ACTIONS - Academic suit - Meaning - A suit is academic when it is merely theoretical - And of no practical utilitarian value to plaintiff - Even if judgment is given in his favour (H6) NDP v. INEC (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3901; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1350) 392

 

ACTIONS - Admiralty - Action in rem - Meaning - It is a proceeding against an arrested ship - In which the owner is compelled to enter appearance - To defend the ship (H1) Pacers Multi-Dynamics Ltd v. The M.V. Dancing Sister (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 385; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1289) 169

 

ACTIONS - Appeals - Consistency - Without obtaining amendment from court - A party has to be consistent in his case - From lower to appellate court (H5) Asogwa v. PDP (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4155; (2013) 7 NWLR (PT.1353) 207

 

ACTIONS - Appeals - Courts - Abuse of process - Appellant abused the process of court - By instituting this suit as election petition matter - When she has a similar pending suit at the Federal high court (H4) Okadigbo v. Emeka (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 181; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1311) 237

 

ACTIONS - Appeals - Hearing - Preliminary objection to - Success of - Will bring the litigation to an end - If dismissed - The Appeal will be determined on merit (H1) Asogwa v. PDP (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4155; (2013) 7 NWLR (PT.1353) 207

 

ACTIONS - Appeals - Need for consistency - A party must be consistent in its case - And an appeal is regarded as a continuation of the original action - Rather than an inception of a new suit (H2) Okadigbo v. Emeka (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 181; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1311) 237

 

ACTIONS - Appeals - Need for consistency - Party must be consistent in his case - As it is unstable of 3rd respondent to admit paras 1-17 of supporting affidavit - But denied para 13 of same (H2) Eyiboh v. Abia (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4301; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1325) 51

 

ACTIONS - Appeals - Parties - Right of appeal - 1999 Constitution s. 233(5) - The right is reserved to party - Aggrieved at decision in a proceeding (H1) Elelu-Habeeb v. A-G Federation (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 743; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1318) 423

 

ACTIONS - Appeals - Right of appeal - Undefended list - 1999 Constitution s. 241(2)(a) - No right of appeal exists against order of court - Transferring suit from the list to general cause list (H7) Bona.V. Textile Ltd. v. Asaba Textile Mill Plc (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3063; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1338) 357

 

ACTIONS - Appeals - Term of office - Reliefs claimed - Propriety of refusal - Appellants no longer have enforceable rights - As their tenure of office had ceased to exist on 24th May 2010 (H2) Adepoju v. Yinka (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 37; (2012) 3 NWLR (PT.1288) 567

 

ACTIONS - Appeals - Undefended suit - Defence to - Federal High Court Rules O.3 rr. 11&12 - Failure to comply - Effect - Appellants are deemed to have no defence (H1) MC Invest. Ltd. v. Core Invest. & Capital Market Ltd. (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 314) 2235; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1313) 1

 

ACTIONS - Banking - Claim for interest - Exhibit E - Not pleaded - Since appellant did not plea the exhibit - It is deemed that same was not intended - To guide transaction between the parties (H7) African Intn’l Bank Ltd. v. Integrated Dimensional System Ltd. (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1635; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 1

 

ACTIONS - Bills of lading - Contract - Notify party - Right of action - He cannot sue because he is not a party to the contract - But merely a person to be notified of the arrival of the goods (H3) Pacers Multi-Dynamics Ltd v. The M.V. Dancing Sister (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 385; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1289) 169

 

ACTIONS - Bills of lading - Parties to - It is a contract for carriage of goods by sea - Between ship-owner and consignor on one part - And consignee on the other - Which allows only parties therein to sue on it (H2) Pacers Multi-Dynamics Ltd v. The M.V. Dancing Sister (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 385; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1289) 169

 

ACTIONS - Carriage of goods by sea - Contract - Negligence - Right of action - Where damage to goods occurred during discharge operation - The owner can sue stevedores and their principals (H9) Pacers Multi-Dynamics Ltd v. The M.V. Dancing Sister (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 385; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1289) 169

 

ACTIONS - Cause of action - Applicable law - Is the law as at the time when the cause of action arose - And the suit was initiated (H5) NURTW v. RTEAN (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 149; (2012) 10 NWLR (PT.1307) 170

 

ACTIONS - Cause of action - Applicable law - Is the law in force at the time of pendency of a suit - And not the procedural law in force when a cause of action arose (H3) Olaleye-ote v. Babalola (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3637; (2012) 6 NWLR (PT.1297) 574

 

ACTIONS - Cause of action - Applicable law is the law in force at the time cause of action arose - And not the law at the time the jurisdiction of court is invoked (H5) Lagos State Bulk Purchase Corp. v. Purification Techn. Ltd. (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3829; (2013) 7 NWLR (PT.1352) 82

 

ACTIONS - Cause of action - Meaning - It refers to entire set of facts that give rise to enforceable claim - Comprising of every fact which if traversed - Plaintiff must prove to entitle him to judgment (H1) Lagos State Bulk Purchase Corp. v. Purification Techn. Ltd. (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3829; (2013) 7 NWLR (PT.1352) 82

 

ACTIONS - Cause of action - Meaning - These are facts giving rise to enforceable claim - Including things necessary to give right of action - And material facts that entitle plaintiff to succeed (H1) Sulgrave v. FGN (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4565; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1329) 309

 

ACTIONS - Cause of action - Meaning - This is fact which gives rise to right to sue in court - And it includes every material fact - Which has to be proved to entitle plaintiff to succeed (H2) Uwazuruonye v. Gov. Imo State (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3415; (2013) 8 NWLR (PT.1355) 28

 

ACTIONS - Chieftaincy matters - Appeals - Actions - Pleadings - Proof - Plaintiff must rely on strength of his case - And not on weakness of defence (H1) Akande v. Adisa (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1681; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1324) 538

 

ACTIONS - Civil matters - Proof - Standard of - Civil suits are determined on preponderance of evidence - And balance of probability - As he who asserts must prove (H5) Iseogbekun v. Adelakun (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3573; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1337) 14

 

ACTIONS - Claim - Jurisdiction - Determination - Basis - Jurisdiction is determined by plaintiff’s claim - Which should carefully be examined (H4) Gbagbarigha v. Toruemi (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4355; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1350) 289

 

ACTIONS - Commencement - Correctness of - Since Exhibit E was obtained on 16/9/94 - Action initiated on 24/3/95 was commenced within 12 months - Prescribed under s.72(1) Nigeria Ports Act (H2) Nig. Ports Plc. v. Beecham Pharm. Ltd (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4155; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1333) 454

 

ACTIONS - Commencement - Court processes - Jurisdiction - Failure to commence action with valid processes - Affects exercise of court’s jurisdiction in the matter (H1) Braithwaite v. Sky Bank Plc (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3087; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1346) 1

 

ACTIONS - Commencement - Manner - Form of commencement is not enough to vitiate an action - If the ends of justice would be compromised - By such technical application of rules (H1) Nagogo v. CPC (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4441; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1339) 448

 

ACTIONS - Commencement procedure - Competence - Form of commencement does not make an action incompetent - As what is important is the justice of the case (H3) Atago v. Nwuche (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 2995; (2013) 3 NWLR (PT.1341) 337

 

ACTIONS - Consistency - Need for - Parties as well as counsel must be consistent in the presentation of their case - Both at trial and appellate courts (H6) Pacers Multi-Dynamics Ltd v. The M.V. Dancing Sister (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 385; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1289) 169

 

ACTIONS - Constitution - Time fixed - Adherence - Such time cannot be extended beyond constitutional provisions - And non compliance robs court of jurisdiction over an action (H4) ANPP v. Goni (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 701; (2012) 7 NWLR (PT.1298) 147

 

ACTIONS - Court processes - Abuse - Characteristics - Saraki v. Kotoye - Abuse arises in improper use of judicial process by party - To interfere with due administration of justice (H2) TSA Ind. Ltd. v. FBN (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 4055; (2012) 14 NWLR (PT.1320) 326

 

ACTIONS - Court Processes - Legal practitioners - Signature - Since the processes were not signed by person cognizable as legal practitioner - The action should be struck out (H6) Alawiye v. Ogunsanya (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 2957; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1348) 570

 

ACTIONS - Court processes - Originating summons - Application - Doherty v. Doherty - The summons is not available for actions - Where the facts are in dispute - And can be used in interpretation of contracts documents Constitution (H6) Elelu-Habeeb v. A-G Federation (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 743; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1318) 423

 

ACTIONS - Courts - Actions - Reliefs - Alternative claim - Award of - Court will make order in respect of the claim - Where main claim fails (H11) Goldmark Nig. Ltd. v. Ibafon Co. Ltd. (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1251; (2012) 10 NWLR (PT.1308) 291

 

ACTIONS - Courts - Competence - Basis - Court is competent in a suit - When it is properly constituted - The subject matter being within its jurisdiction - And the case is initiated by due process of law (H12) Lafia L.G. v. Gov. Nasarawa State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4385; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 94

 

ACTIONS - Courts - Competence - Basis - Court’s competence in a case depends on - The suit being initiated by due process of law - Before a properly constituted panel - With no feature preventing exercise of jurisdiction (H2) Egunjobi v. FRN (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4259; (2013) 3 NWLR (PT.1342) 534

 

ACTIONS - Courts - Competence - Court is competent to entertain a case - When it has unfettered jurisdiction over the subject matter - With a properly constituted judicial membership (H3) Dangana v. Usman (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 577; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1349) 50

 

ACTIONS - Courts - Competence - Court must ensure its competence - And that of matters presented to it - For adjudication (H8) PDP v. Okorocha (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1155; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1323) 205

 

ACTIONS - Courts - Competence - Madukolu v. Nkemdilim - Court is competent to entertain a case - When it has unfettered jurisdiction over the subject matter - With a properly constituted judicial membership (H2) Elelu-Habeeb v. A-G Federation (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 743; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1318) 423

 

ACTIONS - Courts - Competence of - A court is competent to entertain a case - When the subject matter of the action is within its jurisdiction - And the action is initiated by due process of law (H3) NURTW v. RTEAN (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 149; (2012) 10 NWLR (PT.1307) 170

 

ACTIONS - Courts - Declaratory action - Proof - Plaintiff must show existence of subsisting or future legal right - Court is prepared to recognize - And that same is contested (H4) A-G Cross-River State v. A-G Fed. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2717; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1327) 425

 

ACTIONS - Courts - Failure to raise triable issue - Court can in appropriate case - Draw conclusions from pleadings - And enter judgment for a party (H3) Unity Bank Plc v. Denclag Ltd. (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1427; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1332) 293

 

ACTIONS - Courts - Jurisdiction - Actions - Commencement procedure - Since originating summons cannot properly initiate the matter - Court can convert the summons and order pleadings (H4) Atago v. Nwuche (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 2995; (2013) 3 NWLR (PT.1341) 337

 

ACTIONS - Courts - Jurisdiction - Determination - Existing law - The law in force at time of trial - Based on cause of action - Determines court with jurisdiction (H6) Goldmark Nig. Ltd. v. Ibafon Co. Ltd. (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1251; (2012) 10 NWLR (PT.1308) 291

 

ACTIONS - Courts - Jurisdiction - Determination of - Basis - It is the claim of plaintiff - That court should examine to determine whether or not it has jurisdiction - To entertain the action (H4) NURTW v. RTEAN (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 149; (2012) 10 NWLR (PT.1307) 170

 

ACTIONS - Courts - Jurisdiction - Undefended list - Transfer to general list - Anambra State High Court Rules O. 24 r. 9(5) - At any stage of the proceedings - Court can order the suit to be so transferred (H3) Intercontinental Bank Plc v. Brifina Ltd. (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1927; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1316) 1

 

ACTIONS - Courts - Land law - Title - Grant - Appellant cannot be granted title - Without a proper hearing and determination of the suit - By the court (H3) Oronti v. Onigbanjo (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1825; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1313) 23

 

ACTIONS - Courts - Need to determine on merit - Court must jealously guard its jurisdiction - To hear and determine a case on the merits (H1) Adepoju v. Yinka (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 37; (2012) 3 NWLR (PT.1288) 567

 

ACTIONS - Courts - Pleadings - Binding nature of - Courts are bound by pleadings before them - And should confine themselves - To the case presented by parties (H4) Ohochukwu v. A-G Rivers State (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 885; (2012) 6 NWLR (PT.1295) 53

 

ACTIONS - Courts - Processes - Abuse - Need to avoid - Case ought to be determined within reasonable time - As no court would allow party - To abuse it (H3) Chidoka v. First City Finance Co. Ltd. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2585; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1346) 144

