to be a bona fide purchaser for value - Without notice of prior right or title (H12) Best (Nig) Ltd v. Blackwood Hodge (Nig) Ltd. (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 289) 47; (2011) 5 NWLR (Pt.1239) 95

LAND LAW - Burden of proof - Balance of probability - How discharged - It is discharged only by adducing cogent and credible evidence - That has direct relevance to the matter in controversy - Which has not been done in this case (H5) Agboola v. UBA Plc & 2 Ors. (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 293) 725; (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt.1258) 375

LAND LAW - Consent judgment - Basis & effect - Parties agreed to exclude the parcel of land claimed by 6th to 8th defendants - And as such recognised their rights to the said portion of land (H3) Daniel Tayar Trans. Ent. Ltd. v. Busari (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 290) 271; (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt.1249) 387

LAND LAW - Consent judgment - Effect of - Non consenting parties - That took steps unto getting the courts - To set aside the judgment - Are not bound by it (H1) Daniel Tayar Trans. Ent. Ltd. v. Busari (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 290) 271; (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt.1249) 387

LAND LAW - Constructive trust - Where not contemplated in the parties’ agreement - Appellant acted under a misconception - In moving into respondent’s newly allocated State land - Based on supposed existence of trust (H1) Ibekwe v. Nwosu (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 294) 1005; (2011) 9 NWLR (Pt.1251) 1

LAND LAW - Conveyance - Consent to deed - The approval letter of 26/10/76 is valid - Having satisfied the provisions of Land Tenure Law 1963 (H4) Babatunde v. Bank of the North Ltd (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2567; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 738

LAND LAW - Customary rights - Conferment of chieftaincy - Condition precedent - Right to create and confer chieftaincy is tied to ownership of the land - But appellants have failed to establish their title - As such they cannot be granted the reliefs (H3) Dauda v. A-G Lagos State (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 296) 1251; (2011) 13 NWLR (Pt.1265) 427

LAND LAW - Documents - Proof - Under Evidence Act s. 123 - Court will presume as valid - Documents which are not less than 20 years at the time of trial (H7) Ayanwale v. Odusami (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2549; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 328

LAND LAW - Evidence - Evaluation - Duty of trial court - Where parties rely on different versions of traditional history - The duty of the trial court is to determine the preferred version - In view of the evidence led in proof (H10) Onwubuariri v. Igboasoiyi (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 449; (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt.1234) 357

LAND LAW - Evidence - Proof - S.135 of Evidence Act 1990 - Since plaintiff herein has asserted that he was entitled to the land - Onus is on him to prove same (H5) Ogundepo v. Olumesan (2011) 10-12 KLR (pt. 301) 2413; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 54

LAND LAW - Evidence - Rule in Kojo v. Bonsie - Applicability - It applies where there is conflict in traditional histories - Presented by opposing parties - But not where the conflict is in a party’s presentation of his own traditional history (H5) Eyo v. Onuoha (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 293) 781; (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt.1257) 1

LAND LAW - Evidence - Unregistered registerable instrument - When admissible - Though such document be inadmissible in proof of title - It is nevertheless admissible to prove there was a transaction between the parties thereto (H6) Agboola v. UBA Plc & 2 Ors. (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 293) 725; (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt.1258) 375

LAND LAW - Mortgage - Scope - Building erected on a mortgaged land during its life span - Forms part of the mortgaged property (H7) Babatunde v. Bank of the North Ltd (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2567; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 738

LAND LAW - Mortgages - Deed of legal mortgage - Consent - Where consent is required and is obtained upon creation - It will no longer be required for up stamping of the mortgage - If further facility is granted on it (H5) Babatunde v. Bank of the North Ltd (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2567; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 738

LAND LAW - Mortgages - Right of mortgagee - Power of sale - Exercise of this power must arise - Before good title will be transferred to purchaser (H8) Babatunde v. Bank of the North Ltd (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2567; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 738

LAND LAW - Mortgages - Right of mortgagee - Power of sale - In exercise of this right - Mortgagee must act in good faith - And is not a trustee for mortgagor (H3) Babatunde v. Bank of the North Ltd (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2567; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 738

LAND LAW - Pleadings - Averments - Scope - Though parties are not expected to plead evidence - Every fact touching on the root of claim of title - Must be pleaded specifically (H3) Agboola v. UBA Plc & 2 Ors. (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 293) 725; (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt.1258) 375

LAND LAW - Pleadings - Identity of the land - Counsel’s argument on same without pleadings is irrelevant - Since submissions cannot take the place of legal proof (H2) Ayanwale v. Odusami (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2549; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 328

LAND LAW - Proof - Weakness of defence - Effect - Plaintiff cannot rely on weakness of defendant’s case - But on the strength of his own case - To succeed in his case (H7) Agboola v. UBA Plc & 2 Ors. (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 293) 725; (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt.1258) 375

LAND LAW - Rules of equity - When two equities are equal - The first in time prevails - Exhibits 6 and 7 made in 1976 and 1978 take priority over exhibit 1 made in 1982 (H6) Babatunde v. Bank of the North Ltd (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2567; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 738

LAND LAW - Sale - Specific performance order - Meaning - Where there is no sale agreement between the parties - In respect of the portion of land in dispute - There is nothing to rest the order upon (H2) Ibekwe v. Nwosu (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 294) 1005; (2011) 9 NWLR (Pt.1251) 1

LAND LAW - Sale - Statute of Frauds 1677 S. 4 - Testimony that the agreement to assign land was oral - Is to no avail - As the statute provides for written agreement or note or memorandum (H3) Ibekwe v. Nwosu (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 294) 1005; (2011) 9 NWLR (Pt.1251) 1

LAND LAW - Sale of estate - Principle of transaction of transfer on sale - Sought to be relied on by appellant - Is inapplicable here - As it had precipitated breach by conduct (H9) Best (Nig) Ltd v. Blackwood Hodge (Nig) Ltd. (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 289) 47; (2011) 5 NWLR (Pt.1239) 95

LAND LAW - Title - Arising from a common owner - Proof - Where both parties trace their title to a common owner - The 1st party to purchase the land has a better claim in law and equity (H6) Ayanwale v. Odusami (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2549; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 328

LAND LAW - Title - Establishment of - Idundun v. Okumagba - Lays down five ways to prove ownership of a piece of land (H4) Ayanwale v. Odusami (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2549; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 328

LAND LAW - Title - Estoppel - Plaintiff may plead and rely on a previous judgment in his favour - Not as res judicata - But as an estoppel - In the sense that it constitutes a relevant fact to the issue in the present action - And the judgment will be conclusive of the facts which it decided (H4) Ayuya v. Yonrin (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 294) 877; (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1254) 135

LAND LAW - Title - Identity of the land - Must be clearly ascertained - And it is only in dispute if defendant in his pleadings - Disputes the area or location of the land (H1) Ayanwale v. Odusami (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2549; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 328

LAND LAW - Title - Pleadings and evidence - Sufficiency of - Plaintiffs failed to establish a better title - Since they merely stated that their grandfathers settled on the land many years ago (H1) Dauda v. A-G Lagos State (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 296) 1251; (2011) 13 NWLR (Pt.1265) 427

LAND LAW - Title - Presumption - It is presumed that the person with title is in possession - And once ascertained - Claim for trespass and injunction is sustained (H8) Ayanwale v. Odusami (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2549; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 328

LAND LAW - Title - Proof - Duty on claimant - There are five methods of proving title to land - And a claimant is not required to prove more than one of the methods - To succeed in his claim (H12) Onwubuariri v. Igboasoiyi (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 449; (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt.1234) 357

LAND LAW - Title - Proof - Onus on plaintiff - He needs to succeed on the strength of his own case - And not to rely on the weakness of defence (H4) Ogundepo v. Olumesan (2011) 10-12 KLR (pt. 301) 2413; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 54

LAND LAW - Title - Proof - Plaintiff is to plead his root of title - And he must lead evidence to sustain his pleadings (H5) Ayanwale v. Odusami (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2549; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 328

LAND LAW - Title - Proof - Plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his case - And not on the weakness of the defence - Except where the case of the defence supports that of plaintiff (H2) Eya v. Olopade (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 296) 1271; (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt.1259) 505

LAND LAW - Title - Proof - Plaintiff seeking a declaration of title to land - Is to establish his case on preponderance of evidence - Whereupon the court weighs evidence of the parties in imaginary scale - In order to make its finding (H3) Wachukwu v. Owunwanne (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 297) 1581; (2011) 14 NWLR (Pt.1266) 1

LAND LAW - Title - Proof - Plaintiff succeeds on strength of his case - Not on weakness of defence - And court is to decide on preponderance of evidence (H3) Dakolo v. Dakolo (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1663; (2011) 16 NWLR (Pt.1272) 22

LAND LAW - Title - Proof - Plaintiff succeeds on the strength of his case - And not on the weakness of the defence (H3) Ayanwale v. Odusami (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2549; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 328

LAND LAW - Title - Proof - Standard of proof required is on the preponderance of evidence - Appellants herein have the burden to prove that the said boundary extends over surrounding land and bushes - As pleaded by them - Which they discharged (H1) Ayuya v. Yonrin (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 294) 877; (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1254) 135

LEGAL PERSONALITIES - Actions - Business name is not accorded legal personality in law - It can neither sue nor be sued (H2) SLB Consortium Ltd v. NNPC (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 295) 1085; (2011) 9 NWLR (Pt.1252) 317

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS - Administration of estates - Solicitors to estate - Appointment of - Since such appointment takes effect after the death of a testator - It is the executors of the estate that can make such appointment (H6) Carew v. Oguntokun (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 289) 97; (2011) 5 NWLR (Pt.1240) 376

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS - Appeals - Courts - Right of audience - It is a counsel that has the right - Except if a party being a natural person insists on handling its case personally - But with respect to a corporation - Right is restricted to counsel (H7) Contract Resource Nig. Ltd v. UBA Plc (2011) 7 KLR (pt. 300) 2131; (2011) 16 NWLR (Pt.1274) 592

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS - Appeals - Documents - Exhibit - Status - It was obvious that it could have been obtained - With reasonable care and diligence - For use at the time of trial - If formerly briefed counsel went to archives for it (H6) Onwubuariri v. Igboasoiyi (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 449; (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt.1234) 357

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS - Appeals - Issues - Argument of counsel - Propriety - Issue of immediate delivery of judgment - Did not feature significantly before the Court of Appeal - So argument of appellants’ counsel on the point did not arise for determination (H3) APGA v. Umeh (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 293) 755; (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt.1250) 544

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS - Appeals - Preliminary objections - Raised in briefs - When to move - Counsel must move same before hearing of substantive appeal - After three clear days notice to appellant (H7) Carew v. Oguntokun (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 289) 97; (2011) 5 NWLR (Pt.1240) 376

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS - Arbitration - Fair hearing - Since counsel is free to conduct his case - As he decides barring fraud against his client - He cannot say fair hearing was denied - Where he acquiesced to the procedure in issue (H3) NNPC v. Clifco Nig. Ltd (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 295) 1039; (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1255) 209

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS - Courts - Appeals - Record of appeal - Binding effect - Court and parties as well as their counsel are bound by the record - No Court has jurisdiction to draw conclusions - Not supported by the record (H7) Garuba v. Omokhodion (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1707; (2011) 15 NWLR (Pt.1269) 145

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS - Judicial precedents - Stare decisis - Contradictory authorities - Duty of counsel - Where there are contradictory Supreme Court authorities on a point - Counsel should follow that which is more recent (H6) Obiuweubi v. Central Bank Of Nigeria (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 293) 839; (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt.1247) 465

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS - Land law - Identity of the land - Counsel’s argument on same without pleadings is irrelevant - Since submissions cannot take the place of legal proof (H2) Ayanwale v. Odusami (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2549; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 328

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS - Professional fees - Claim for - S. 16 of Legal Practitioners Act - The demand for probate fees and valuation fees to be paid - Goes beyond the professional fees - As envisaged by the Act (H1) Carew v. Oguntokun (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 289) 97; (2011) 5 NWLR (Pt.1240) 376

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS - Signature - Court processes - Legal practitioner is to sign - Or wrote his name on all processes he files in a Court of law (H1) SLB Consortium Ltd v. NNPC (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 295) 1085; (2011) 9 NWLR (Pt.1252) 317

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS - Wills - Solicitors - Scope of service - The services of such a solicitor terminates on death of the testator - Thereafter the estate falls to the beneficiaries and executors to manage (H3) Carew v. Oguntokun (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 289) 97; (2011) 5 NWLR (Pt.1240) 376

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS - Wills - Validity of clause - Appointment of solicitors - Where a testator by his will appoints a solicitor for the estate - Such appointment is void - As it becomes operational in futuro (H2) Carew v. Oguntokun (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 289) 97; (2011) 5 NWLR (Pt.1240) 376

LEGISLATION - Statutes - Interpretation - S. 19 of Auction Law of Northern Nigeria - Court is to seek the intention of the legislature - And the words used in a law are to be literally interpreted (H1) Taiwo v. Adegboro (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 297) 1489; (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt.1259) 562

LEGISLATURE - Duty of - Laws - Amendment - By virtue of s.4 of Constitution 1999 - Legislature is to enact and amend laws - Whereas the judiciary is to interpret the laws so made (H2) Amoshima v. State (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 299) 1869; (2011) 14 NWLR (Pt.1268) 530

LIBEL - Appeals - Concurrent findings - Where the findings of libel are correct - As in this case - Supreme Court will not interfere (H6) Guardian v. Ajeh (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 294) 979; (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1256) 574

LIBEL - Appeals - Interference - Discretion - Libel - Damages - Supreme Court would interfere - Where the estimate is erroneous - Or wrong principle of law was applied - Or the award is ridiculously low or so high - Which is not so in this case (H5) Guardian v. Ajeh (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 294) 979; (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1256) 574

LIBEL - Damages - Discretion - Factors Court should consider - Where there is absolute lack of remorse - Trial Court rightly awarded the sum of N500,000.00 (H4) Guardian v. Ajeh (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 294) 979; (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1256) 574

LIBEL - Defamation - Fair comment - Where statements published by a newspaper - Are not true - It will not succeed on a defence of fair comment (H7) Guardian v. Ajeh (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 294) 979; (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1256) 574

LIBEL - Fair comment - Evaluation of evidence - Where appellants’ defence is that of fair comment - They should justify it - Rather than pursuing imaginary loophole on evaluation of evidence (H3) Guardian v. Ajeh (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 294) 979; (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1256) 574

LIBEL - Proof - Where plaintiff proved he was the person referred to in the article - And the relevant portion of the statement of claim is libelous - Trial Court complied with O. 9 r. 4 - And the principle in Okafor case - In finding defendants liable (H1) Guardian v. Ajeh (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 294) 979; (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1256) 574

LOCUS STANDI - Actions - Parties - How determined - The locus of a party must be viewed against his competence - To institute an action - And seek redress of a right - That can be enforced by law (H5) Carew v. Oguntokun (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 289) 97; (2011) 5 NWLR (Pt.1240) 376

LOCUS STANDI - Appeals - Findings - On locus standi - Propriety - Court of Appeal’s finding on locus standi was proper - As it was not merely the locus to sue for professional fees that was in issue - But for other reliefs H4) Carew v. Oguntokun (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 289) 97; (2011) 5 NWLR (Pt.1240) 376

MARITIME LAW - Limitation of liability - Competence of crew - Need to prove - Onus is on the appellant seeking to limit liability - To prove competence of the crew - When the damage occurred (H2) Shipcare Nig. Ltd. v. The Owners of The M/V Fortunato (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 499; (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt.1246) 205

MARITIME LAW - Limitation of liability - Incompetent crew - Proof of fault - Where a ship is shown to be manned by an incompetent crew - At the time of damage - The owners must be taken to be at fault (H3) Shipcare Nig. Ltd. v. The Owners of The M/V Fortunato (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 499; (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt.1246) 205

MARITIME LAW - Limitation of liability - S. 363 of Merchant Shipping Act - Conditions - A ship owner who pleads the section to limit his liability - Where there is damage - Must prove that he was not at fault or privy to what occurred (H1) Shipcare Nig. Ltd. v. The Owners of The M/V Fortunato (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 499; (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt.1246) 205

MASTER & SERVANT - Allegation of fraud - Proof - Alleged fraud can be proved - By considering the issued queries and replies thereto - Without a formal testimony of appellant before the disciplinary committee (H2) Imonikhe v. Unity Bank Plc (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 296) 1295; (2011) 12 NWLR (Pt.1262) 624

MASTER & SERVANT - Contract of employment - Termination - Where an employee commits a crime which amounts to gross misconduct - Criminal prosecution is not needed before the termination of his employment (H5) Eze v. Spring Bank Plc. (2011) 10-12 KLR (pt. 301) 2347; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 113

MASTER & SERVANT - Dismissal - Complaint of breach of fair hearing - Propriety - Since appellant was given fair hearing prior to his dismissal - His complaint of denial of same has no basis (H4) Eze v. Spring Bank Plc. (2011) 10-12 KLR (pt. 301) 2347; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 113

MASTER & SERVANT - Dismissal - Validity - An employee may be summarily dismissed without notice and without wages - If he is guilty of gross misconduct (H3) Eze v. Spring Bank Plc. (2011) 10-12 KLR (pt. 301) 2347; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 113

MASTER & SERVANT - Military law - Discipline of employee - Since appellant a medical doctor has taken an employment in the military - He is subject to be disciplined under the military law (H1) Olowu v. Nigerian Navy (2011) 10-12 KLR (pt. 301) 2435; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 659

MASTER & SERVANT - Termination - Validity - Dismissal of appellant - Complied with the contract of employment - Since the allegation of his misconduct was satisfactorily proved before the disciplinary committee (H4) Imonikhe v. Unity Bank Plc (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 296) 1295; (2011) 12 NWLR (Pt.1262) 624

MASTER & SERVANT - Termination - Validity - Since appellant was given fair hearing before the Tribunal - His dismissal cannot be set aside merely because he was not subjected to criminal prosecution (H5) Imonikhe v. Unity Bank Plc (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 296) 1295; (2011) 12 NWLR (Pt.1262) 624

MILITARY LAW - Discipline of employee - Since appellant a medical doctor has taken an employment in the military - He is subject to be disciplined under the military law (H1) Olowu v. Nigerian Navy (2011) 10-12 KLR (pt. 301) 2435; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 659

MORTGAGES - Deed of legal mortgage - Consent - Where consent is required and is obtained upon creation - It will no longer be required for up stamping of the mortgage - If further facility is granted on it (H5) Babatunde v. Bank of the North Ltd (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2567; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 738

MORTGAGES - Definition - It is the creation of an interest in a property defeasible - Upon performing the condition of paying a given sum of money - With interest at a certain time (H3) Adetona v. First Bank of Nig. Plc. (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2521

MORTGAGES - Legal mortgage - Implication - In such transaction - Mortgagee becomes the legal owner of the mortgaged property - Although mortgagor may be in actual possession (H4) Adetona v. First Bank of Nig. Plc. (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2521