 

ACTIONS - Courts - Undefended list - Transfer to general list - Basis - Where a judge is satisfied that there is triable issue - The suit must be transferred to general list (H4) Intercontinental Bank Plc v. Brifina Ltd. (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1927; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1316) 1

 

ACTIONS - Courts processes - Abuse - Determination - Conditions - To constitute abuse - Multiplicity of suits must have been instituted by a person - Against his opponent on same facts (H2) R-Benkay Nig. Ltd. v. Cadbury Nig. Ltd. (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1383; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1306) 596

 

ACTIONS - Crime - Fraud - Proof - Where allegation of commission of crime is an issue - The same must be proved beyond reasonable doubt (H1) Otukpo v. John (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3667; (2012) 7 NWLR (PT.1299) 357

 

ACTIONS - Crime - Proof - Criminal act of cross respondent is mere allegation - And under s. 465 Criminal Code - It must be proved beyond reasonable doubt - That exhibit A was forged (H8) Marine Mgt. Asso. v. N.M.A. (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3863; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1333) 506

 

ACTIONS - Declaratory action - Purpose - Such action is to seek equitable relief - Whereby plaintiff prays court to exercise its jurisdiction - By declaring existing state of affairs in his favour (H3) A-G Cross-River State v. A-G Fed. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2717; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1327) 425

 

ACTIONS - Declaratory reliefs - Grant - Without evidence from claimant - Court does not grant such relief - As plaintiff succeeds on the strength of his case (H8) CPC v. Suntai (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3543

 

ACTIONS - Declaratory reliefs - Need to prove - Appellant has the burden - To establish the seven declaratory reliefs - He claimed (H3) Emenike v. PDP (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1717; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1315) 556

 

ACTIONS - Doctrine of severance - Civil & criminal allegations - Where civil allegations are severable from criminal allegation - A party can succeed on his civil allegation - If proved (H9) Gundiri v. Nyako (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3341

 

ACTIONS - Documents - Rejection - Effect - Document rejected in evidence - Cannot be of any relevance in a matter - And its contents cannot fare better (H6) Nig. Ports Plc. v. Beecham Pharm. Ltd (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4155; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1333) 454

 

ACTIONS - Election petitions - Courts - Appeals - Final judgment - Meaning - Such judgment disposes of rights of parties - And puts an end to the action (H9) Ogboru v. Uduaghan (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1351; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1311) 357

 

ACTIONS - Elections - Inconsistency - Need to avoid - A party should be consistent - In stating as well as in proving its case (H8) Emenike v. PDP (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1717; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1315) 556

 

ACTIONS - Elections - Joinder of party - Condition - Party wishing to be joined in existing action - Must have direct or legal interest in same (H3) Bala v. Dikko (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3049; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1343) 52

 

ACTIONS - Elections - Pre-election matters - Courts - Jurisdiction - Joinder of electorates - Electorates cannot be rightly joined - In suit involving candidates in primary election (H2) Nwaogu v. Owuala (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3187

 

ACTIONS - Estoppel - Application - Since parties and subject matter in earlier suit - Are not different from those of present suit - Appellant is properly stopped from pursuing the appeal (H3) Mezu v. Co-operative & Commerce Bank Plc (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2831; (2013) 3 NWLR (PT.1340) 188

 

ACTIONS - Evidence - Admitted facts - Effect - Appellant’s earlier position that the property belongs to the company - Stands against his present posture (H1) Mezu v. Co-operative & Commerce Bank Plc (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2831; (2013) 3 NWLR (PT.1340) 188

 

ACTIONS - Fair hearing - Application - It applies to live suit - And not to case that is dead by effluxion of time - As in this case (H2) Akpanudoedehe v. Akpabio (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 314) 2211; (2013) 7 NWLR (PT.1354) 485

 

ACTIONS - Fair hearing - Breach - Adjournments - Where opportunity to present case was granted - But appellants failed to utilize it - They cannot be heard to complain of denial of fair hearing (H3) Military Gov. Lagos State v. Adeyiga (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 839; (2012) 5 NWLR (PT.1293) 291

 

ACTIONS - Filing - Limitation - Where actions are brought against public officials - Same must be filed within 3 months after cause of action accrued (H15) Lafia L.G. v. Gov. Nasarawa State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4385; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 94

 

ACTIONS - Fundamental rights - Enforcement - Leave - By O. 1 r. 2(2) Fundamental Rights Rules 1979 - Leave must be obtained - Before applicant can enforce the rights (H13) Lafia L.G. v. Gov. Nasarawa State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4385; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 94

 

ACTIONS - Injunctions - Perpetual injunction - Purpose - The injunction is used to permanently prevent infringement of rights - And avoid multiplicity of suits (H10) Goldmark Nig. Ltd. v. Ibafon Co. Ltd. (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1251; (2012) 10 NWLR (PT.1308) 291

 

ACTIONS - Judgment - Debt - Interest payable - Limitation - Bauchi State High Court Rules O.40 r.7 - Application of interest cannot be - Overtaken by effluxion of time (H2) Unity Bank Plc v. Denclag Ltd. (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1427; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1332) 293

 

ACTIONS - Judgments - Jurisdiction - Court processes - Defect in - As the processes have been voided as being nullities - Decisions arising therefrom are nullities (H11) Alawiye v. Ogunsanya (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 2957; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1348) 570

 

ACTIONS - Judgments - Meaning of - Judgment is court’s final determination of - Rights and obligations of parties in a case - And it includes any order from which appeal lies (H2) Ugba v. Suswam (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 314) 2345; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1345) 427

 

ACTIONS - Judgments - Reliefs - Statute of limitation - Use of - Party invoking such statute - Is bound to specify reliefs in previous judgment - Which a latter suit seeks to enforce (H1) Purification Tech. Nig. Ltd. v. Jubril (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 313) 2157; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1331) 109

 

ACTIONS - Judgments - Res judicata - Application - Since the judgment upon which estoppel per rem judicatam was based is void - The doctrine cannot be applied in present suit (H6) Adeyemi-Bero v. L.S.D.P.C. (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3743; (2013) 8 NWLR (PT.1356) 238

 

ACTIONS - Judgments - Valid judgment - Ingredients - Judgment should set out and review action presented by parties - In relation to applicable laws - As well as gives reasons for conclusions reached (H6) Ogboru v. Uduaghan (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1351; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1311) 357

 

ACTIONS - Judgments - Validity - Actions - Statute barred - Limitation Law of Lagos s. 12(2) - Judgment in suit no. LD/1213/76 can be pleaded and relied upon - Though action brought upon same is statute barred (H3) Purification Tech. Nig. Ltd. v. Jubril (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 313) 2157; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1331) 109

 

ACTIONS - Judicial precedents - Authorities - Distinction - A-G Plateau State v. A-G Nasarawa State - Since facts of the case law is different from that of present action - Holden therein cannot be relied upon as res judicata (H4) A-G Nasarawa State v. A-G Plateau State (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1011; (2012) 10 NWLR (PT.1309) 419

 

ACTIONS - Judicial precedents - Authorities - Distinction - Ogwuche v. Mba - The case law is not a precedent - To the present case - Since both cases are predicated on different issues (H2) Fidelity Bank Plc v. Monye (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1203; (2012) 10 NWLR (PT.1307) 1

 

ACTIONS - Jurisdiction - Absence of - Effect - Where court lacks jurisdiction in a case - The proceedings therein remain nullity ab initio (H2) Goldmark Nig. Ltd. v. Ibafon Co. Ltd. (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1251; (2012) 10 NWLR (PT.1308) 291

 

ACTIONS - Jurisdiction - Federal High Court - 1999 Constitution s. 251(1)(q) - The court has jurisdiction over actions - Involving Federal Government or any of its agencies (H5) Elelu-Habeeb v. A-G Federation (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 743; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1318) 423

 

ACTIONS - Jurisdiction - Fundamental nature - Once the issue is raised - Court must not order against defendant - Until the issue is settled (H12) Ajayi v. Adebiyi (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1843; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1310) 137

 

ACTIONS - Jurisdiction - Fundamentality of - It is to be determined at earliest opportunity - Because if a court lacks jurisdiction over a case - The proceeding remains a nullity ab initio - No matter how well conducted (H2) NURTW v. RTEAN (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 149; (2012) 10 NWLR (PT.1307) 170

 

ACTIONS - Jurisdiction - Waiver - Instance of - Waiver of procedural jurisdiction occurs - When a litigant submits to jurisdiction of court - In spite of his misgiving of initiating process (H2) Nagogo v. CPC (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4441; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1339) 448

 

ACTIONS - Land law - Appeals - Need for consistency - Respondents must be consistent in their case - Since Appellate court cannot go - Outside issues settled by trial court (H4) Oriorio v. Osain (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 2001; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1327) 560

 

ACTIONS - Land law - Disputed land - Lis pendens - Application - Outcome of pending suit is irrelevant - Since a purchaser who buys property in litigation - Does so at his own risk (H2) Oronti v. Onigbanjo (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1825; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1313) 23

 

ACTIONS - Land law - Identity of land - Purpose - This is to ascertain the property in litigation - So as to avoid granting of land - To a party who is not entitled to same (H2) Iseogbekun v. Adelakun (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3573; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1337) 14

 

ACTIONS - Land law - Lis pendens - Application - Bua v. Dauda - It must be shown inter alia - That suit on the disputed property - Was pending at the time of sale (H1) Oronti v. Onigbanjo (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1825; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1313) 23

 

ACTIONS - Land law - Locus standi - Notice of acquisition - Right to seek for nullification of the notice - Does not reside in person who is not owner or occupier of the land (H8) Goldmark Nig. Ltd. v. Ibafon Co. Ltd. (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1251; (2012) 10 NWLR (PT.1308) 291

 

ACTIONS - Land law - Proof - Onus - Proof is on preponderance of evidence - And onus is on party who will fail - If no evidence is adduced on either side (H6) Ayorinde v. Sogunro (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1895; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1312) 460

 

ACTIONS - Land law - Public land - Acquisition - Cause of action - Computation - Public Land Acquisition Law of Lagos State - Right of action accrues from date - The acquisition is published in gazette (H3) Ajayi v. Adebiyi (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1843; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1310) 137

 

ACTIONS - Land law - Public land acquisition - Proper party - The State government must be made a party - In suits bordering on acquisition - And service of notice thereof (H4) Ajayi v. Adebiyi (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1843; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1310) 137

 

ACTIONS - Land law - Trespass - Damages - Award of - Where damages are awarded for trespass - And there is claim for injunction - Court will grant same - To prevent multiplicity of actions (H7) Oriorio v. Osain (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 2001; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1327) 560

 

ACTIONS - Legal practitioners - Case law - Citation - Counsel must cite case with clarity - Providing inter alia name of the law report - Or a certified true copy - Where case is unreported (H1) Chidoka v. First City Finance Co. Ltd. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2585; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1346) 144

 

ACTIONS - Legal practitioners - Negligence - Conduct of case - Counsel is master of his case - As he may decide not to call witness - Or cross-examine witness of the other party - But may be sued for professional negligence (H2) Chidoka v. First City Finance Co. Ltd. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2585; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1346) 144

 

ACTIONS - Legislation - Amendment - Effect on right of action - Decree No.107 of 1993 - An existing right is not lost - Where new law transfers jurisdiction of court (H5) Goldmark Nig. Ltd. v. Ibafon Co. Ltd. (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1251; (2012) 10 NWLR (PT.1308) 291

 

ACTIONS - Limitation - Determination - Basis - It is determined from when cause of action accrued - And date of commencement of suit - As well as period of limitation in statute (H2) Ajayi v. Adebiyi (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1843; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1310) 137

 

ACTIONS - Limitation - Land law - Continuing trespass - The action is not statute barred - Since the trespass continued - Until when the action was instituted (H3) Oriorio v. Osain (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 2001; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1327) 560

 

ACTIONS - Limitation - Land law - Lagos State Limitation Law s.16 (2) - Action for recovery of land - Cannot be validly instituted after 12 years - From the date cause of action accrued (H1) Ajayi v. Adebiyi (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1843; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1310) 137

 

ACTIONS - Limitation - Preliminary objection - Purpose - Objection is to show court that action is statute barred - And that plaintiff has no locus standi - Hence court must address the issue first (H7) Ajayi v. Adebiyi (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1843; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1310) 137

 

ACTIONS - Limitation - Public Officers (Protection) Act - Effect - Where statute prescribes a period for institution of action - Any action instituted after the period - Is totally barred (H1) A-G Rivers State v. A-G Bayelsa State (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2519; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1340) 123

 

ACTIONS - Limitation - Public Officers Protection Law s.2 - Actions against public officers - Shall be brought within 3 months of the act complained of (H5) Ajayi v. Adebiyi (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1843; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1310) 137

 

ACTIONS - Locus standi - Absence of - Effect - The suit is incompetent - And court lacks jurisdiction to entertain same - Save to give an order of dismissal (H10) Ajayi v. Adebiyi (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1843; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1310) 137

 

ACTIONS - Locus standi - Determination - Principles & Tests - Party must show that his rights have been infringed - And the action must be justiciable - As well as an existence of dispute (H9) Ajayi v. Adebiyi (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1843; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1310) 137

 

ACTIONS - Locus standi - Lack of - Proper order to make - Is to strike out the suit - Hence Court of Appeal was right in its decision (H10) Pacers Multi-Dynamics Ltd v. The M.V. Dancing Sister (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 385; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1289) 169

 

ACTIONS - Locus standi - Legal practitioner - Appellant’s engagement in active legal practice without more - Does not confer on him any cause of action - Or locus standi to institute the action (H4) Uwazuruonye v. Gov. Imo State (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3415; (2013) 8 NWLR (PT.1355) 28

 

ACTIONS - Locus standi - Meaning - Locus standi is legal right of party - To institute an action in court - Without any inhibition (H8) Ajayi v. Adebiyi (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1843; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1310) 137

 

ACTIONS - Locus standi - Proof - Duty on plaintiff - Statement of claim must disclose sufficient legal interest - And how such interest arose in the subject matter of the action (H4) Pacers Multi-Dynamics Ltd v. The M.V. Dancing Sister (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 385; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1289) 169

 

ACTIONS - Locus standi - Test - How determined - The action must be justifiable - And there must be a dispute between the parties (H5) Pacers Multi-Dynamics Ltd v. The M.V. Dancing Sister (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 385; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1289) 169

 

ACTIONS - Nature - Determination of - It is appellant’s claim that determines the nature and competence of a suit - Thus appellant’s claim is for declaration of title - And not breach of fair hearing (H4) Amale v. Sokoto L. G. (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 99; (2012) 5 NWLR (PT.1292) 181

 

ACTIONS - Necessary party - Failure to join - Effect - Presence of such a party is apt for complete adjudication of the matter - And any judgment made behind the party - Will be to no avail (H1) NURTW v. RTEAN (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 149; (2012) 10 NWLR (PT.1307) 170

 

ACTIONS - Nullification - Effect - Once an action or order is nullified by a court - Then the same is deemed void ab initio (H2) Marwa v. Nyako (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 231; (2012) 6 NWLR (PT.1296) 199

 

ACTIONS - Nullity - Need to pronounce - Court is required to declare an act void - Otherwise it remains valid and binding (H3) Marwa v. Nyako (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 231; (2012) 6 NWLR (PT.1296) 199

 

ACTIONS - Orders of court - Interim order - Duration - Such order exists pending determination of suit or motion on notice - And its expiration does not affect the purpose thereof (H4) Kubor v. Dickson (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3121; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1345) 534

 

ACTIONS - Parties - Joinder of party - Purpose - Joinder of party in suit is to make that person - Bound by the result of the suit and question to be settled (H6) Lagos State Bulk Purchase Corp. v. Purification Techn. Ltd. (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3829; (2013) 7 NWLR (PT.1352) 82

 

ACTIONS - Parties - Pleadings - Binding nature of - Party must state his complaints and remedy in statement of claim - Because any matter outside same - Goes to no issue (H8) Ohochukwu v. A-G Rivers State (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 885; (2012) 6 NWLR (PT.1295) 53

 

ACTIONS - Party - Locus standi - Precondition - To have locus standi to sue - Party must show sufficient interest in the suit - Such that he will suffer injury from the litigation - If not joined (H6) Uwazuruonye v. Gov. Imo State (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3415; (2013) 8 NWLR (PT.1355) 28

 

ACTIONS - Pleadings - Statement of claim - Relevance - It supersedes writ of summons - As such any relief claimed in the writ but not claimed in the statement of claim - Is deemed abandoned (H1) Stowe v. Benstowe (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 457; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1306) 450

 

ACTIONS - Proof - Standard of - Actions are proved on preponderance of evidence - And balance of probabilities (H9) Ohochukwu v. A-G Rivers State (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 885; (2012) 6 NWLR (PT.1295) 53

 

ACTIONS - Public Officers Protection Act s. 2(a) - Defence - The defence is available where a person is public officer - And the act was done in execution of his duty (H3) Sulgrave v. FGN (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4565; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1329) 309

 

ACTIONS - Reasonable cause of action - Meaning - This is cause of action which when only allegation in statement of claim are considered - Have some chances of success (H3) Uwazuruonye v. Gov. Imo State (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3415; (2013) 8 NWLR (PT.1355) 28

 

ACTIONS - Rules of court - Binding nature - The rules are for compliance of court and parties - Since they regulate matters in court - As well as help parties in prosecution of cases (H2) MC Invest. Ltd. v. Core Invest. & Capital Market Ltd. (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 314) 2235; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1313) 1

 

ACTIONS - Statutes - Amendment vide s. 1 of the Edict made while litigation is on - Would have no legal effect on that matter - As it would be subjudice (H4) Lagos State Bulk Purchase Corp. v. Purification Techn. Ltd. (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3829; (2013) 7 NWLR (PT.1352) 82

 

ACTIONS - Statutes - Limitation - Public Officers Protection Act s. 2(a) - Action against public officer must be brought - Within 3 months of act or default - Otherwise the cause of action is statute-barred (H2) Sulgrave v. FGN (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4565; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1329) 309

 

ACTIONS - Statutes - Public Officers (Protection) Act - Application - Conditions precedent - For the Act to avail a person - Action must be against public officer - And the act done must be in pursuance of public duty (H2) A-G Rivers State v. A-G Bayelsa State (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2519; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1340) 123

 

ACTIONS - Technicalities - Court processes - Wrong naming - The use of the word refinery or refining interchangeably - Did not overreach respondent - In absence of any earlier complaint (H2) Agbule v. Warri Refinery (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3435; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1350) 318

 

ACTIONS - Torts - Slander - Proof - Slander is actionable without proof of damages - Being required of plaintiff to succeed in the action (H5) Oruwari v. Osler (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3941; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1348) 535

 

ACTIONS - Torts - Slander - Translation - For a cause of action to arise - Slander uttered in foreign language must firstly be set out in the original language - Followed by literal translation to English (H1) Oruwari v. Osler (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3941; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1348) 535

 

ACTIONS - Trespass - Basis - Trespass to land is actionable - At the suit of person in possession of the land (H6) Military Gov. Lagos State v. Adeyiga (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 839; (2012) 5 NWLR (PT.1293) 291

 

ACTIONS - Trespass - Continuing trespass - Statute of Limitation - Applicability - The plea of limitation does not constitute defence - To continuing acts of trespass (H2) Obueke v. Nnamchi (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1801; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1314) 327

 

ACTIONS - Undefended list - Commencement - Application for writ of summons for claim for liquidated money demand - Is accompanied by affidavit - Setting out grounds for the claim (H1) Bona.V. Textile Ltd. v. Asaba Textile Mill Plc (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3063; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1338) 357

 

ACTIONS - Undefended list - Defence - Defendant who wishes to defend the action - Must disclose his intention to registrar - With affidavit disclosing defence on merit (H3) Bona.V. Textile Ltd. v. Asaba Textile Mill Plc (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3063; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1338) 357

 

ACTIONS - Undefended list - Determination - Court must consider notice of intention to defend - And examine if plaintiff has established prima facie claim - In the affidavit (H1) Intercontinental Bank Plc v. Brifina Ltd. (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1927; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1316) 1

 

ACTIONS - Undefended list - Ex parte hearing - Court can hear application for such action ex parte - And can enter the suit in the list - Where it is satisfied that there is no defence to plaintiff’s claim (H2) Bona.V. Textile Ltd. v. Asaba Textile Mill Plc (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3063; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1338) 357

 

ACTIONS - Undefended list - Fair hearing - Parties are taken to have been heard - By virtue of affidavits filed - Which are considered by court before deciding to adopt a procedure (H5) Bona.V. Textile Ltd. v. Asaba Textile Mill Plc (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3063; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1338) 357

 

ACTIONS - Undefended list - Leave to defend - Where leave is granted by court - The action is automatically removed from the list - To general cause list (H4) Bona.V. Textile Ltd. v. Asaba Textile Mill Plc (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3063; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1338) 357

 

ACTIONS - Undefended list - Transfer to general list - Procedure - With order transferring suit to general list - Parties are expected to file their pleadings (H8) Bona.V. Textile Ltd. v. Asaba Textile Mill Plc (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3063; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1338) 357

 

ACTIONS - Words & phrases - “Cause of action” - Meaning - The words connote totality of all material facts - Necessary to establish legal right in a case (H1) Nig. Ports Plc. v. Beecham Pharm. Ltd (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4155; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1333) 454

 

ACTIONS - Words & Phrases - Court - “Judgment” - Definition - Judgment is the official and authentic decision of court - Upon rights of parties in an action (H4) Ogboru v. Uduaghan (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1351; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1311) 357

 

ADJOURNMENTS - Appeals - Fair hearing - Breach - Adjournments - Counsel that treated a procedure as regular before trial court - Cannot be heard to object to same on appeal (H4) Military Gov. Lagos State v. Adeyiga (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 839; (2012) 5 NWLR (PT.1293) 291

 

ADJOURNMENTS - Courts - Indian Hemp - Report Certificate - Service of - Evidence Act s.43 - Where the certificate is not served on adverse party ten days before usage in court - Adjournment may be granted (H3) Ugwanyi v. FRN (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1407; (2012) 8 NWLR (PT.1302) 384

 

ADJOURNMENTS - Fair hearing - Appeals - Breach - Adjournment - Counsel who fails to utilize opportunity to be heard - Cannot complain of breach of same (H4) Gov. Zamfara State v. Gyalange (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1535; (2013) 8 NWLR (PT.1357) 462

 

ADJOURNMENTS - Fair hearing - Breach - Adjournments - Where opportunity to present case was granted - But appellants failed to utilize it - They cannot be heard to complain of denial of fair hearing (H3) Military Gov. Lagos State v. Adeyiga (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 839; (2012) 5 NWLR (PT.1293) 291

 

ADJOURNMENTS - Fair hearing - Breach - Elections - Adjournments - Where opportunity to present case was granted - But appellant failed to utilize it - He cannot be heard to complain of denial of fair hearing (H1) ACN v. Lamido (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 621; (2012) 8 NWLR (PT.1303) 560

 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Actions - Limitation - Public Officers Protection Law s.2 - Actions against public officers - Shall be brought within 3 months of the act complained of (H5) Ajayi v. Adebiyi (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1843; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1310) 137

 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Election petitions - Party primaries & main election - INEC as electoral umpire - Must ensure compliance with Electoral Act - And guidelines of the party - As to maintain sanctity in electoral process (H6) Asogwa v. PDP (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4155; (2013) 7 NWLR (PT.1353) 207

 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Elections - Election time table - Notice of - Under Electoral Act 2010 - INEC shall publish notice of activities not later than 90 days - Before the day appointed for holding an election (H3) NDP v. INEC (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3901; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1350) 392

 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Legislation - Interpretation - Local Govt. Council - Tenure - Imo State Local Govt. Admin. Law s.23(1)(2) - Three years term is reserved for the council - From date the chairman takes oath of office (H1) Ehirim v. IMSIEC (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1521

 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - National Judicial Council - Powers - 1999 Constitution para. 21(d) of pt.1 of 3rd Schedule - Council can recommend persons for appointment and removal as judicial officers (H9) Elelu-Habeeb v. A-G Federation (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 743; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1318) 423

 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Performance of duty - Regulated by statute - Where two methods or procedures for doing a thing are provided - A party can choose any of the methods so provided (H1) PDP v. INEC (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3693; (2012) 7 NWLR (PT.1300) 538

 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Public Officers Protection Act s. 2(a) - Defence - The defence is available where a person is public officer - And the act was done in execution of his duty (H3) Sulgrave v. FGN (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4565; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1329) 309