MORTGAGES - Right of mortgagee - He is entitled to preserve the mortgaged property - From being wasted in the hands of mortgagor - Or other persons with inferior interest to his (H6) Adetona v. First Bank of Nig. Plc. (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2521

MORTGAGES - Right of mortgagee - Power of sale - Exercise of this power must arise - Before good title will be transferred to purchaser (H8) Babatunde v. Bank of the North Ltd (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2567; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 738

MORTGAGES - Right of mortgagee - Power of sale - In exercise of this right - Mortgagee must act in good faith - And is not a trustee for mortgagor (H3) Babatunde v. Bank of the North Ltd (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2567; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 738

MORTGAGES - Scope - Building erected on a mortgaged land during its life span - Forms part of the mortgaged property (H7) Babatunde v. Bank of the North Ltd (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2567; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 738

MOTIONS - Actions - Dismissal - Application for on grounds of law - Applicant is deemed to base his argument on facts as stated by plaintiff in the statement of claim - For which purpose such application is deemed accepted (H2) Onafowokan v. Wema Bank Plc. (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 297) 1395; (2011) 12 NWLR (Pt.1260) 24

MOTIONS - Appeals - Application for extension of time - 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 (H2) Nwora v. Nwabueze (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 299) 2041; (2011) 15 NWLR (Pt.1271) 467

MOTIONS - Appeals - Application for extension of time - Grant of the application is at discretion of court - Which must be exercised judicially and judiciously (H1) Nwora v. Nwabueze (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 299) 2041; (2011) 15 NWLR (Pt.1271) 467

MOTIONS - Appeals - Extension of time to appeal - Reasons for delay - Sufficiency of - Applicants presented cogent and convincing reasons - To warrant grant of the application (H5) Ede v. Mba (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2619; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 236

MOTIONS - Appeals - Interlocutory applications - Refusal - Justification - Where the grant of such application - Will amount to determination of a pending appeal - The application should be refused (H2) Shinning Star Nig. Ltd. v. Ask Steel Nig. Ltd. (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 290) 233; (2011) 4 NWLR (Pt.1238) 596

MOTIONS - Courts - Supreme Court - Application for rehearing already concluded matter - Is incompetent and unconstitutional - Vide ss. 235 & 287 (1) of the Constitution - As there must be end to litigation (H12) Dingyadi v. INEC (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 294) 911; (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1255) 347

MURDER - Ingredients - Proof - Under s. 221(b) Penal Code - Prosecution must establish death of deceased - And that the death was caused by accused - Whose act was intentional (H1) Ismai’l v. State (2011) 7 KLR (pt. 300) 2171; (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt.1277) 601

MURDER - Standard of proof - Since the crime has been established beyond reasonable doubt - Appellant’s contention is of no moment (H2) Ochiba v. State (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2741; (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt.1277) 663

NEGLIGENCE - Accident - Proof - Prosecution must show that the accident - Was due to reckless manner in which accused drove the vehicle - Slightest negligence is sufficient to hold an accused guilty of dangerous driving (H3) Joseph v. State (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1807; (2011) 16 NWLR (Pt.1273) 226

OBJECTIONS - Appeals - Grounds - Competence - The objection to the competence of the grounds of appeal - Before the Court of Appeal - Lacks merit in its totality (H5) Fed. Airports Authority of Nig v. Wamal Express Serv. (Nig) Ltd (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 290) 177; (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt.1249) 219

OBJECTIONS - Appeals - Objection - Notice of - Manner of raising - Respondent must give appellant three clear days before the hearing - And must file twenty copies of same with the registrar (H1) Opobiyi v. Muniru (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 303) 3007; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 387

OBJECTIONS - Appeals - Preliminary objection - Hearing - Sufficiency of notice - Where objection is embedded in respondent’s brief - Deemed as filed on the day of hearing - There is insufficient notice to the other party (H8) Carew v. Oguntokun (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 289) 97; (2011) 5 NWLR (Pt.1240) 376

OBJECTIONS - Appeals - Preliminary objection - Purpose - It is to terminate the proceedings at infancy - Without dissipating unnecessary energies - In considering a fruitless matter (H1) Efet v. INEC (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 289) 141; (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt.1247) 423

OBJECTIONS - Appeals - Preliminary objections - Raised in briefs - When to move - Counsel must move same before hearing of substantive appeal - After three clear days notice to appellant (H7) Carew v. Oguntokun (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 289) 97; (2011) 5 NWLR (Pt.1240) 376

OBJECTIONS - Basis - Preliminary objections are usually on law - Hence filing of affidavit is unnecessary - Save where there is need to rely on facts (H3) Contract Resource Nig. Ltd v. UBA Plc (2011) 7 KLR (pt. 300) 2131; (2011) 16 NWLR (Pt.1274) 592

OBJECTIONS - Court processes - Filed but not moved - Fate of - Such process is deemed abandoned by the party - Like the case of appellant’s objection before the Court of Appeal (H9) Carew v. Oguntokun (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 289) 97; (2011) 5 NWLR (Pt.1240) 376

OBJECTIONS - Evidence - Admissibility - Admission without objection - Effect - Where such evidence is in no circumstance admissible in law - As opposed to where it is admissible under certain conditions - It remains inadmissible though not objected to (H2) Goodwill & Trust Invest. Ltd. v. Witt & Bush Ltd. (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 292) 697; (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt.1250) 500

OBJECTIONS - Evidence - Unchallenged evidence - Admissibility - Court rightly relied on the pieces of evidence - Since there were no objections to their admissibility (H1) John v. State (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2651; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 353

OBJECTIONS - Filing - Supreme Court Rules O.2 r.9 - Preliminary objection must be filed and served on appellant three days before hearing of the appeal - In order to give appellant enough time to respond (H1) Contract Resource Nig. Ltd v. UBA Plc (2011) 7 KLR (pt. 300) 2131; (2011) 16 NWLR (Pt.1274) 592

OBJECTIONS - Intent - Preliminary objection is to contend that the appeal is incompetent - And if it is sustained - The appeal would no longer be heard (H2) Contract Resource Nig. Ltd v. UBA Plc (2011) 7 KLR (pt. 300) 2131; (2011) 16 NWLR (Pt.1274) 592

OBJECTIONS - Judgments - Appeals - Challenge - Procedure - By s. 233 of the Constitution - An aggrieved party cannot challenge a decision by filing a preliminary objection - He must come by filing an appeal (H1) SPDC v. Amadi (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 297) 1429; (2011) 14 NWLR (Pt.1266) 157

ORDERS OF COURT - Appeals - Binding effect - Since there is no appeal against the order in suit no CA/E/30/2009 - The order remains valid and binding on the parties until it is set aside (H4) Nwora v. Nwabunze (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2717; (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt.1277) 699

ORDERS OF COURT - Appeals - Leave - Application to appeal as interested party - Applicant must annex his proposed Notice of Appeal - And the same must be filed where leave is granted - Save where deeming order has been made (H4) Ogembe v. Usman (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 303) 2961; (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt.1277) 638

ORDERS OF COURT - Appeals - Orders of court - Not in record of appeal - Fate - By s.132 of Evidence Act 2004 - Court does not rely on such orders (H1) Eze v. Spring Bank Plc. (2011) 10-12 KLR (pt. 301) 2347; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 113

ORDERS OF COURT - Appeals - Pending application - Dismissal order - Propriety - Such order becomes a nullity - When proper application is made - And court has inherent jurisdiction to set it aside (H4) Ede v. Mba (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2619; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 236

ORDERS OF COURT - Appeals - Rehearing - Propriety - It is ordered where evidence has not been properly evaluated - As the trial Court has neither seen nor heard the witnesses in that matter (H5) Ovunwo v. Woko (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1825; (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt.1277) 522

ORDERS OF COURT - Appeals - Retrial order - Abandonment of - Appellant should be blamed - For discontinuing the matter - Ordered for retrial by the Court of Appeal (H3) Efet v. INEC (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 289) 141; (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt.1247) 423

ORDERS OF COURT - Appeals - Retrial order - Propriety - For valid determination of the grievous offence charged against appellant - Retrial order is proper irrespective of long incarceration (H5) Yusuf v. State (2011) 7 KLR (pt. 300) 2261; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 853

ORDERS OF COURT - Appeals - Retrial order - Propriety - Since Court of Appeal did not pronounce on whether or not it has granted the reliefs sought - The order of trial de novo is valid (H2) Onyero v. Nwadike (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 303) 2981; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 954

ORDERS OF COURT - Contracts - Specific performance - Basis for order - A party seeking for such order must show evidence - Of compliance with terms of contract - And no court of law should hold otherwise (H3) Best (Nig) Ltd v. Blackwood Hodge (Nig) Ltd. (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 289) 47; (2011) 5 NWLR (Pt.1239) 95

ORDERS OF COURT - Declaratory judgment - Further orders made - Stay of execution - Further orders may be subject to a stay - Onus is on the judge to examine the judgment - And decide if it contains further orders that cannot be stayed (H4) SPDC v. Amadi (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 297) 1429; (2011) 14 NWLR (Pt.1266) 157

ORDERS OF COURT - Election petitions - Appeals - Order made to arrest judgment - Propriety - The order is contrary to the accelerated hearing of the petition - And the provisions of paragraph 18(1) Practice Directions 2011 (H5) Shettima v. Goni (2011) 10-12 KLR (pt. 301) 2481; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 413

PARTIES - Actions - Allegation of crime - Standard of proof - By Evidence Act s. 138(1) - It must be proved beyond reasonable doubt - And the burden of proving same is on the party who asserts it (H2) Babatunde v. Bank of the North Ltd (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2567; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 738