 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Trade Unions - National Industrial Court - Trade dispute - Manner of initiating - By 1976 Trade Dispute Act s. 10 - All matters within the competence of the court - Must be referred to the court by the Minister of Labour (H8) NURTW v. RTEAN (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 149; (2012) 10 NWLR (PT.1307) 170

 

ADMIRALTY - Action in rem - Meaning - It is a proceeding against an arrested ship - In which the owner is compelled to enter appearance - To defend the ship (H1) Pacers Multi-Dynamics Ltd v. The M.V. Dancing Sister (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 385; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1289) 169

 

AFFIDAVITS - Election petitions - Crime - Proof - Appellant must file further affidavit - Giving particulars of the dead delegates alleged to have died in violence (H4) Eyiboh v. Abia (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4301; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1325) 51

 

AFFIDAVITS - Actions - Undefended list - Commencement - Application for writ of summons for claim for liquidated money demand - Is accompanied by affidavit - Setting out grounds for the claim (H1) Bona.V. Textile Ltd. v. Asaba Textile Mill Plc (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3063; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1338) 357

 

AFFIDAVITS - Actions - Undefended list - Defence - Defendant who wishes to defend the action - Must disclose his intention to registrar - With affidavit disclosing defence on merit (H3) Bona.V. Textile Ltd. v. Asaba Textile Mill Plc (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3063; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1338) 357

 

AFFIDAVITS - Appeals - Action - Need for consistency - Party must be consistent in his case - As it is unstable of 3rd respondent to admit paras 1-17 of supporting affidavit - But denied para 13 of same (H2) Eyiboh v. Abia (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4301; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1325) 51

 

AFFIDAVITS - Appeals - Extension of time - Application - Reason for - Since the supporting affidavit did not disclose cogent reason for delay - The application cannot be granted (H2) Audu v. Wada (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3039

 

AFFIDAVITS - Averments - Failure to deny - Effect - Since appellants failed to make proper denial - The averments of respondent are deemed admitted (H3) NNPC v. Famfa Oil Ltd (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1947; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 148

 

AFFIDAVITS - Conflicts - Resolution - It is not only from oral evidence that conflicts in affidavits would be resolved - As there are enough materials on which court could resolve conflict (H4) Nagogo v. CPC (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4441; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1339) 448

 

AFFIDAVITS - Conflicts - Resolution - Where affidavits conflict - But there is documentary evidence in support of one - Court must examine it before coming to fair decision (H7) Lafia L.G. v. Gov. Nasarawa State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4385; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 94

 

AFFIDAVITS - Damages - Special damages - Proof - Appellant has the burden - To strictly plead the professional fees - As stated in paragraph 20 of supporting affidavit (H2) Intercontinental Bank Plc v. Brifina Ltd. (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1927; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1316) 1

 

AFFIDAVITS - Deposition - Not challenged - Effect - Deposition in affidavit which is not controverted - Is deemed admitted (H6) Tukur v. Uba (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2651; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1343) 90

 

AFFIDAVITS - Deposition - Not denied expressly - Or by necessary implication - Should be deemed to be admitted (H3) Eyiboh v. Abia (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4301; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1325) 51

 

AFFIDAVITS - Depositions - Not controverted - Uncontroverted facts in affidavits are taken as true - And only minimal proof is required of them (H2) Plateau State Health Serv. Mgt Board v. Goshwe (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3233; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1338) 383

 

AFFIDAVITS - Elections - Depositions - Failure to deny - In absence of specific denial of a paragraph of the affidavit - 2nd plaintiff being a financial member of 1st plaintiff - Is eligible to contest the primary election (H7) Nagogo v. CPC (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4441; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1339) 448

 

AFFIDAVITS - Jurisdiction - Determination of - Basis - Court must consider deposed facts in affidavits - Writ of summons and statement of claim (H11) Ajayi v. Adebiyi (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1843; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1310) 137

 

AFFIDAVITS - Objections - Preliminary objection - Basis - Since such objection deals with law - No affidavit is necessary - But when facts are in issue - Affidavit would be necessary (H2) Okereke v. James (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2385; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1326) 339

 

AFFIDAVITS - Originating summons - Applicability of - Appeal - Concurrent findings that the issues cannot be resolved by affidavits evidence - Were not shown to be perverse (H8) Asogwa v. PDP (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4155; (2013) 7 NWLR (PT.1353) 207

 

AFFIDAVITS - Stay of execution - Application - Affidavit in support - Validity - Stay will not be granted - Since the affidavit did not disclose any special circumstance (H3) Amadi v. Chukwu (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2375; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1347) 301

 

AFFIDAVITS - Undefended list - Determination - Court must consider notice of intention to defend - And examine if plaintiff has established prima facie claim - In the affidavit (H1) Intercontinental Bank Plc v. Brifina Ltd. (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1927; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1316) 1

 

AGREEMENTS - Contracts - Discharge - Means of - Contract may be discharged by performance - Agreement - Frustration - Or by breach (H2) Ahmed v. CBN (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 277; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1339) 524

 

AGREEMENTS - Contracts - Terms - Binding nature - Court must treat as sacrosanct - Terms of agreement freely entered into by parties (H4) BFI Group Corp. v. Bureau of Public Enterpr. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2553; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1332) 209

 

AGREEMENTS - Petroleum law - Exhibit EE2 - Validity of - The exhibit is invalid - Since the parties cannot by consent - Alter provisions of the Petroleum Act (H7) NNPC v. Famfa Oil Ltd (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1947; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 148

 

AGREEMENTS - Property Law - Surrender - Effect - By agreeing to assign to someone else - Plaintiff has surrendered the property to Rivers State government (H2) Ohochukwu v. A-G Rivers State (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 885; (2012) 6 NWLR (PT.1295) 53

 

ALIBI - Evidential burden of proof - Alibi - Burden of adducing evidence on an issue - Can be placed on either side - And where same is not discharged - The issue will be resolved against the party (H3) Ikaria v. State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4371

 

ALIBI - Plea of - Sustainability - For the plea to be successful - Defence must show inter alia - That accused is separated by distance or ill health - From the crime scene (H6) Ilodigwe v. State (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2789; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1331) 1

 

APPEALS - Action - Consistency - Without obtaining amendment from court - A party has to be consistent in his case - From lower to appellate court (H5) Asogwa v. PDP (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4155; (2013) 7 NWLR (PT.1353) 207

 

APPEALS - Action - Need for consistency - Party must be consistent in his case - As it is unstable of 3rd respondent to admit paras 1-17 of supporting affidavit - But denied para 13 of same (H2) Eyiboh v. Abia (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4301; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1325) 51

 

APPEALS - Actions - Consistency - Need for - Parties as well as counsel must be consistent in the presentation of their case - Both at trial and appellate courts (H6) Pacers Multi-Dynamics Ltd v. The M.V. Dancing Sister (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 385; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1289) 169

 

APPEALS - Actions - Need for consistency - A party must be consistent in its case - And an appeal is regarded as a continuation of the original action - Rather than an inception of a new suit (H2) Okadigbo v. Emeka (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 181; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1311) 237

 

APPEALS - Actions - Parties - Right of appeal - 1999 Constitution s. 233(5) - The right is reserved to party - Aggrieved at decision in a proceeding (H1) Elelu-Habeeb v. A-G Federation (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 743; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1318) 423

 

APPEALS - Actions - Undefended suit - Defence to - Federal High Court Rules O.3 rr. 11&12 - Failure to comply - Effect - Appellants are deemed to have no defence (H1) MC Invest. Ltd. v. Core Invest. & Capital Market Ltd. (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 314) 2235; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1313) 1

 

APPEALS - Application for enlargement of time - Reason for delay - Applicant’s duty - Applicant must establish good reasons - To justify grant of the application (H1) Olatubosun v. Texaco Nig. Plc (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1985; (2012) 14 NWLR (PT.1319) 200

 

APPEALS - Armed Robbery - Evidence - Inconsistency - Appellate court will set aside findings of trial court - Where there are material contradictions in evidence (H4) Adekoya v. State (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 987; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1306) 539

 

APPEALS - Brief - Filing - Mistake of counsel - Effect - Party ought not to be made to suffer - Because of delay of his counsel in filing brief (H8) Alawiye v. Ogunsanya (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 2957; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1348) 570

 

APPEALS - Brief - Preliminary objection - The objection raised in a brief cannot be deemed argued along with the brief - As respondent is required to specifically seek and obtain leave - To move its objection (H1) NDP v. INEC (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3901; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1350) 392

 

APPEALS - Briefs - Failure to file - Dismissal order - Court of Appeal Rules O.6 r.10 - Dismissal based on such failure is final -And the court cannot give order of re-listing (H1) Gov. Zamfara State v. Gyalange (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1535; (2013) 8 NWLR (PT.1357) 462

 

APPEALS - Charges - Objection - When to raise - The time to object is immediately the charge was read to accused - As any objection on appeal is waste of time (H2) Timothy v. FRN (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 313) 2191; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1344) 213

 

APPEALS - Chieftaincy matters - Actions - Pleadings - Proof - Plaintiff must rely on strength of his case - And not on weakness of defence (H1) Akande v. Adisa (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1681; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1324) 538

 

APPEALS - Chieftaincy matters - Evidence - Contradictions - Effect on appeal - It must be shown that trial court - Failed to advert its mind to the contradictions - Before its judgment can be reversed (H2) Taiwo v. Ogundele (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 2027; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1322) 57

 

APPEALS - Concurrent decision - Supreme Court does not interfere - Unless it is shown to be perverse - Or contrary to known law (H3) Akande v. Adisa (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1681; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1324) 538

 

APPEALS - Concurrent finding - Supreme Court does not interfere - Save where the decision is perverse (H7) Okewu v. FRN (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 923; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1305) 327

 

APPEALS - Concurrent findings - Arowolo v. Ifabiyi - Supreme Court does not interfere - Except there is miscarriage of justice - Or violation of principles of law or procedure (H3) Peterside v. Fubara (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3969; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1349) 156

 

APPEALS - Concurrent findings - Findings of lower courts are unassailable - Since same did not occasion a miscarriage of justice (H5) Onyenye v. State (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 314) 2271; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1324) 586

 

APPEALS - Concurrent findings - Supreme Court does not interfere - Save where the findings are perverse - Or there was a miscarriage of justice (H8) Pacers Multi-Dynamics Ltd v. The M.V. Dancing Sister (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 385; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1289) 169

 

APPEALS - Concurrent findings - Supreme Court does not interfere - Save where the findings are perverse (H12) Military Gov. Lagos State v. Adeyiga (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 839; (2012) 5 NWLR (PT.1293) 291

 

APPEALS - Concurrent findings - Supreme Court does not interfere - Save where there is substantial error - Such as miscarriage of justice (H10) Aliucha v. Elechi (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1065

 

APPEALS - Concurrent findings - Supreme Court does not interfere - Save where findings are perverse (H1) Haruna v. A-G Federation (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1309; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1306) 419

 

APPEALS - Concurrent findings - Supreme Court does not interfere - Save where the findings are perverse - Or there was a miscarriage of justice (H5) Ugwanyi v. FRN (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1407; (2012) 8 NWLR (PT.1302) 384

 

APPEALS - Concurrent findings - Supreme Court does not interfere - Except where the findings are perverse (H3) Ezigbo v. State (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 314) 2219; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1326) 318

 

APPEALS - Concurrent findings - Supreme Court will not disturb the findings - That evidence of appellant’s handwriting expert is not reliable (H3) Phillips v. Eba Odan Commercial & Industrial Co. Ltd. (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1611; (2013) 1 NWLR (PT.1336) 618

 

APPEALS - Concurrent findings - Supreme Court will not interfere with the findings - Since there was no perversity (H1) Obueke v. Nnamchi (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1801; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1314) 327

 

APPEALS - Concurrent findings - Supreme Court will not interfere - Since the findings are not perverse - And there was no miscarriage of justice (H7) Ayorinde v. Sogunro (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1895; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1312) 460

 

APPEALS - Concurrent findings - Supreme Court will not interfere - Since the findings did not cause a miscarriage of justice (H1) Rabiu v. Adebajo (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 314) 2329; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1322) 125

 

APPEALS - Concurrent judgments - Supreme Court will interfere - Where the judgments are perverse - Or has occasioned a miscarriage of justice (H15) Ajayi v. Adebiyi (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1843; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1310) 137

 

APPEALS - Constitution - Right of appeal - Leave - Grounds of law - Since the grounds in issue are of law - Leave is not required - Thus the appeal is competently initiated (H1) Amadi v. INEC (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 533; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1345) 595

 

APPEALS - Court - Issues - Formulation - When issues formulated by parties are not easily discernable - Appellate court may reformulate same - And such must be in conformity with grounds of appeal (H1) Peterside v. Fubara (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3969; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1349) 156

 

APPEALS - Court - Issues - Suo motu raising - Court can formulate issues in interest of clarity - But such issues must arise from grounds of appeal - As put forward by appellant (H2) NDP v. INEC (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3901; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1350) 392

 

APPEALS - Court of Appeal - “Nemo dat quod non habet - Use of - The doctrine was not wrongly used - As the court rightly clarified the effect of Decree 21 of 1996 - Which amended error in Decree 54 of 1993 (H2) Adeyemi-Bero v. L.S.D.P.C. (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3743; (2013) 8 NWLR (PT.1356) 238

 

APPEALS - Court of Appeal - Judgment - Deferment of reasons - Where the court is not sitting in final capacity - It cannot defer reasons for its decision (H5) PDP v. Okorocha (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1155; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1323) 205

 

APPEALS - Court of Appeal - Jurisdiction - Where the court lacks jurisdiction over an appeal - It should nonetheless proceed to hear same on merits - So as to give Supreme Court benefit of its opinion - Thereby avoiding waste of judicial time (H2) Stowe v. Benstowe (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 457; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1306) 450

 

APPEALS - Court of Appeal - Powers - By s.15 of Court of Appeal Act - The court is empowered to assume jurisdiction - Where trial court erroneously declines jurisdiction (H3) Peretu v. Gariga (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4543; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1348) 415

 

APPEALS - Court processes - Application as interested party - 1st respondent’s application does not constitute abuse of process - And Court of Appeal was right in granting same (H1) Waziri v. Gumel (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1473; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1304) 185

 

APPEALS - Courts - Application as interested party - Exercise of discretion - Since Court of Appeal complied with 1999 Constitution s. 243(a)(b) in granting the application - Supreme Court will not interfere (H2) Waziri v. Gumel (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1473; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1304) 185

 

APPEALS - Courts - Discretion - Exercise of - Appellate court does not interfere with discretion of trial judges - Save where same was done arbitrary (H11) Military Gov. Lagos State v. Adeyiga (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 839; (2012) 5 NWLR (PT.1293) 291

 

APPEALS - Courts - Discretionary order of trial court - Interference - Appellate court does not interfere - Save on grounds of law - Or where the discretion was wrongly exercised (H10) Akinyemi v. Odu’a Inv. Co. Ltd (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 55; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1329) 209

 

APPEALS - Courts - Evidence - Evaluation - It is the duty of trial court to evaluate and ascribe probative value to evidence - But appellate court intervenes - Where trial Judge fails to evaluate evidence properly (H5) Otukpo v. John (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3667; (2012) 7 NWLR (PT.1299) 357

 

APPEALS - Courts - Evidence - Evaluation - Trial court ascribes probative value to evidence - And appellate court does not interfere - Unless for compelling reasons (H6) Egunjobi v. FRN (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4259; (2013) 3 NWLR (PT.1342) 534

 

APPEALS - Courts - Fair hearing - It is wrong for court to dismiss an appeal - Without giving audience to counsel in the matter (H1) General Electric Company v. Akande (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1237; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1327) 593

 

APPEALS - Courts - Findings - Binding nature of - Holding by court which is not appealed against - Is binding on party against whom it was made (H2) Uwazurike v. Nwachukwu (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3249; (2013) 3 NWLR (PT.1342) 503

 

APPEALS - Courts - Findings of fact - Failure to appeal - Where appellant fails to appeal against such finding - He will not be allowed to submit thereon (H7) Atanda v. Iliasu (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3015; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1351) 529

 

APPEALS - Courts - Issue - Jurisdiction - As there is no appeal on issue of jurisdiction - Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to reopen the issue - Already settled by trial court (H4) Akere v. Gov. Oyo State (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3471; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1314) 240

 

APPEALS - Courts - Issues - Determination - Court must consider all issues that have been joined by parties - And raised before it for determination (H2) Marine Mgt. Asso. v. N.M.A. (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3863; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1333) 506

 

APPEALS - Courts - Jurisdiction - Determination - Trial or appellate court must first determine - Whether or not it has jurisdiction over matter - Presented to it for adjudication (H2) Akere v. Gov. Oyo State (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3471; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1314) 240

 

APPEALS - Courts - Jurisdiction - Motions - Determination - Court of Appeal not being final court - Rightly determined on merit the motion it struck out - In case its decision on same is faulted on appeal (H2) Bala v. Dikko (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3049; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1343) 52

 

APPEALS - Criminal procedure - Proof - Standard of - Criminal trial is proved beyond reasonable doubt - And a conviction would not be upset on appeal - If the charge was proved based on the standard (H12) Okoro v. State (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 337; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1290) 351

 

APPEALS - Criminal procedure - Murder - Finding of not guilty - Proper order to make - By Criminal Procedure Act s. 246 - Court of Appeal was duty bound - To discharge and acquit the accused (H3) State v. Okpala (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 437; (2012) 3 NWLR (PT.1287) 388

 

APPEALS - Criminal procedure - No case submission - Need to uphold - Following the successful plea of the submission - C.A. is empowered by C.A. Act s. 15 - To hold in appellant’s favour (H2) Ugwu v. State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 4133; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1343) 172

 

APPEALS - Criminal procedure - Non provision of - When to raise objection - Where accused is represented by counsel - Objection must be taken at the trial not on appeal (H3) Okoro v. State (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 337; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1290) 351

 

APPEALS - Cross appeal - Purpose - Cross appeal is filed by respondent - Who agrees with judgment - But wants to correct errors therein - Or to set aside a crucial finding (H3) Abiola & Sons Bottling Co. Ltd. v. 7Up Bottling Co. Ltd. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2487; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1322) 184

 

APPEALS - Cross appeal - Purpose - Cross appeal is filed by respondent seeking to correct errors in judgment - Or to set aside finding which is fundamental to the case (H9) Lafia L.G. v. Gov. Nasarawa State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4385; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 94

 

APPEALS - Cross appeal - Purpose - Respondent defends judgment - But where he seeks to correct errors therein - He files a cross appeal (H12) Emeka v. Okadigbo (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2611; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1331) 55

 

APPEALS - Cross-appeal - Purpose - Respondent who is dissatisfied with finding of court - Is not to raise preliminary objection - But to file a cross-appeal (H1) Kubor v. Dickson (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3121; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1345) 534

 

APPEALS - Damages - Award by trial court - Interference - Appellate court will not interfere - Save where inter alia - Exercise of discretion by trial court is perverse (H4) Ahmed v. CBN (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 277; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1339) 524; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1339) 524

 

APPEALS - Decisions - Correctness of - Katto v. C.B.N - Court of Appeal as an intermediate court - Rightly proceeded with the appeal - Even though it ruled that Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction (H7) Elelu-Habeeb v. A-G Federation (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 743; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1318) 423

 

APPEALS - Determination - Duty of appellant - Appellant must place before appellate court - All document that is relevant - For determination of his appeal (H4) Osung v. State (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2425; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1332) 256

 

APPEALS - Election petition - Tribunal - Judgment - By 1999 Constitution ss. 246 & 318 - The aspect of the Tribunal’s judgment appellant purports to appeal against is not appealable - Since same was not its decision (H1) ACN v. Nyako (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3267

 

APPEALS - Election petitions - National Assembly election - Final court - By s. 246(3) 1999 Constitution - Court of Appeal is the final court to determine dispute arising therefrom (H4) Udenwa v. Uzodinma (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 4093; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1346) 94

 

APPEALS - Election petitions - Courts - Abuse of process - Appellant abused the process of court - By instituting this suit as election petition matter - When she has a similar pending suit at the Federal high court (H4) Okadigbo v. Emeka (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 181; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1311) 237

 

APPEALS - Election petitions - Courts - Final judgment - Meaning - Such judgment disposes of rights of parties - And puts an end to the action (H9) Ogboru v. Uduaghan (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1351; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1311) 357

 

APPEALS - Election petitions - Courts - Judgments - Reasons - S.C. and C.A. can give their decisions in final appeals under s. 285(8) 1999 Constitution - And reserve reasons thereof (H4) CPC v. Suntai (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3543

 

APPEALS - Election petitions - Documents - Oral evidence - Appellants must adduce oral evidence - Linking the documents to his case - As court is not supposed to do a party’s case (H6) CPC v. Suntai (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3543

 

APPEALS - Election petitions - Evidence on records - Evaluation of - Appellate court rightly exercised its powers - In affirming the decision of the tribunal (H6) ACN v. Lamido (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 621; (2012) 8 NWLR (PT.1303) 560

 

APPEALS - Election petitions - Failure to hear within time - Effect - By 1999 Constitution s. 285(7) - Non compliance with the provision - Renders the appeal a nullity (H2) Amadi v. INEC (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 533; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1345) 595

 

APPEALS - Election petitions - Findings of over voting - Court of Appeal was right in its findings - And upholding the objection raised by 4th respondent (H5) Doma v. INEC (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1095; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1317) 297

 

APPEALS - Election petitions - Governorship Election Tribunal - Judgment - Deferment of reasons - 1999 Constitution s. 285(8) - Supreme Court is solely empowered to defer reasons for its judgment - In appeals arising from the tribunal (H2) Ikenya v. PDP (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1139; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1315) 493

 

APPEALS - Election petitions - Gubernatorial election - Appeal - Judgment - Final court - Since C.A. is not final court by virtue of s.233(2)(e)(iv) 1999 Constitution - The judgment is appellable to S.C (H2) CPC v. Suntai (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3543

 

APPEALS - Election petitions - Hearing - Limitation - 1999 Constitution s. 285(7) - The 60 days prescribed by the section for hearing appeal by CA & SC respectively - Cannot be extended (H3) Udenwa v. Uzodinma (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 4093; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1346) 94

 

APPEALS - Election petitions - Judgment - 1999 Constitution s. 285(6) - Once tribunal gives decision within 180 days and aggrieved party appeals - Its time runs until the 180 days shall be exhausted - And appellate court cannot extend the time (H2) Udenwa v. Uzodinma (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 4093; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1346) 94

 

APPEALS - Election petitions - Judgment - Reasons for - Given outside time - Fate - 1999 Constitution s. 285 (7) - The judgment is a nullity (H4) PDP v. Okorocha (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1155; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1323) 205

 

APPEALS - Election petitions - Judgment - Validity of - Decision given by the tribunal on 10/08/11 is valid - Since there is no successful appeal against same (H5) ANPP v. Goni (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 701; (2012) 7 NWLR (PT.1298) 147

 

APPEALS - Election petitions - Judgments - Deferment of reasons - By 1999 constitution s. 285(7)(8) - Where the appeals are final - Court of Appeal and Supreme Court may give decisions - And reserve the reasons to later date (H3) Abubakar v. Nasamu (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 479; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1330) 407

 

APPEALS - Election petitions - Jurisdiction - Court of Appeal - By 1999 Constitution s. 246(3) - It shall be the final court - In respect of appeals arising from National Assembly election petition tribunal (H6) Dangana v. Usman (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 577; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1349) 50

 

APPEALS - Election petitions - Jurisdiction - Supreme Court - By 1999 constitution s. 233(2)(e)(iv) as amended - Decisions of Court of Appeal on who is validly elected as Governor - Is now appealable (H1) Abubakar v. Nasamu (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 479; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1330) 407

 

APPEALS - Election petitions - Legislative Houses elections - Appeal - Final court - By virtue of ss. 246(1)(b)(c) & 285(8) 1999 Constitution - Appeals from such elections terminate at Court of Appeal (H3) CPC v. Suntai (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3543

 

APPEALS - Election petitions - National & State Assembly Elections Tribunal - Judgment - Deferment of reasons - 1999 Constitution s. 285(8) - Court of Appeal can defer reasons for its judgment - In appeals arising from the tribunal (H1) Ikenya v. PDP (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1139; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1315) 493

 

APPEALS - Election petitions - National Assembly election tribunal - Appeals arising from the tribunal - Terminates at Court of Appeal (H10) Ogboru v. Uduaghan (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1351; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1311) 357

 

APPEALS - Election petitions - Notice of Appeal - Filing - Time limit - By para.1 Practice Directions 2011 - Appeal shall be filed within 14 days from the date of decision appealed against (H1) Audu v. Wada (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3039

 

APPEALS - Election petitions - Presidential & Governorship elections - Final court - Supreme Court is the final court of appeal - In respect of the elections (H3) PDP v. Okorocha (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1155; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1323) 205