PARTIES - Actions - Appeals - Retrial order - Options - Appellant had an option to either - Stay the proceeding pending appeal - Or re-file the matter - Yet he preferred to discontinue the action - Which is fatal to his Supreme Court appeal (H5) Efet v. INEC (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 289) 141; (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt.1247) 423

PARTIES - Actions - Consistency in case - Meaning - It means that in an appeal - Parties are to confine their cases to what they pleaded - As to the issues for determination before trial court (H8) Adeogun v. Fasogbon (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 292) 663; (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt.1250) 427

PARTIES - Actions - Filing - Where a party has done proper filing in court registry - He is not to be held responsible for any failure or omissions of the registry (H3) Ede v. Mba (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2619; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 236

PARTIES - Actions - Institution of - Whether abuse of process - It amounts to such when instituted - During the pendency of another action - Between the same parties and on the same subject matter (H2) ACB Plc v. Nwaigwe (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 289) 1; (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt.1246) 380

PARTIES - Actions - Locus standi - How determined - The locus of a party must be viewed against his competence - To institute an action - And seek redress of a right - That can be enforced by law (H5) Carew v. Oguntokun (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 289) 97; (2011) 5 NWLR (Pt.1240) 376

PARTIES - Actions - Locus standi - Islamic law - The present parties who have substituted the original parties - Must continue to keep the suit alive (H5) Opobiyi v. Muniru (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 303) 3007; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 387

PARTIES - Actions - Locus standi - Meaning - It is the legal capacity to institute an action in court - But where a party lacks same - Court is denied jurisdiction to determine the action (H2) Opobiyi v. Muniru (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 303) 3007; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 387

PARTIES - Actions - Proof - Weakness of defence - Effect - Plaintiff cannot rely on the weakness of defendant’s case - But on the strength of his own case - To succeed in his action (H4) Eyo v. Onuoha (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 293) 781; (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt.1257) 1

PARTIES - Adherence to procedure - Waiver - Effect - Where a party waives his right to insist on adherence - He cannot later be heard to decry such noncompliance with procedure (H9) Adeogun v. Fasogbon (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 292) 663; (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt.1250) 427

PARTIES - Affidavits - Averments - Failure to deny - Effect - Any fact which has not been categorically denied - By a party - Is deemed to be admitted (H2) Efet v. INEC (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 289) 141; (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt.1247) 423

PARTIES - Affidavits - Averments - Failure to object - Averments in an affidavit which are not directly denied - Are deemed admitted - As in the case of appellant - With respect to the record of appeal (H1) Fed. Airports Authority of Nig v. Wamal Express Serv. (Nig) Ltd (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 290) 177; (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt.1249) 219

PARTIES - Agency - Failure to join the principal - Effect on suit - Nonjoinder of a disclosed principal will not defeat a person’s suit - So long as such principal’s agent is made a party thereto (H9) Cameroon Airlines v. Otutuizu (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 373; (2011) 4 NWLR (Pt.1238) 512

PARTIES - Agreement - Binding nature - The parties having earlier entered into an agreement - Which brought the dispute to an end - They are estopped from disclaiming the said agreement (H1) A-G Rivers State v. A-G Akwa Ibom State (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 292) 525; (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt.1248) 31

PARTIES - Appeals - Briefs - Reply - Failure to reply on issue raised - Effect - Reply brief is limited to answering any new points arising from respondent’s brief - Party who failed to file same - Is deemed to have conceded the new points (H1) Harka Air Services Ltd v. Keazor (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1771; (2011) 13 NWLR (Pt.1264) 320

PARTIES - Appeals - Courts - Right of audience - It is a counsel that has the right - Except if a party being a natural person insists on handling its case personally - But with respect to a corporation - Right is restricted to counsel (H7) Contract Resource Nig. Ltd v. UBA Plc (2011) 7 KLR (pt. 300) 2131; (2011) 16 NWLR (Pt.1274) 592

PARTIES - Appeals - Fresh issues - Raised without leave - Fate of - Where a party raises fresh issue on appeal - Without prior leave sought and obtained - The court will not accommodate it (H4) Agboola v. UBA Plc & 2 Ors. (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 293) 725; (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt.1258) 375

PARTIES - Appeals - Issue of Jurisdiction - Right to raise - Appellant may raise issue of Jurisdiction on appeal without leave of court - Notwithstanding that fresh issues - Can only be raised on appeal with leave of court (H2) Agbiti v. The Nigerian Navy (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 339; (2011) 4 NWLR (Pt.1236) 175

PARTIES - Appeals - Issues - Determination of - Court should refrain from discussing or making an order - Which will not affect the legal interests of the parties (H5) Nwora v. Nwabunze (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2717; (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt.1277) 699

PARTIES - Appeals - Issues - Joinder of - Issues between parties are joined in the pleadings - The parties joined issues as to whether the alleged fraud is as defined under the Criminal Code or used in ordinary general sense (H6) Imonikhe v. Unity Bank Plc (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 296) 1295; (2011) 12 NWLR (Pt.1262) 624

PARTIES - Appeals - Judgments - Right of appeal - 1999 Constitution s. 243(a) - It is a party in a suit that can appeal - Interested party must seek and obtain leave of court in order to appeal (H5) Contract Resource Nig. Ltd v. UBA Plc (2011) 7 KLR (pt. 300) 2131; (2011) 16 NWLR (Pt.1274) 592

PARTIES - Appeals - Leave - Application to appeal as interested party - Applicant must annex his proposed Notice of Appeal - And the same must be filed where leave is granted - Save where deeming order has been made (H4) Ogembe v. Usman (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 303) 2961; (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt.1277) 638

PARTIES - Appeals - Meaning of - It is not a new action - But a complaint against the decision arising from the matter in dispute between the parties (H5) Hope Democratic Party v. Obi (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 303) 2885; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 80

PARTIES - Appeals - Orders of court - Binding effect - Since there is no appeal against the order in suit no CA/E/30/2009 - The order remains valid and binding on the parties until it is set aside (H4) Nwora v. Nwabunze (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2717; (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt.1277) 699

PARTIES - Appeals - Preliminary objection - Hearing - Sufficiency of notice - Where objection is embedded in respondent’s brief - Deemed as filed on the day of hearing - There is insufficient notice to the other party (H8) Carew v. Oguntokun (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 289) 97; (2011) 5 NWLR (Pt.1240) 376

PARTIES - Appeals - Preliminary objections - Raised in briefs - When to move - Counsel must move same before hearing of substantive appeal - After three clear days notice to appellant (H7) Carew v. Oguntokun (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 289) 97; (2011) 5 NWLR (Pt.1240) 376

PARTIES - Appeals - Reply brief - Purpose of - It is usually filed when an issue of law or argument raised in respondent’s brief - Calls for a reply - It is not meant to extend the scope of appellant’s brief per se (H10) Cameroon Airlines v. Otutuizu (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 373; (2011) 4 NWLR (Pt.1238) 512

PARTIES - Arbitration - Arbitral proceedings - Jurisdiction of the panel - Governed by s. 12(3) of Arbitration Act - A participating party that failed to raise jurisdiction issue before the panel - Is foreclosed from raising it before the court (H2) NNPC v. Clifco Nig. Ltd (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 295) 1039; (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1255) 209

PARTIES - Commercial law - Unlawful withholding of money - Remedy applicable - A party who unlawfully withholds another’s money - Is liable to pay compensation by way of interest (H1) A.G. Ferrero & Co. Ltd v. Henkel Chemicals Nig. Ltd (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1691; (2011) 13 NWLR (Pt.1265) 592

PARTIES - Contracts - Binding nature - Basis - To constitute a binding contract - Agreement of parties must be ad idem - On its essential terms and conditions - Supported by consideration (H2) Best (Nig) Ltd v. Blackwood Hodge (Nig) Ltd. (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 289) 47; (2011) 5 NWLR (Pt.1239) 95

PARTIES - Contracts - Binding nature - Where parties have embodied the terms of their contract in a written document - Extrinsic evidence is not admissible to contradict the terms therein (H1) Babatunde v. Bank of the North Ltd (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2567; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 738

PARTIES - Contracts - Breach - How committed - It occurs when a party - Without lawful excuse - Refuses to perform an obligation - He undertook in the contract (H6) Best (Nig) Ltd v. Blackwood Hodge (Nig) Ltd. (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 289) 47; (2011) 5 NWLR (Pt.1239) 95

PARTIES - Contracts - Breach - Of a fundamental term - Where a party commits such breach - Aggrieved party may decide not to perform his own side of bargain - Or treat such contract as discharged (H5) Best (Nig) Ltd v. Blackwood Hodge (Nig) Ltd. (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 289) 47; (2011) 5 NWLR (Pt.1239) 95

PARTIES - Contracts - Breach - Remedies - In consideration of remedies for breach - Aggrieved party can institute action for compensation in the form of damages (H10) Nwaolisah v. Nwabufoh (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 299) 2005; (2011) 14 NWLR (Pt.1268) 600

PARTIES - Contracts - Credit sale transaction - Breach - Remedies - Aggrieved party is to sue for recovery of balance of purchase price of the item - And neither to seize nor sell the item (H2) Ajagbe v. Idowu (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1639; (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt.1276) 422

PARTIES - Contracts - Determination of - It is not for court to rewrite contract made by parties - Court is to interpret the contract as contained in the instrument (H3) Ogundepo v. Olumesan (2011) 10-12 KLR (pt. 301) 2413; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 54

PARTIES - Contracts - Determination of - It is not the duty of court to make contract between parties - Court is to construe the surrounding circumstances so as to attest the intention of parties (H5) Nwaolisah v. Nwabufoh (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 299) 2005; (2011) 14 NWLR (Pt.1268) 600