 

APPEALS - Election petitions - Rehearing - 1999 Constitution s.285(7) - Since 60 days provided in the Constitution has elapsed - Relief of rehearing cannot be granted (H3) Ikenya v. PDP (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1139; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1315) 493

 

APPEALS - Election petitions - Retrial order - Correctness of - Appellate court is competent to order retrial - Where appeal succeeds within prescribed time (H3) Ugba v. Suswam (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 314) 2345; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1345) 427

 

APPEALS - Election petitions - Right of appeal - 1999 Constitution s. 246(c) - Aggrieved person can appeal against - Decision of governorship election tribunal (H8) Ogboru v. Uduaghan (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1351; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1311) 357

 

APPEALS - Enlargement of time - Discretion - Basis - Doing substantial justice to the parties - Must be of paramount interest to court (H4) Olatubosun v. Texaco Nig. Plc (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1985; (2012) 14 NWLR (PT.1319) 200

 

APPEALS - Enlargement of time - Discretion - Rules of court - Need to obey - Court must obey its rules - To justify exercise of discretion (H3) Olatubosun v. Texaco Nig. Plc (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1985; (2012) 14 NWLR (PT.1319) 200

 

APPEALS - Enlargement of time - Exercise of discretion - Interference - Appellate courts do not interfere - Save where discretion was based on wrong principle of law - Or it occasioned miscarriage of justice (H2) Olatubosun v. Texaco Nig. Plc (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1985; (2012) 14 NWLR (PT.1319) 200

 

APPEALS - Entry of - Appeal is entered when Registrar of court from which appeal emanates - Has forwarded to Registrar of appellate court - Complete record of appeal filed by appellant in the registry (H10) Audu v. A-G Fed (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3321; (2013) 8 NWLR (PT.1355) 175

 

APPEALS - Estoppel - Application - Since parties and subject matter in earlier suit - Are not different from those of present suit - Appellant is properly stopped from pursuing the appeal (H3) Mezu v. Co-operative & Commerce Bank Plc (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2831; (2013) 3 NWLR (PT.1340) 188

 

APPEALS - Evidence - Admissibility - Exhibits P3 & P4 - Not pleaded - Fate - Court of Appeal was right in expunging the exhibits - Since same were not pleaded (H2) Phillips v. Eba Odan Commercial & Industrial Co. Ltd. (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1611; (2013) 1 NWLR (PT.1336) 618

 

APPEALS - Evidence - Evaluation - Basis - Court of Appeal Act s.16 - Where appellate court evaluates evidence - It is bound by evidence placed before trial court (H2) Ehirim v. IMSIEC (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1521

 

APPEALS - Evidence - Evaluation - Findings of trial court - Appellate court does not interfere - When credibility of witness is involved - But it may reevaluate evidence (H5) Ayorinde v. Sogunro (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1895; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1312) 460

 

APPEALS - Evidence - Evaluation - Interference - If Supreme Court finds dereliction of duty in evaluation - It can interfere to do what lower court should have done (H6) Nagogo v. CPC (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4441; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1339) 448

 

APPEALS - Evidence - Evaluation - Interference - Since trial Judge did not evaluate exhibits D-F1 and s. 42 of 1999 Constitution - Court of Appeal rightly did the evaluation - And come to correct decision (H8) Lafia L.G. v. Gov. Nasarawa State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4385; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 94

 

APPEALS - Evidence - Evaluation - Trial court ascribes probative value to evidence - Appellate court does not lightly interfere - Save where inter alia evidence has nothing to do with demeanour of witnesses (H1) BFI Group Corp. v. Bureau of Public Enterpr. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2553; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1332) 209

 

APPEALS - Evidence - Evaluation - Trial court evaluates and assigns probative value to evidence - And appellate court does not interfere - Save where evaluation was improper (H7) Military Gov. Lagos State v. Adeyiga (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 839; (2012) 5 NWLR (PT.1293) 291

 

APPEALS - Evidence - Evaluation - Where Court of Appeal makes finding - Based on evidence adduced in trial court - Supreme Court will not interfere (H4) Nwakonobi v. Udeorah (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1555; (2013) 7 NWLR (PT.1354) 499

 

APPEALS - Evidence - Evaluation - Where trial court fails to properly evaluate evidence - Court of Appeal can evaluate - And come to a correct and fair decision to parties (H1) Afolabi v. Western Steel Works Ltd. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2503; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1329) 286

 

APPEALS - Evidence - Evaluation of - Is the duty of trial court - And appellate court should not interfere - Except where there is miscarriage of justice (H1) Gundiri v. Nyako (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3341

 

APPEALS - Evidence - Judgment - Contradictions - Effect - It is only substantial inconsistencies in evidence - That can lead to reversal of judgment (H2) Akindipe v. State (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 313) 2047; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1325) 94

 

APPEALS - Evidence - Orders of court - Retrial order - Correctness of - Since the evidence borders on credibility of witnesses - Court of Appeal rightly gave the order (H3) Mkpinang v. Ndem (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4425; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1344) 302

 

APPEALS - Evidence - Reevaluation - Justification - When trial court fails to properly evaluate evidence - Appellate court can intervene - And reevaluate such evidence (H5) Tukur v. Uba (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2651; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1343) 90

 

APPEALS - Evidence - Reevaluation - Justification - Where trial court failed to properly evaluate evidence before it - Appellate court is entitled to evaluate same (H8) Akinyemi v. Odu’a Inv. Co. Ltd (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 55; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1329) 209

 

APPEALS - Evidence - Reevaluation - Justification - Where trial court fails to properly evaluate evidence before it - Appellate court can interfere - Provided that credibility of witnesses is not involved (H8) Haruna v. A-G Federation (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1309; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1306) 419

 

APPEALS - Evidence - Reevaluation - Since the matter does not involve assessment of credibility of witnesses - Supreme Court and Court of Appeal are in a position evaluate the evidence (H1) Eyiboh v. Abia (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4301; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1325) 51

 

APPEALS - Extension of time - Application - Court of Appeal Act s. 25(2) provides for 14 days limit - Within which to file the application - From the nature of the decision complained against (H3) Lovleen Toys Ind. Ltd. v. Komolafe (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3395; (2013) 14 NWLR (PT.1375) 542

 

APPEALS - Extension of time - Application - Reason for - Since the supporting affidavit did not disclose cogent reason for delay - The application cannot be granted (H2) Audu v. Wada (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3039

 

APPEALS - Extension of time - Application for - Grant of the application is at discretion of court - Which must be exercised judicially and judiciously - Without interference on appeal (H4) Nig. Laboratory Corp. v. Pacific Merchant Bank (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 314) 2249; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1324) 505

 

APPEALS - Extension of time - Application for - Requirements - Applicant must adduce good and substantial reason for delay - And good cause why the appeal should be heard (H2) Nig. Laboratory Corp. v. Pacific Merchant Bank (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 314) 2249; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1324) 505

 

APPEALS - Extension of time - Reasons for - Applicant must advance good and substantial reasons - And must show that his grounds of appeal are arguable (H4) Lovleen Toys Ind. Ltd. v. Komolafe (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3395; (2013) 14 NWLR (PT.1375) 542

 

APPEALS - Fair hearing - Breach - Adjournment - Counsel who fails to utilize opportunity to be heard - Cannot complain of breach of same (H4) Gov. Zamfara State v. Gyalange (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1535; (2013) 8 NWLR (PT.1357) 462

 

APPEALS - Fair hearing - Breach - Adjournments - Counsel that treated a procedure as regular before trial court - Cannot be heard to object to same on appeal (H4) Military Gov. Lagos State v. Adeyiga (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 839; (2012) 5 NWLR (PT.1293) 291

 

APPEALS - Fair hearing - Breach - Allegation of - Appellant by reason of service having been validly effected on him - Cannot be heard to complain that he was not given fair hearing (H8) Barigha v. PDP (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4221; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1349) 108

 

APPEALS - Findings of courts - Supreme Court will not interfere with findings made by lower courts - Including the refusal of Court of Appeal to act on the medical report (H5) Rabiu v. Amadu (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 417; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1337) 36

 

APPEALS - Fresh issue - Leave - Where new issue is to be introduced and argued afresh - Party introducing it has duty to apply and obtain leave to do so from court (H7) Lagos State Bulk Purchase Corp. v. Purification Techn. Ltd. (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3829; (2013) 7 NWLR (PT.1352) 82

 

APPEALS - Fresh issue - Raised without leave - Fate - Since leave was not obtained to raise new issue of trust property - The issue shall be deemed incompetent (H6) Osidele v. Sokunbi (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2857; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1324) 470

 

APPEALS - Ground - Competence - Ground must challenge the decision of court - And not what court has not decided in its judgment (H1) Ugwu v. State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 4133; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1343) 172

 

APPEALS - Ground - Election - Originating summons - Where reliefs sought cannot be dealt with under that summons - The ground on fair hearing will be struck out (H7) Asogwa v. PDP (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4155; (2013) 7 NWLR (PT.1353) 207

 

APPEALS - Ground - Format - Complaint on - Propriety - MILAD Benue State v. Ulegede - Such complaint is mere technicality - Where it is not based on contents of the grounds (H1) Ogboru v. Uduaghan (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1351; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1311) 357

 

APPEALS - Ground - Judgment - Counsel should not wrongfully interpret court’s judgment - Just to build a ground of appeal - As ground not derived from lower court’s judgment is incompetent (H3) Asogwa v. PDP (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4155; (2013) 7 NWLR (PT.1353) 207

 

APPEALS - Ground - Speculative & abandoned ground - That is vague or general - Contravenes O. 8 r. 2(4) Supreme Court Rules (H4) Asogwa v. PDP (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4155; (2013) 7 NWLR (PT.1353) 207

 

APPEALS - Ground of appeal - Purpose - Ground puts respondents on notice - So that they can appreciate the intention of appellants (H1) Ports & Cargo Handlings Services Ltd. v. Migfo Nig. Ltd. (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 314) 2297; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1333) 555

 

APPEALS - Ground of law - Determination - Nwadike v. Ibekwe - Ground is of law when inter alia - If Tribunal took into account - Some wrong criteria in reaching its conclusion (H1) Lovleen Toys Ind. Ltd. v. Komolafe (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3395; (2013) 14 NWLR (PT.1375) 542

 

APPEALS - Ground of law - Ground is of law where court considered wrong criteria - Issues are based on legal interpretation of documents - And the complaint is about misapplication of law (H2) Atago v. Nwuche (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 2995; (2013) 3 NWLR (PT.1341) 337

 

APPEALS - Ground of law - Where the substance of ground reveals misapplication of law to facts proved - The ground is of law and not of mixed law and fact - Or a ground of fact (H1) Jim-jaja v. COP Rivers State (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3611; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1350) 225

 

APPEALS - Grounds - Issues - Formulation - Appellant may raise an issue from grounds of appeal - But is not permitted to raise more than an issue from a ground (H1) Uwazurike v. Nwachukwu (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3249; (2013) 3 NWLR (PT.1342) 503

 

APPEALS - Grounds - Mixed law & fact - Nature - How determined - Court should examine the grounds and their particulars - In order to identify the nature of complaint (H1) NNPC v. Famfa Oil Ltd (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1947; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 148

 

APPEALS - Grounds - Mixed law & facts - Ground can be only of facts or mixed law and facts - If it is based on a decision of court - Derived from disputed facts (H1) Atago v. Nwuche (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 2995; (2013) 3 NWLR (PT.1341) 337

 

APPEALS - Grounds - Mixed law and facts - Nature - How determined - The ground of appeal and particulars thereto - Must be read together (H2) Emenike v. PDP (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1717; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1315) 556

 

APPEALS - Grounds - Preliminary objection - Competence - The objection is invalid - Since the grounds stated the issues in contention - Between the parties (H1) Unity Bank Plc v. Denclag Ltd. (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1427; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1332) 293

 

APPEALS - Grounds - Preliminary objections - When relevant - Objections are filed against hearing of appeal - But where there are grounds to sustain appeal - Motion on notice should be filed (H2) NNPC v. Famfa Oil Ltd (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1947; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 148

 

APPEALS - Grounds - Vague particular (i) - Striking out of - Court of Appeal Rules O.6 r.3 - The court was right to suo motu strike out the particular (H1) Doma v. INEC (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1095; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1317) 297

 