PARTIES - Contracts - Discharge - By breach - It is discharged by breach where a party has acted contrary to the terms - Either by non performance or by performance contrary to the terms (H9) Nwaolisah v. Nwabufoh (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 299) 2005; (2011) 14 NWLR (Pt.1268) 600

PARTIES - Contracts - Lis pendens - 3rd respondent is not caught by the doctrine - As the action was initiated after completion of the contract (H13) Best (Nig) Ltd v. Blackwood Hodge (Nig) Ltd. (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 289) 47; (2011) 5 NWLR (Pt.1239) 95

PARTIES - Contracts - Non performance - Of obligation - Effect - Where appellant failed in its obligation in the contract - Respondent is at liberty to treat same as ended - And court will not make or rewrite a contract for parties (H8) Best (Nig) Ltd v. Blackwood Hodge (Nig) Ltd. (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 289) 47; (2011) 5 NWLR (Pt.1239) 95

PARTIES - Contracts - Nonexistent contract - Binding nature - It is not binding on the parties - And there can be no breach of same - Appellant in this instance failed to prove any enforceable contract (H5) Bilante International Ltd. v. NDIC (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 299) 1895; (2011) 15 NWLR (Pt.1270) 407

PARTIES - Contracts - Specific performance - Basis for order - A party seeking for such order must show evidence - Of compliance with terms of contract - And no court of law should hold otherwise (H3) Best (Nig) Ltd v. Blackwood Hodge (Nig) Ltd. (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 289) 47; (2011) 5 NWLR (Pt.1239) 95

PARTIES - Contracts - Terms - Understanding of - It should be construed in the light of the essential terms - Agreed by parties - As court will not allow a party to dribble the other (H4) Best (Nig) Ltd v. Blackwood Hodge (Nig) Ltd. (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 289) 47; (2011) 5 NWLR (Pt.1239) 95

PARTIES - Court processes - Filed but not moved - Fate of - Such process is deemed abandoned by the party - Like the case of appellant’s objection before the Court of Appeal (H9) Carew v. Oguntokun (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 289) 97; (2011) 5 NWLR (Pt.1240) 376

PARTIES - Court processes - Hearing notice - Service - When irrelevant - Service is not required on a party who knows - Or is reasonably presumed to know of the hearing date (H1) S & D Construction Co. Ltd v. Ayoku (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 299) 2109; (2011) 13 NWLR (Pt.1265) 487

PARTIES - Courts - Abuse - Characteristics - It arises where party instituted action without right - To the annoyance of other party and the court (H1) Ogboru v. Uduaghan (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 303) 2935; (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt.1277) 727

PARTIES - Courts - Appeals - Record of appeal - Binding effect - Court and parties as well as their counsel are bound by the record - No Court has jurisdiction to draw conclusions - Not supported by the record (H7) Garuba v. Omokhodion (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1707; (2011) 15 NWLR (Pt.1269) 145

PARTIES - Courts - Contracts - Terms - Binding nature - Parties are bound by the terms of the contract - And court must give effect to same - Award of the 25% interest rate in this instance is wrong (H2) A.G. Ferrero & Co. Ltd v. Henkel Chemicals Nig. Ltd (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1691; (2011) 13 NWLR (Pt.1265) 592

PARTIES - Courts - Facts - Where a Court takes judicial notice of a fact - Proof is no longer necessary - Party who wishes to dispute the fact must provide evidence (H1) Joseph v. State (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1807; (2011) 16 NWLR (Pt.1273) 226

PARTIES - Courts - Findings - Retrial - Where trial court failed to make finding on issues joined by parties in pleadings - Appellate Court will order a retrial - When the evidence is of a nature that it cannot make its own finding (H3) Nacenn Ltd v. Bewac Ltd (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 296) 1337; (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt.1257) 193

PARTIES - Crime - Accomplice - Status - Unless it can be shown that a person did something - To further or aid the commission of an offence - He cannot be said to be an accomplice to that offence (H6) Posu v. The State (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 477; (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt.1234) 393

PARTIES - Criminal procedure - Burden of proof - Evidence Act ss. 135-137 - Burden of proof is on a party who asserts the existence or otherwise of a particular thing (H4) Torri v. National Park Service of Nigeria (2011) 7 KLR (pt. 300) 2239; (2011) 13 NWLR (Pt.1264) 365

PARTIES - Damages - Special damages - Proof - Where it appears to be admitted - Party making the claim is not relieved - From proving it with compelling evidence (H8) NNPC v. Clifco Nig. Ltd (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 295) 1039; (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1255) 209

PARTIES - Documents - Conveyance - Evidence - Conclusiveness - Where parties have embodied the terms of their relevant agreements into written documents - No extrinsic evidence is admissible to contradict the terms therein (H2) Ogundepo v. Olumesan (2011) 10-12 KLR (pt. 301) 2413; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 54

PARTIES - Documents - Record of earlier proceedings - Admissibility - It ought to be shown that the party against whom it is sought to be admitted - Was a party to that earlier proceedings (H7) Onwubuariri v. Igboasoiyi (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 449; (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt.1234) 357

PARTIES - Estoppel - Issue estoppel - Identity of parties - Essence of - This requirement does not mean that the parties in both suits must be identical - It suffices that necessary parties to the relevant issue are the same (H2) Bwacha v. Ikenya (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 289) 75; (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt.1235) 610

PARTIES - Estoppel - Issue estoppel - Sameness of parties - Absence of - Where two necessary parties to the issue were absent in the earlier suit - The condition is not met - And the principle cannot be applied (H3) Bwacha v. Ikenya (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 289) 75; (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt.1235) 610

PARTIES - Estoppel - Res judicata - Applicability - Where judgment in a suit is decided on same subject matter and between same parties - The suit cannot be relitigated by any of the parties (H1) Dakolo v. Dakolo (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1663; (2011) 16 NWLR (Pt.1272) 22

PARTIES - Estoppel - Res judicata - Conditions - Party relying on it must establish that - Parties and subject matter are the same - That valid and subsisting judgment had been pronounced - By a competent court (H5) Daniel Tayar Trans. Ent. Ltd. v. Busari (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 290) 271; (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt.1249) 387

PARTIES - Estoppel - Res judicata - Nature and effect - It is a doctrine that brings an end to litigation - To the effect that once a matter - Has been pronounced upon by a court of competent jurisdiction - Parties are not allowed to relitigate same (H4) Daniel Tayar Trans. Ent. Ltd. v. Busari (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 290) 271; (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt.1249) 387

PARTIES - Evidence - Admissibility - After the close of a case - No further evidence ought to be given by any of the parties - But court may vide Criminal Procedure Act s. 200 - Recall a witness - If his evidence is relevant to the matter (H2) Chukwuma v. FRN (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 296) 1221; (2011) 13 NWLR (Pt.1264) 391

PARTIES - Evidence - Admission - S. 75 of Evidence Act - Conclusiveness of - Where a party agrees to a fact in issue - Proof is no longer necessary - No further dispute on the fact admitted should be entertained by court (H5) Taiwo v. Adegboro (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 297) 1489; (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt.1259) 562

PARTIES - Evidence - Civil matters - Facts - Determination - Court must put two sets of facts presented by parties in an imaginary scale - Then decide upon the preponderance of credible evidence - Which weighs more and is preferable to the other (H1) Ogundepo v. Olumesan (2011) 10-12 KLR (pt. 301) 2413; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 54

PARTIES - Evidence - Courts - Evaluation of unchallenged evidence - Where evidence given by a party is not challenged by the adverse party - Who had opportunity to do so - The court ought to act positively thereon (H8) Cameroon Airlines v. Otutuizu (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 373; (2011) 4 NWLR (Pt.1238) 512

PARTIES - Evidence - Crime - Burden of proof - He who asserts the affirmative must prove same - No duty on a party to prove the negative - Appellant herein has a duty to prove that the fraud is within the contemplation of Criminal Code (H7) Imonikhe v. Unity Bank Plc (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 296) 1295; (2011) 12 NWLR (Pt.1262) 624

PARTIES - Evidence - Evaluation - Duty of trial court - Where parties rely on different versions of traditional history - The duty of the trial court is to determine the preferred version - In view of the evidence led in proof (H10) Onwubuariri v. Igboasoiyi (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 449; (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt.1234) 357

PARTIES - Evidence - Land law - Burden of proof - Balance of probability - How discharged - It is discharged only by adducing cogent and credible evidence - That has direct relevance to the matter in controversy - Which has not been done in this case (H5) Agboola v. UBA Plc & 2 Ors. (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 293) 725; (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt.1258) 375

PARTIES - Evidence - Presumption - Regularity of an act - It is presumed that election result declared by a returning officer is correct - As such the burden of rebutting is on the party who denies its correctness (H7) Congress for Progressive Change v. Independent National Electoral Commission (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 303) 2823; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 493

PARTIES - Evidence - Unchallenged evidence - Admissibility - Court to rely on and accept as true - Evidence that was neither challenged nor cross examined by the other party (H2) Nacenn Ltd v. Bewac Ltd (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 296) 1337; (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt.1257) 193

PARTIES - Fair hearing - Breach - Allegation of bias - Proof - What needs to be proved is real likelihood of bias - And no more (H7) Agbiti v. The Nigerian Navy (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 339; (2011) 4 NWLR (Pt.1236) 175

PARTIES - Fair hearing - Breach - Proof - Where the circumstances complained of - Are covered by the slip rule as in this case - There is no breach of fair hearing (H6) Adeogun v. Fasogbon (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 292) 663; (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt.1250) 427

PARTIES - Fair hearing - Objection - On likelihood of bias - Need to decide - Where there is objection on grounds of bias - A tribunal should give a ruling on the objection - Else it will be acting in breach of objector’s right to fair hearing (H6) Agbiti v. The Nigerian Navy (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 339; (2011) 4 NWLR (Pt.1236) 175