APPEALS - Grounds of law - Leave - Since appellants’ three grounds are of law - Leave of Court of Appeal or Supreme Court - Is not required (H1) Marine Mgt. Asso. v. N.M.A. (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3863; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1333) 506

 

APPEALS - Grounds of law - Or mixed law and facts - Distinction - The foremost criteria is to examine the grounds - With a view to see if they reveal - A misunderstanding or misapplication of the law to proven facts (H1) Akinyemi v. Odu’a Inv. Co. Ltd (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 55; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1329) 209

 

APPEALS - Grounds of law - Since the nature of the grounds are jurisdictional - And raises issue of fair hearing - 1999 Constitution s. 241(1) is applicable - Hence leave is not required (H2) Lovleen Toys Ind. Ltd. v. Komolafe (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3395; (2013) 14 NWLR (PT.1375) 542

 

APPEALS - Hearing - Preliminary objection to - Success of - Will bring the litigation to an end - If dismissed - The Appeal will be determined on merit (H1) Asogwa v. PDP (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4155; (2013) 7 NWLR (PT.1353) 207

 

APPEALS - Hearing - When appropriate - An appeal cannot be heard until it has been entered - In the registry of the appellate court (H1) Aladinma Medicare Ltd v. Reg. Trustees of Overcomers Christian Mission (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 87; (2012) 5 NWLR (PT.1294) 41

 

APPEALS - Issue - Failure to raise - 3rd respondent who did not cross appeal nor file respondent’s notice - Cannot raise issue of fraud which did not arise from ground of appeal (H2) Jim-jaja v. COP Rivers State (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3611; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1350) 225

 

APPEALS - Issue - Not considered - Proof - For appellant to succeed - He must show that - Court failed to consider a particular issue in its judgment (H3) Nwakonobi v. Udeorah (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1555; (2013) 7 NWLR (PT.1354) 499

 

APPEALS - Issues - Basis - Issues must be framed from grounds of appeal - And not from assumption of facts - Not pronounced upon in judgment (H1) Akindipe v. State (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 313) 2047; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1325) 94

 

APPEALS - Issues - Bordering on judgment in rem - Competence - The issues are premature - As the real question is propriety or otherwise of - Joining 1st respondent as interested party (H3) Waziri v. Gumel (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1473; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1304) 185

 

APPEALS - Issues - Determination - Appeal is decided on issues raised - Hence grounds of appeal become extinguished - Once issues are formulated (H3) African Intn’l Bank Ltd. v. Integrated Dimensional System Ltd. (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1635; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 1

 

APPEALS - Issues - Determination - On single issue - Correctness of - Where appellate court considers an issue fit to dispose appeal - It is not bound to consider other issues raised (H4) African Intn’l Bank Ltd. v. Integrated Dimensional System Ltd. (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1635; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 1

 

APPEALS - Issues - Failure to consider - Fair hearing - Litigant can only complain about the failure - Where same is material - And has occasioned miscarriage of justice (H9) African Intn’l Bank Ltd. v. Integrated Dimensional System Ltd. (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1635; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 1

 

APPEALS - Issues - Failure to raise timely - Complaint that appellants’ brief was lately filed is of no moment - Since respondent failed to raise the issue at Court of Appeal (H1) Iseogbekun v. Adelakun (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3573; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1337) 14

 

APPEALS - Issues - Formulated from abandoned ground - Fate - The issue is incompetent - And shall be ignored (H5) ACN v. Lamido (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 621; (2012) 8 NWLR (PT.1303) 560

 

APPEALS - Issues - Formulated from incompetent grounds - Fate - Such issues are deemed incompetent - And must be struck out (H1) African Intn’l Bank Ltd. v. Integrated Dimensional System Ltd. (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1635; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 1

 

APPEALS - Issues - Formulation - Any issue not related to ground of appeal is not only incompetent - But valueless to determination of the appeal - And must be ignored (H3) Akere v. Gov. Oyo State (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3471; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1314) 240

 

APPEALS - Issues - Formulation - Appellate court may formulate issues - That serve interest of justice - But it is not bound to decide on every issue (H4) Abiola & Sons Bottling Co. Ltd. v. 7Up Bottling Co. Ltd. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2487; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1322) 184

 

APPEALS - Issues - Formulation by court - Appellate court can formulate issues - Where the ones raised - Did not address the points in controversy (H1) PDP v. Sylva (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1575; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1316) 85

 

APPEALS - Issues - Formulation by court - Correctness of - Appellate court can raise an issue - In order to state the correct position of the law (H5) Intercontinental Bank Plc v. Brifina Ltd. (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1927; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1316) 1

 

APPEALS - Issues - Formulation by court - Correctness of - Where issues are proliferated by parties - Court can reformulate same - For clarity sake (H6) African Intn’l Bank Ltd. v. Integrated Dimensional System Ltd. (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1635; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 1

 

APPEALS - Issues - Formulation from grounds - One issue can be distilled from several grounds of appeal - But where impossible - One issue must be raised from one ground (H2) African Intn’l Bank Ltd. v. Integrated Dimensional System Ltd. (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1635; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 1

 

APPEALS - Issues - Fresh issue on appeal - Competence - Appellant must seek and obtain - Leave of court before raising the issue (H5) Oriorio v. Osain (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 2001; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1327) 560

 

APPEALS - Issues - Meaning of - An issue is a point in dispute between parties - Which may be question of law or fact - Or combination of both (H5) African Intn’l Bank Ltd. v. Integrated Dimensional System Ltd. (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1635; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 1

 

APPEALS - Issues - Not raised in trial court - Fate - Such issues cannot be raised in appellate court - Save with leave of either of the courts (H3) Ohochukwu v. A-G Rivers State (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 885; (2012) 6 NWLR (PT.1295) 53

 

APPEALS - Issues - Proliferation - Need to avoid - Where appropriate - One issue should be distilled from combination of grounds of appeal (H1) Phillips v. Eba Odan Commercial & Industrial Co. Ltd. (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1611; (2013) 1 NWLR (PT.1336) 618

 

APPEALS - Judgment - Delivered without jurisdiction - Fate - The ruling of the Court of Appeal in an appeal not before it - Is a nullity since it was given without jurisdiction (H2) Aladinma Medicare Ltd v. Reg. Trustees of Overcomers Christian Mission (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 87; (2012) 5 NWLR (PT.1294) 41

 

APPEALS - Judgment - Mistake - It is not every error in judgment - That determines appeal in favour of appellant - As appeal court decides if judgment is correct - And not whether the reasons thereof are correct (H11) Audu v. A-G Fed (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3321; (2013) 8 NWLR (PT.1355) 175

 

APPEALS - Judgment - Respondent’s role - He is to defend the judgment that is on appeal - And not to assist appellant (H2) Lafia L.G. v. Gov. Nasarawa State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4385; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 94

 

APPEALS - Judgment - Setting aside - Application - By O. 7 r. 12 Court of Appeal Rules - The court rightly entertained the application - For good cause (H7) Barigha v. PDP (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4221; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1349) 108

 

APPEALS - Judgments - Challenge - Respondent’s role - His duty is to defend the appeal - But where he is dissatisfied with parts of judgment - A cross appeal should be filed (H8) NNPC v. Famfa Oil Ltd (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1947; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 148

 

APPEALS - Judgments - Determination - Basis - Supreme Court determines whether Court of Appeal’s judgment was correct - And not really whether its reasons were right or wrong (H2) Afolabi v. Western Steel Works Ltd. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2503; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1329) 286

 

APPEALS - Judgments - Findings of fact - Binding nature - Where there is no appeal - Against a finding upon which judgment is predicated - The finding remains intact (H1) Amale v. Sokoto L. G. (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 99; (2012) 5 NWLR (PT.1292) 181

 

APPEALS - Judgments - Meaning of - Judgment is court’s final determination of - Rights and obligations of parties in a case - And it includes any order from which appeal lies (H2) Ugba v. Suswam (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 314) 2345; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1345) 427

 

APPEALS - Judgments - Mistake in - Effect - It is not every mistake that vitiates a judgment - As mistake must be substantial - To warrant intervention of appellate court (H5) Eyiboh v. Abia (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4301; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1325) 51

 

APPEALS - Jurisdiction - Issue of - Time to raise - Issue of jurisdiction is a threshold matter - That it can be raised at anytime - Even for the first time in Supreme Court - Provided parties are heard (H2) Emeka v. Okadigbo (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2611; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1331) 55

 

APPEALS - Jurisdiction - Issue of - Time to raise - Jurisdiction can be raised at any stage of proceedings - Even on appeal up to Supreme Court (H2) Gbagbarigha v. Toruemi (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4355; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1350) 289

 

APPEALS - Jurisdiction - Issue of - When to raise - It can be raised at any stage in trial court or on appeal - And can be raised by any party or suo motu by the court (H6) Amale v. Sokoto L. G. (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 99; (2012) 5 NWLR (PT.1292) 181

 

APPEALS - Jurisdiction - Manner of raising - Jurisdiction is raised by motion on notice in High Court - And by inclusion in ground of appeal in Court of Appeal and Supreme Court (H3) Gbagbarigha v. Toruemi (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4355; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1350) 289

 

APPEALS - Jurisdiction - Objection - Issue of jurisdiction is constitutional and a matter of law - Hence appellant needed no leave to raise same (H1) Agbule v. Warri Refinery (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3435; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1350) 318

 

APPEALS - Jurisdiction - Supreme Court - Issue of jurisdiction can be raised any time even before Supreme Court - And court can suo motu raise same - But parties must be heard before decision is taken (H4) Egunjobi v. FRN (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4259; (2013) 3 NWLR (PT.1342) 534

 

APPEALS - Jurisdiction is a creation of statutes - And same is neither inherent in appellate court - Nor can it be conferred by court order (H3) ANPP v. Goni (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 701; (2012) 7 NWLR (PT.1298) 147

 

APPEALS - Land law - Actions - Need for consistency - Respondents must be consistent in their case - Since Appellate court cannot go - Outside issues settled by trial court (H4) Oriorio v. Osain (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 2001; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1327) 560

 

APPEALS - Leave - Grounds of facts - Raised without leave - Fate - Since grounds 3 and 4 are of facts - And were raised without leave - They are deemed incompetent and liable to be struck out (H2) Akinyemi v. Odu’a Inv. Co. Ltd (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 55; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1329) 209

 

APPEALS - Leave - Raising of fresh issues - Limitation - Fresh issues must be limited to the case as pleaded by parties - And evidence on record in support of their positions - As well as the judgment thereon (H4) Adeosun v. Gov. of Ekiti State (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 1; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1291) 581

 

APPEALS - Leave - To appeal against interlocutory decisions - And on grounds that are not of law - Are to be separately secured vide provisions of the Constitution - Failing which offending grounds will be struck out (H2) Asogwa v. PDP (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4155; (2013) 7 NWLR (PT.1353) 207

 

APPEALS - Money lending - Admitted facts - Briefs of appeal - Since appellants expressly agreed that - Respondent was not a money lender - Respondent has nothing to prove (H6) Chidoka v. First City Finance Co. Ltd. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2585; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1346) 144

 

APPEALS - Motions - Legal practitioner - Failure to sign - In absence of credible evidence of signing by a legal practitioner - Court of Appeal rightly held that the motion was incompetent (H1) Bala v. Dikko (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3049; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1343) 52

 

APPEALS - Motions - Pending motion - Failure to hear - Effect - Failure of trial court to hear such motion before judgment - Is not always fatal - As Appeal Court should examine the motion (H10) Emeka v. Okadigbo (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2611; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1331) 55

 

APPEALS - Nature & purpose - Appeal is a continuation of original action - The nature of which cannot be changed on appeal (H4) Nwaogu v. Owuala (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3187

 

APPEALS - Notice of appeal - Amendment - Appellant can amend original notice - To incorporate grounds in other notices of appeal (H2) Tukur v. Uba (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2651; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1343) 90

 

APPEALS - Notice of appeal - Amendment - Notice can be amended at any stage of the proceedings in court - With leave of court predicated upon special circumstances (H5) Alawiye v. Ogunsanya (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 2957; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1348) 570

 

APPEALS - Notice of appeal - Failure to file - Effect - By O.8 r.18 Court of Appeal Rules - Respondent may by motion on notice - Move the court to dismiss the appeal (H1) Nigerian Navy v. Labinjo (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 313) 2135; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 56

 

APPEALS - Notice of appeal - Filing - Appeal is deemed to have been brought - When the notice has been filed at registry of Court of Appeal - Or leave to appeal has been granted (H2) Barigha v. PDP (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4221; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1349) 108

 