PARTIES - Fair hearing - On real likelihood of bias - Test of - The test is that there must be circumstances - From which a reasonable man would think it likely - That the decision maker would favour one side unfairly (H8) Agbiti v. The Nigerian Navy (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 339; (2011) 4 NWLR (Pt.1236) 175

PARTIES - Fair hearing - Principles - Basis - It entails a trial conducted in accordance with the rules of natural justice - There is no denial of fair hearing in this case - Since appellant failed to complain of irregularity in judicial procedure (H3) Torri v. National Park Service of Nigeria (2011) 7 KLR (pt. 300) 2239; (2011) 13 NWLR (Pt.1264) 365

PARTIES - Judgments - Appeals - Challenge - Procedure - By s. 233 of the Constitution - An aggrieved party cannot challenge a decision by filing a preliminary objection - He must come by filing an appeal (H1) SPDC v. Amadi (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 297) 1429; (2011) 14 NWLR (Pt.1266) 157

PARTIES - Judgments - Appeals - Failure to appeal - Effect - Party that fails to appeal against the decision of trial Court - Cannot on further appeal to Supreme Court - Seek the setting aside of such decision (H1) Adejobi v. State (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1613; (2011) 12 NWLR (Pt.1261) 347

PARTIES - Judgments - Consent judgment - Nature & legal effect - It is not like regular judgment of the court - Entered after trial - What matters is the agreement of parties - Which is binding on them (H2) Daniel Tayar Trans. Ent. Ltd. v. Busari (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 290) 271; (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt.1249) 387

PARTIES - Judgments - Decisions not appealed - Binding nature - Such decision not complained against - Like that of trial court closing the issue of address - Is deemed to have been accepted by appellant (H4) APGA v. Umeh (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 293) 755; (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt.1250) 544

PARTIES - Jurisdiction - Courts - Defect in competence - Effect - Such defect is fatal to the proceedings - However well conducted - So in the absence of proper parties as in the instant case - The trial proceedings were a nullity (H4) Goodwill & Trust Invest. Ltd. v. Witt & Bush Ltd. (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 292) 697; (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt.1250) 500

PARTIES - Jurisdiction - Federal High Court - S. 251 of 1999 Constitution - Conditions - A party must be the Federal Government or its agent - And subject matter must arise from its management decision - Or interpretation of constitution (H1) Obiuweubi v. Central Bank Of Nigeria (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 293) 839; (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt.1247) 465

PARTIES - Jurisdiction - Fundamental nature - It is relevant in adjudication of a matter - And it can be raised at any time by parties or by court suo motu (H1) Lado v. Congress for Progressive Change (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2679; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 689

PARTIES - Jurisdiction - Suo motu raising by court - Propriety - Where court decides to suo motu raise the issue of jurisdiction - It must give fair hearing to parties (H2) Lado v. Congress for Progressive Change (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2679; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 689

PARTIES - Jurisdiction - Suo motu raising by court - Propriety - Court must give fair hearing to parties - But failure to do so may not lead to a reversal - As appellant must also show how the failure has occasioned a miscarriage of justice (H3) Ogembe v. Usman (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 303) 2961; (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt.1277) 638

PARTIES - Land law - Consent judgment - Basis & effect - Parties agreed to exclude the parcel of land claimed by 6th to 8th defendants - And as such recognised their rights to the said portion of land (H3) Daniel Tayar Trans. Ent. Ltd. v. Busari (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 290) 271; (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt.1249) 387

PARTIES - Land law - Consent judgment - Effect of - Non consenting parties - That took steps unto getting the courts - To set aside the judgment - Are not bound by it (H1) Daniel Tayar Trans. Ent. Ltd. v. Busari (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 290) 271; (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt.1249) 387

PARTIES - Land law - Proof - Weakness of defence - Effect - Plaintiff cannot rely on weakness of defendant’s case - But on the strength of his own case - To succeed in his case (H7) Agboola v. UBA Plc & 2 Ors. (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 293) 725; (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt.1258) 375

PARTIES - Pleadings - Averments - Bad traverse - Defendant’s averment to put the plaintiff to the strictest proof without more is a bad defence - And is deemed an admission by inference - In the absence of a clear denial (H2) Cameroon Airlines v. Otutuizu (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 373; (2011) 4 NWLR (Pt.1238) 512

PARTIES - Pleadings - Binding nature - Effect - Parties are bound by their pleadings - As such evidence not pleaded goes to no issue - But if mistakenly admitted - Appellate court must disregard it (H1) Union Bank Plc v. Ajabule (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2765; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 152

PARTIES - Pleadings - Fraud - Allegation of - The particulars of alleged fraud must be specifically pleaded - Before a party can rely on fraud (H3) Eya v. Olopade (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 296) 1271; (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt.1259) 505

PARTIES - Res judicata - Applicability - Where court of competent jurisdiction finally decides on a matter between parties - The parties thereto are precluded from re-litigating on the same matter (H1) Makun v. Federal University of Technology Minna (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 299) 1919; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 190

PARTIES - Res judicata - Factors that satisfy the plea - Party relying on it must prove sameness of parties and subject matter - And a valid final decision - Delivered by a court of competent jurisdiction (H3) Makun v. Federal University of Technology Minna (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 299) 1919; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 190

PARTIES - Title - Arising from a common owner - Proof - Where both parties trace their title to a common owner - The 1st party to purchase the land has a better claim in law and equity (H6) Ayanwale v. Odusami (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2549; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 328

PARTIES - Title - Proof - Plaintiff seeking a declaration of title to land - Is to establish his case on preponderance of evidence - Whereupon the court weighs evidence of the parties in imaginary scale - In order to make its finding (H3) Wachukwu v. Owunwanne (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 297) 1581; (2011) 14 NWLR (Pt.1266) 1

PARTIES - Trials - Irregular procedure - Acquiescence - Effect - Where parties acquiesce to adoption of such procedure by court - They are foreclosed from subsequently complaining about it (H7) Adeogun v. Fasogbon (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 292) 663; (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt.1250) 427

PARTIES - Undefended list - Transfer to general cause list - Basis - Where there was conflicting affidavit evidence of parties - A triable issue had risen - Which should be transferred to the general cause list (H7) Fed. Airports Authority of Nig v. Wamal Express Serv. (Nig) Ltd (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 290) 177; (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt.1249) 219

PLEADINGS - Actions - Declaratory action - Burden of establishing same is on plaintiff - Whose evidence must be credible and in accordance with his pleadings (H4) Arowolo v. Olowokere (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 303) 2795; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 280

PLEADINGS - Actions - Dismissal - Application for on grounds of law - Applicant is deemed to base his argument on facts as stated by plaintiff in the statement of claim - For which purpose such application is deemed accepted (H2) Onafowokan v. Wema Bank Plc. (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 297) 1395; (2011) 12 NWLR (Pt.1260) 24

PLEADINGS - Actions - Locus standi - Determination of - The averments in statement of claim and writ of summons - Are mainly the materials required to ascertain the locus standi of a plaintiff (H2) Adetona v. First Bank of Nig. Plc. (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2521

PLEADINGS - Actions - Statute of limitation - Defendant who pleads defence of same - Need not adduce evidence - If the facts needed to establish the defence - Are apparent in the case presented by plaintiff (H5) Olagunju v. PHCN Plc (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 295) 1067; (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1254) 113

PLEADINGS - Admiralty - Limitation of liability - S. 363 of Merchant Shipping Act - Conditions - A ship owner who pleads the section to limit his liability - Where there is damage - Must prove that he was not at fault or privy to what occurred (H1) Shipcare Nig. Ltd. v. The Owners of The M/V Fortunato (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 499; (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt.1246) 205

PLEADINGS - Appeals - Additional evidence - Appellate court can admit such evidence - On pleaded fact - Though such facts had earlier been deemed abandoned - For not being supported by evidence (H4) Onwubuariri v. Igboasoiyi (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 449; (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt.1234) 357

PLEADINGS - Appeals - Issues - Joinder of - Issues between parties are joined in the pleadings - The parties joined issues as to whether the alleged fraud is as defined under the Criminal Code or used in ordinary general sense (H6) Imonikhe v. Unity Bank Plc (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 296) 1295; (2011) 12 NWLR (Pt.1262) 624

PLEADINGS - Averments - Bad traverse - Defendant’s averment to put the plaintiff to the strictest proof without more is a bad defence - And is deemed an admission by inference - In the absence of a clear denial (H2) Cameroon Airlines v. Otutuizu (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 373; (2011) 4 NWLR (Pt.1238) 512

PLEADINGS - Averments - Documents relied on - How pleaded - Pleadings are meant to be specific - So such documents must be specifically pleaded - Which was not the case with exhibit 1 herein (H1) Agboola v. UBA Plc & 2 Ors. (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 293) 725; (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt.1258) 375

PLEADINGS - Binding nature - Effect - Parties are bound by their pleadings - As such evidence not pleaded goes to no issue - But if mistakenly admitted - Appellate court must disregard it (H1) Union Bank Plc v. Ajabule (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2765; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 152

PLEADINGS - Courts - Findings - Retrial - Where trial court failed to make finding on issues joined by parties in pleadings - Appellate Court will order a retrial - When the evidence is of a nature that it cannot make its own finding (H3) Nacenn Ltd v. Bewac Ltd (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 296) 1337; (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt.1257) 193

PLEADINGS - Courts - Interlocutory applications - Determination of - It is not for court to determine at interlocutory stage - Any questions that have arisen in the pleadings - Or that would arise for resolution in the substantive suit (H1) Ovunwo v. Woko (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1825; (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt.1277) 522

PLEADINGS - Damages - Special damages - It must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved - With sufficient and credible evidence in support (H3) Ajagbe v. Idowu (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1639; (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt.1276) 422

PLEADINGS - Damages - Special damages - Proof - It must be pleaded and strictly proved - As such court is not entitled - To award same based on speculative estimate (H2) Union Bank Plc v. Ajabule (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2765; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 152

PLEADINGS - Documents - Pleaded but not tendered - Effect - Non-tendering of such document at trial - Means that paragraphs of the pleadings in which it was pleaded - Have been abandoned (H3) Onwubuariri v. Igboasoiyi (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 449; (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt.1234) 357

PLEADINGS - Elections - Conduct - Determination of - Court will assess the pleadings and substance of the complaint - And determine whether the omission complained of - Is substantial to affect conduct of the election (H9) Congress for Progressive Change v. Independent National Electoral Commission (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 303) 2823; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 493

PLEADINGS - Evidence - Admissibility - Facts not pleaded - Fate of - Such facts go to no issue - And should not be admitted in evidence - As such exhibit 1 is inadmissible (H2) Agboola v. UBA Plc & 2 Ors. (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 293) 725; (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt.1258) 375

PLEADINGS - Evidence - Betrothal custom - Cogency of - All things considered the evidence adduced by appellant - On the custom as pleaded by him - Is neither cogent nor credible (H1) Eyo v. Onuoha (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 293) 781; (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt.1257) 1

PLEADINGS - Evidence - Civil proceedings - Allegation of crime - Standard of proof - Where directly in issue - It must be specifically pleaded and proved beyond reasonable doubt (H4) Eya v. Olopade (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 296) 1271; (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt.1259) 505

PLEADINGS - Evidence - Perverse finding - Meaning - Finding is perverse when it runs counter to the evidence and pleadings - Or where it is shown that the judge considered extraneous matters - Or when the finding occasioned a miscarriage of justice (H3) Momoh v. Umoru (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 299) 1953; (2011) 15 NWLR (Pt.1270) 217

PLEADINGS - Evidence - Proof - Company law - Incorporation of 1st plaintiff - Whether established - Appellants as plaintiffs failed to prove the fact of incorporation - Though they pleaded it in their pleadings - As the tendered copy of certificate is inadmissible in law (H3) Goodwill & Trust Invest. Ltd. v. Witt & Bush Ltd. (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 292) 697; (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt.1250) 500

PLEADINGS - Facts - Denial - Need for proper traverse - Traverse must either be by denial - Or by non admission expressly or by implication (H3) Taiwo v. Adegboro (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 297) 1489; (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt.1259) 562

PLEADINGS - Fraud - Allegation of - The particulars of alleged fraud must be specifically pleaded - Before a party can rely on fraud (H3) Eya v. Olopade (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 296) 1271; (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt.1259) 505

PLEADINGS - General damages - Proof - The quantum need not be pleaded and proved - As such it does not depend on calculation from specific items (H3) Union Bank Plc v. Ajabule (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2765; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 152

PLEADINGS - Jurisdiction - Determination of - Statement of claim - It is the case presented by plaintiff in statement of claim - That determines jurisdiction of court (H4) Olagunju v. PHCN Plc (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 295) 1067; (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1254) 113

PLEADINGS - Land law - Averments - Scope - Though parties are not expected to plead evidence - Every fact touching on the root of claim of title - Must be pleaded specifically (H3) Agboola v. UBA Plc & 2 Ors. (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 293) 725; (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt.1258) 375

PLEADINGS - Land law - Identity of the land - Counsel’s argument on same without pleadings is irrelevant - Since submissions cannot take the place of legal proof (H2) Ayanwale v. Odusami (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2549; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 328

PLEADINGS - Libel - Fair comment - Evaluation of evidence - Where appellants’ defence is that of fair comment - They should justify it - Rather than pursuing imaginary loophole on evaluation of evidence (H3) Guardian v. Ajeh (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 294) 979; (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1256) 574

PLEADINGS - Parties - Actions - Consistency in case - Meaning - It means that in an appeal - Parties are to confine their cases to what they pleaded - As to the issues for determination before trial court (H8) Adeogun v. Fasogbon (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 292) 663; (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt.1250) 427

PLEADINGS - Purpose - Defence of statute of limitation - Purpose of pleading is to give opponent notice of the case - He is going to meet at trial (H3) Olagunju v. PHCN Plc (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 295) 1067; (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1254) 113

PLEADINGS - Statement of claim - Essentials of - It supersedes writ of summons - Relief claimed in the writ but not claimed in the statement of claim- Is deemed abandoned (H1) Eya v. Olopade (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 296) 1271; (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt.1259) 505

PLEADINGS - Statement of claim - Relevance - Statement of claim supersedes writ of summons - As such court should consider the content of same - In determining a case (H1) Onyero v. Nwadike (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 303) 2981; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 954

PLEADINGS - Title - Estoppel - Plaintiff may plead and rely on a previous judgment in his favour - Not as res judicata - But as an estoppel - In the sense that it constitutes a relevant fact to the issue in the present action - And the judgment will be conclusive of the facts which it decided (H4) Ayuya v. Yonrin (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 294) 877; (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1254) 135

PLEADINGS - Title - Identity of the land - Must be clearly ascertained - And it is only in dispute if defendant in his pleadings - Disputes the area or location of the land (H1) Ayanwale v. Odusami (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2549; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 328

PLEADINGS - Title - Pleadings and evidence - Sufficiency of - Plaintiffs failed to establish a better title - Since they merely stated that their grandfathers settled on the land many years ago (H1) Dauda v. A-G Lagos State (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 296) 1251; (2011) 13 NWLR (Pt.1265) 427

PLEADINGS - Title - Proof - Plaintiff is to plead his root of title - And he must lead evidence to sustain his pleadings (H5) Ayanwale v. Odusami (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2549; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 328

PLEADINGS - Title - Proof - Standard of proof required is on the preponderance of evidence - Appellants herein have the burden to prove that the said boundary extends over surrounding land and bushes - As pleaded by them - Which they discharged (H1) Ayuya v. Yonrin (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 294) 877; (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1254) 135

POLICE - Confession - Admissibility - Statement made by accused to the police becomes objectionable - And inadmissible - If it is obtained under duress or by inducement (H3) State v. Salawu (2011) 7 KLR (pt. 300) 2205; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 883

POLICE - Criminal procedure - Identification parade - Relevancy - The adduced facts warrant conduct of identification - But the police adopted a procedure fatal to appellant’s case (H4) State v. Salawu (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 303) 3027; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 659

POLICE - Evidence - Confession - Voluntariness - Statement made by respondent on demand by the police officer - Cannot be said to have been voluntarily made (H1) State v. Salawu (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 303) 3027; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 659

POLICE - Evidence - Withholding of evidence - Effect - By virtue of s. 149 (d) Evidence Act - Court is entitled to hold that - Evidence withheld by the police - Is unfavourable to the party withholding same (H2) State v. Salawu (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 303) 3027; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 659

POLITICS - Courts - Findings of fact - Validity of 2nd appellant’s expulsion - From his political party - Basis - It was appellants who by their relief - Asked the court to pronounced on same (H2) APGA v. Umeh (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 293) 755; (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt.1250) 544

POLITICS - Elections - Nomination - Contrary to political party’s constitution - Effect - Aggrieved candidate has right to seek redress from court - And the constitution confers jurisdiction on court to entertain the matter (H6) Uzodinma v. Izunaso (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 297) 1513; (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt.1275) 30

POLITICS - Elections - Nomination - Decision of political party is of paramount importance - INEC is merely a nominal party - And should remain neutral (H8) Uzodinma v. Izunaso (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 297) 1513; (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt.1275) 30

POLITICS - Elections - Nomination - Political party has the power to nominate candidates for election - And any question arising therefrom is not justiciable in court (H4) Lado v. Congress for Progressive Change (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2679; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 689

POLITICS - Elections - Nomination - Powers of political party - It nominates candidates for an election - And courts do not have jurisdiction to decide on who is sponsored as a candidate (H5) Uzodinma v. Izunaso (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 297) 1513; (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt.1275) 30

POLITICS - Elections - Political parties - Substitution of candidates - Under Electoral Act 2010 s. 33 - It has no power to substitute - Except in the case of death or withdrawal by candidate (H7) Uzodinma v. Izunaso (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 297) 1513; (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt.1275) 30

POLITICS - Elections - Pre election matters - Disqualification of candidate - Power - It exclusively belongs to the Federal High Court or a State High Court - To disqualify a candidate whose name has been submitted to the Electoral Commission (H7) Dingyadi v. INEC (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 294) 911; (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1255) 347

POLITICS - Elections - Substitution of candidates - Cogency of reason - Where the reason given - Is that earlier submission was made “without enough information” - It is neither cogent nor verifiable (H5) Bwacha v. Ikenya (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 289) 75; (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt.1235) 610

POLITICS - Elections - Substitution of candidates - Cogency of reasons - Where the reason given is that the earlier name was forwarded in error - As in the instant case - Such reason is neither cogent nor verifiable (H12) Adeogun v. Fasogbon (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 292) 663; (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt.1250) 427

POLITICS - Elections - Substitution of candidates - Information to INEC - Validity - Such information is invalid in the case of PDP - Unless it is given by its National Chairman and National Secretary (H10) Adeogun v. Fasogbon (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 292) 663; (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt.1250) 427

POLITICS - Elections - Substitution of candidates - Reasons - Source of - The reason for substitution in the case of PDP - Must be given sufficiently - By its National Chairman and National Secretary only (H11) Adeogun v. Fasogbon (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 292) 663; (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt.1250) 427

POLITICS - Elections - Substitution of candidates - Under Electoral Act 2006 s. 34 - Political party must inform INEC of any substitution not later than sixty days to election - And it must proffer cogent and verifiable reasons - Save in case of death (H5) Lado v. Congress for Progressive Change (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2679; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 689

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Abuse of process - Simultaneous proceedings - Resultant status - It is the later proceedings that constitute an abuse of process - But where it is already concluded - The pending proceedings should be discontinued (H4) ACB Plc v. Nwaigwe (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 289) 1; (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt.1246) 380

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Abuse of process - Two actions raising different issues - Effect - It does not matter that the issues are not the same - If the effect is the same - There is abuse of court’s process (H3) ACB Plc v. Nwaigwe (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 289) 1; (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt.1246) 380

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Actions - Commencement procedure - Propriety - Suits instituted in contravention of a procedure - Is incompetent and court lacks jurisdiction to entertain same (H2) Dingyadi v. INEC (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 294) 911; (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1255) 347

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Actions - Counterclaim - Features - It is a separate and independent action in its own right - Respondent ought to have adduced oral evidence in support of its claim (H6) Bilante International Ltd. v. NDIC (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 299) 1895; (2011) 15 NWLR (Pt.1270) 407

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Actions - Declaration of right - Proof - Onus is on plaintiff to establish his claim upon the strength of his case - And not upon the weakness of the defence (H5) Congress for Progressive Change v. Independent National Electoral Commission (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 303) 2823; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 493

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Actions - Dismissal - Application for on grounds of law - Applicant is deemed to base his argument on facts as stated by plaintiff in the statement of claim - For which purpose such application is deemed accepted (H2) Onafowokan v. Wema Bank Plc. (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 297) 1395; (2011) 12 NWLR (Pt.1260) 24

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Actions - Filing - Where a party has done proper filing in court registry - He is not to be held responsible for any failure or omissions of the registry (H3) Ede v. Mba (2011) 12 KLR (pt. 302) 2619; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 236

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Actions - Nonsuit - Meaning - Where appellant failed to substantiate - His counterclaim for specific performance - Outright dismissal was proper (H4) Ibekwe v. Nwosu (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 294) 1005; (2011) 9 NWLR (Pt.1251) 1

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Actions - Parties - Locus standi - How determined - The locus of a party must be viewed against his competence - To institute an action - And seek redress of a right - That can be enforced by law (H5) Carew v. Oguntokun (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 289) 97; (2011) 5 NWLR (Pt.1240) 376

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Actions - Statute of limitation - Defendant who pleads defence of same - Need not adduce evidence - If the facts needed to establish the defence - Are apparent in the case presented by plaintiff (H5) Olagunju v. PHCN Plc (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 295) 1067; (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1254) 113

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Adherence to procedure - Waiver - Effect - Where a party waives his right to insist on adherence - He cannot later be heard to decry such noncompliance with procedure (H9) Adeogun v. Fasogbon (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 292) 663; (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt.1250) 427

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Affidavits - Averments - Failure to deny - Effect - Any fact which has not been categorically denied - By a party - Is deemed to be admitted (H2) Efet v. INEC (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 289) 141; (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt.1247) 423

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Appeals - Application - For extension of time to appeal - Grant of - Reason - The applicant has disclosed good and substantial reason - Why the application ought to be granted (H3) National Inland Waterways Authority v. SPDC Nig. Ltd (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 290) 211; (2011) 6 NWLR (Pt.1244) 618

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Appeals - Briefs - Failure to proffer argument - Effect - Since appellant failed to proffer argument in respect of issue two - The legal consequence is that the said issue is deemed abandoned (H1) Institute of Health Ahmadu Bello University Hospital Management Board v. Anyip (2011) 5 KLR (pt. 296) 1319; (2011) 12 NWLR (Pt.1260) 1

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Appeals - Briefs - Reply - Failure to reply on issue raised - Effect - Reply brief is limited to answering any new points arising from respondent’s brief - Party who failed to file same - Is deemed to have conceded the new points (H1) Harka Air Services Ltd v. Keazor (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1771; (2011) 13 NWLR (Pt.1264) 320

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Appeals - Fresh issues - Raised without leave - Fate of - Where a party raises fresh issue on appeal - Without prior leave sought and obtained - The court will not accommodate it (H4) Agboola v. UBA Plc & 2 Ors. (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 293) 725; (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt.1258) 375

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Appeals - Grounds of law - Particulars - Desirability - Where complaint on a ground of law is clear and succinct - Particulars may equate to repetition - And as such undesirable (H1) Best (Nig) Ltd v. Blackwood Hodge (Nig) Ltd. (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 289) 47; (2011) 5 NWLR (Pt.1239) 95

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Appeals - Interlocutory decision - Within a final decision - Appellant can appeal against it - In an appeal against the final decision of a court - Without filing separate notice of appeal (H2) Onwubuariri v. Igboasoiyi (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 449; (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt.1234) 357

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Appeals - Issues - Need to arise from grounds - Where there is no ground of appeal on which an issue is based - Such issue is invalid (H1) Onwubuariri v. Igboasoiyi (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 449; (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt.1234) 357

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Appeals - Issues - Need to arise from ground - Every issue must be related to a ground of appeal - Any issue outside the grounds of appeal is irrelevant - And will be struck out (H4) Shipcare Nig. Ltd. v. The Owners of The M/V Fortunato (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 499; (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt.1246) 205

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Appeals - Misjoinder of prayer - Effect - The procedure was mere irregularity - Which was rightly waived by Court of Appeal - As doing substantial justice is of paramount importance (H7) Ajuwa v. S. P. D. C. Nig. Ltd (2011) 10-12 KLR (pt. 301) 2305; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 797

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Appeals - Nature & Purpose - Rehearing - An appeal is a continuation of an original case - Confined to the records forwarded from the court below - And may be reheard by the appellate court (H6) Efet v. INEC (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 289) 141; (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt.1247) 423

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Appeals - Notices of Appeal - Multiple filing - Effect on competence - Appellant can file two Notices of Appeal - But must choose which of them he intends to rely upon (H1) Bilante International Ltd. v. NDIC (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 299) 1895; (2011) 15 NWLR (Pt.1270) 407

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Appeals - Preliminary objections - Raised in briefs - When to move - Counsel must move same before hearing of substantive appeal - After three clear days notice to appellant (H7) Carew v. Oguntokun (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 289) 97; (2011) 5 NWLR (Pt.1240) 376

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Appeals - Record of appeal - Amendment - Procedure - It is done by way of filing an affidavit - Followed by a formal application to court - Which has discretion to grant or refuse the amendment (H6) Garuba v. Omokhodion (2011) 6 KLR (pt. 298) 1707; (2011) 15 NWLR (Pt.1269) 145

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Appeals - Reply brief - Fresh points on appeal - Leave must be obtained - Failure to file reply brief in answer to respondent’s brief - Means appellant will have nothing to say in court (H1) Olagunju v. PHCN Plc (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 295) 1067; (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1254) 113

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Appeals - Resolution - Bases - Whether grounds of appeal or issues - Appeals are resolved on issues raised and canvassed - Not on grounds of appeal simpliciter (H5) Adeogun v. Fasogbon (2011) 3 KLR (pt. 292) 663; (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt.1250) 427

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Appeals - Retrial - Wrong procedure - Appellant misdirected himself in taking a wrong procedure - At the retrial court - And cannot sustain his argument that this appeal arose from the Court of Appeal (H7) Efet v. INEC (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 289) 141; (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt.1247) 423

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Arbitration - Jurisdiction - Can be raised at any stage of the proceedings - Before the regular courts - As it is the heart of a case - But this does not apply to arbitral proceedings (H1) NNPC v. Clifco Nig. Ltd (2011) 4 KLR (pt. 295) 1039; (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1255) 209

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Certiorari - Remedy of - Relation to right of appeal - Where the remedy is available to a party - As well as an option to appeal - He may only choose between the two options (H5) ACB Plc v. Nwaigwe (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 289) 1; (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt.1246) 380

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Company law - Actions in corporate name - Whether authorised - It is not the law that before such actions are instituted - They must be authorised by persons having authority to institute them (H3) Onuekwusi v. The Registered Trustees Christ Methodist Zion Church (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 423; (2011) 6 NWLR (Pt.1243) 341

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Company law - Legal personality - Incorporation or registration - Effect - It confers on a company a distinct legal personality from its members - Once the formal procedure of incorporation has been complied with (H1) Onuekwusi v. The Registered Trustees Christ Methodist Zion Church (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 423; (2011) 6 NWLR (Pt.1243) 341

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Company law - Merger decision - Constitutionality - Where one company’s decision to merge with another is not supported by its constitution - Such decision is unconstitutional (H4) Onuekwusi v. The Registered Trustees Christ Methodist Zion Church (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 423; (2011) 6 NWLR (Pt.1243) 341

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Company Law - Receiver/Manager - Limit of powers - Though he takes over the company’s property as in this case - He cannot detain other persons’ property - In exercise of his powers (H3) Adetona v. Igele General Enterprises Ltd. (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 289) 19; (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt.1247) 535

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Court martial - Jurisdiction - Improper constitution - Effect - Where improperly constituted - It lacks jurisdiction to try appellant - And any process issued or trial conducted by it - Is a nullity ab initio (H5) Agbiti v. The Nigerian Navy (2011) 2 KLR (pt. 291) 339; (2011) 4 NWLR (Pt.1236) 175

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Court processes - Filed but not moved - Fate of - Such process is deemed abandoned by the party - Like the case of appellant’s objection before the Court of Appeal (H9) Carew v. Oguntokun (2011) 1 KLR (pt. 289) 97; (2011) 5 NWLR (Pt.12