APPEALS - Notice of appeal - Filing - Time frame - By s.27(2)(b) Supreme Court Act - Criminal appeal to the court must be filed within 30 days from date Court of Appeal delivered its judgment (H5) Okereke v. James (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2385; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1326) 339

 

APPEALS - Notice of appeal - Mere filing - Effect - Mere filing of a notice of appeal without more - Does not constitute an appeal (H4) Barigha v. PDP (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4221; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1349) 108

 

APPEALS - Notices of appeal - Multiple filing - Appellant can file more than one notice within time - But he must choose which of them - He intends to rely upon (H1) Tukur v. Uba (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2651; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1343) 90

 

APPEALS - Notices of appeal - Multiple filing - Appellant may file more than one notice - But must indicate to court - The notice he wants to rely on (H2) PDP v. Sylva (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1575; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1316) 85

 

APPEALS - Notices of appeal - Multiple filing - Justification - Appellant can file multiple notices of appeal - More so when rules of court do not prohibit same (H2) Ogboru v. Uduaghan (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1351; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1311) 357

 

APPEALS - Obiter dictum - Where opinion expressed by Court of Appeal is an obiter - Appellant’s appeal against same is baseless - And liable to be discountenanced (H5) NDP v. INEC (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3901; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1350) 392

 

APPEALS - Objection - Motion - Objection can be taken at anytime during pendency of appeal before judgment - But party who failed to object on time - Is deemed to have accepted the state of thing as it is (H5) Barigha v. PDP (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4221; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1349) 108

 

APPEALS - Objections - Preliminary objection - Purpose - The objection seeks to terminate hearing of appeal - But where same did not end appeal - Motion on notice should be filed (H3) Okereke v. James (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2385; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1326) 339

 

APPEALS - Orders of court - Non suit - Propriety - Parties ought to be given opportunity of being heard - Before the order was made by trial court - Hence Court of Appeal was right to set aside same (H3) Adusei v. Adebayo (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 205; (2012) 3 NWLR (PT.1288) 534

 

APPEALS - Originating summons - Applicability of - Concurrent findings that the issues cannot be resolved by affidavits evidence - Were not shown to be perverse (H8) Asogwa v. PDP (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4155; (2013) 7 NWLR (PT.1353) 207

 

APPEALS - Parties - Interested party - Qualification - Re Ugadu - For such party to appeal - His interest must be genuine and legally recognizable - In respect of a decision which prejudicially affects him (H1) Nwaogu v. Owuala (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3187

 

APPEALS - Politics - Term of office - Reliefs claimed - Propriety of refusal - Appellants no longer have enforceable rights - As their tenure of office had ceased to exist on 24th May 2010 (H2) Adepoju v. Yinka (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 37; (2012) 3 NWLR (PT.1288) 567

 

APPEALS - Preliminary objection - Arguments - Incorporated in briefs - Objective - Such step removes the need to file separate notice of preliminary objection (H1) Aliucha v. Elechi (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1065

 

APPEALS - Preliminary objection - Incorporated in brief - Propriety - The procedure is an accepted practice - As same obviates need to file separate notice of objection (H1) Okereke v. James (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2385; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1326) 339

 

APPEALS - Preliminary objection - Leave - Failure to apply - Where objection is filed in briefs - Leave must be sought orally - To argue same in court - Otherwise it is deemed abandoned (H2) Aliucha v. Elechi (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1065

 

APPEALS - Preliminary objection - Purpose - The aim is to bring appeal to an end - Having been discovered to be incompetent - And court is expected to deal with the objection once it is raised (H1) Udenwa v. Uzodinma (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 4093; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1346) 94; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1346) 94

 

APPEALS - Preliminary objection - Purpose - The objection is against hearing of appeal - Not against competence of brief of party - As it contends that appeal is fundamentally defective (H1) Lafia L.G. v. Gov. Nasarawa State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4385; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 94

 

APPEALS - Preliminary objections - Filing - Supreme Court Rules O. 2 r. 9(1)(2) - Failure to comply - Effect - The objection will be struck out (H1) Oriorio v. Osain (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 2001; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1327) 560

 

APPEALS - Record of appeal - Binding nature - The record is presumed to be correct - Once no complaint is made against it - And appellate court as well as litigants are bound by the contents therein (H7) Audu v. A-G Fed (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3321; (2013) 8 NWLR (PT.1355) 175

 

APPEALS - Record of appeal - Judicial notice of - Judges are permitted to glean through the records - In order to do substantial justice in appeal (H5) Military Gov. Lagos State v. Adeyiga (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 839; (2012) 5 NWLR (PT.1293) 291

 

APPEALS - Record of appeal - Presumption of regularity - Record prepared by counsel is presumed correct - More so where counsel that prepared it did not challenged same (H8) Bassey v. State (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1495; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1314) 209

 

APPEALS - Record of appeal - Questions arising in proceedings - As the record shows that proceedings were conducted - And the questions arose therein - Court of Appeal was wrong in its conclusion (H6) Audu v. A-G Fed (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3321; (2013) 8 NWLR (PT.1355) 175

 

APPEALS - Res judicata - Judgments - Binding effect - Judgment on appeal can operate as res judicata - Provided it has not been upset (H2) Abiola & Sons Bottling Co. Ltd. v. 7Up Bottling Co. Ltd. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2487; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1322) 184

 

APPEALS - Respondent’s notice - Purpose - The notice is filed where respondent agrees with judgment - But wants same varied or affirmed on other grounds (H13) Emeka v. Okadigbo (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2611; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1331) 55

 

APPEALS - Retrial - When to order - Where High Court and Court of Appeal were partly wrong and right - Retrial is necessary - But where the latter corrects errors of the former - Retrial is unnecessary (H3) Afolabi v. Western Steel Works Ltd. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2503; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1329) 286

 

APPEALS - Right of appeal - 1999 Constitution ss. 241(1) & 242(1) - Under the provisions - Aggrieved party can appeal as of right - Or with leave of court (H3) Nig. Laboratory Corp. v. Pacific Merchant Bank (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 314) 2249; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1324) 505

 

APPEALS - Right of appeal - Actions - Undefended list - 1999 Constitution s. 241(2)(a) - No right of appeal exists against order of court - Transferring suit from the list to general cause list (H7) Bona.V. Textile Ltd. v. Asaba Textile Mill Plc (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3063; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1338) 357

 

APPEALS - Statutes - Limitation - Public Officers Protection Law - Pleadings - Defendant must specifically plead the defence at trial court - Otherwise he cannot rely on same on appeal (H6) Ajayi v. Adebiyi (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1843; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1310) 137

 

APPEALS - Stay of execution - Grant - Justification - Court is justified to grant stay - Where notice of appeal has disclosed substantial arguable grounds (H4) Alawiye v. Ogunsanya (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 2957; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1348) 570

 

APPEALS - Stay of execution - Grant - Purpose of - Stay is granted to maintain status quo ante - So as to preserve the res from being destroyed - Pending the determination of an appeal (H2) Alawiye v. Ogunsanya (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 2957; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1348) 570

 

APPEALS - Striking out - Suo motu striking out - Correctness of - Appellate court has jurisdiction - To summarily dismiss appeal for want of prosecution - Without any application by respondent (H3) Nigerian Navy v. Labinjo (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 313) 2135; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 56

 

APPEALS - Supreme Court - Amendment of record - Supreme Court Act s.22 - The court has power to amend record - Where it is satisfied that there are accidental slips and omissions (H9) NNPC v. Famfa Oil Ltd (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1947; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 148

 

APPEALS - Supreme Court - Appeals - Determination - The court has no jurisdiction to sit on appeal from Chief Magistrate court - But sits on appeal from Court of Appeal (H1) Martins v. COP (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3167; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1343) 25

 

APPEALS - Supreme Court - Filing - Appeal is said to be entered in the court - When record of appeal has been transmitted to it - And entered on the cause list (H3) Barigha v. PDP (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4221; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1349) 108

 

APPEALS - Supreme Court - Fresh issue on jurisdiction - Leave - Leave must be obtained - To raise the issue for the first time - In Supreme Court (H10) Alawiye v. Ogunsanya (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 2957; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1348) 570

APPEALS - Supreme Court - Hearing - Supreme Court hears appeals against judgment of Court of Appeal - And not against judgment of High Court (H15) Emeka v. Okadigbo (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2611; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1331) 55

 

APPEALS - Supreme Court - Powers - S.C. Act s.22 - The court is empowered to deal with any case before it on appeal - Including power to act as trial court (H9) Alawiye v. Ogunsanya (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 2957; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1348) 570

 

APPEALS - Trespass - Concurrent findings - Supreme Court does not interfere - Save the findings are perverse - Or not supported by credible evidence (H6) Oriorio v. Osain (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 2001; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1327) 560

 

APPEALS - Words & phrases - Constitution - “All final appeals” - Meaning - It means all appeals - After which there is no further appeal to a higher court or tribunal (H10) Abubakar v. Nasamu (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 479; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1330) 407

 

APPEALS - Words & phrases - Constitution - “Final appeals” - Meaning - The phrase does not relate to final decisions of election tribunal - It relates to the final court - Beyond which there is no further appeal (H9) Abubakar v. Nasamu (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 479; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1330) 407

 

APPEALS - Words & Phrases - Constitution - “The Court” - Meaning - The phrase used in s. 285(8) refers to Court of Appeal - Hearing appeal from States and National Assembly elections (H2) PDP v. Okorocha (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1155; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1323) 205

 

ARGUMENTS - Objections - Appeals - Preliminary objection - Arguments - Incorporated in briefs - Objective - Such step removes the need to file separate notice of preliminary objection (H1) Aliucha v. Elechi (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1065

 

ARMED ROBBERY - “Arms” - Definition - Robbery & Firearms Act s. 15(1) - Arms are offensive weapons - Which include axe and machete (H2) Adekoya v. State (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 987; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1306) 539

 

ARMED ROBBERY - Appeals - Evidence - Inconsistency - Appellate court will set aside findings of trial court - Where there are material contradictions in evidence (H4) Adekoya v. State (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 987; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1306) 539

 

ARMED ROBBERY - Confession - Conviction - Validity - Court can convict solely on confessional statement of accused (H6) Adekoya v. State (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 987; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1306) 539

 

ARMED ROBBERY - Confession - Corroboration - Evidence of prosecution witnesses - Adequately corroborated Exhibit E (H3) Adekoya v. State (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 987; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1306) 539

 

ARMED ROBBERY - Confession - Definition - Evidence Act s. 27(1)(2) - Confession is admission made by an accused - Suggesting the inference that he committed a crime (H2) Onyenye v. State (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 314) 2271; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1324) 586

 

ARMED ROBBERY - Conspiracy - Meaning - Conspiracy consists of intention of persons - To commit an unlawful act - And conviction is on circumstantial evidence (H5) Adekoya v. State (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 987; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1306) 539

 

ARMED ROBBERY - Conspiracy - Proof - Conspiracy is established - Since there is meeting of minds between appellant and others in respect of the robbery (H4) Onyenye v. State (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 314) 2271; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1324) 586

 

ARMED ROBBERY - Conspiracy - Proof - Exhibit E and evidence of prosecution witnesses - Adequately proved the offences - Beyond reasonable doubt (H8) Adekoya v. State (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 987; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1306) 539

 

ARMED ROBBERY - Ingredients - Proof - Essential elements of the offence - Were proved by evidence of prosecution witnesses in this case (H3) Onyenye v. State (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 314) 2271; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1324) 586

 

ARMED ROBBERY - Ingredients - Proof - Prosecution must establish that there was robbery - Which was an armed robbery - And that accused was the armed robber (H3) Osetola v. State (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2399; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1329) 251

 

ARMED ROBBERY - Meaning of - Armed robbery means stealing with violence - While robbery is stealing without violence - And person that aids in commission of the offence - Is guilty of armed robbery (H2) Bassey v. State (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1495; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1314) 209

 

ARMED ROBBERY - Proof - Essential element - Robbery & Firearms Act s. 1(2)(b) - Prosecution succeeds if it establishes - That accused violently stole a thing capable of being stolen (H2) FRN v. Usman (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1119; (2012) 8 NWLR (PT.1301) 141

 

ARMED ROBBERY - Proof - Ikemson v. State - Prosecution must proof beyond reasonable doubt - That appellant participated in the robbery (H4) Ikaria v. State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4371

 

ARMED ROBBERY - Robbery - Meaning - Robbery & Firearms Act s. 15(1) - Robbery is using violence - To obtain anything being stolen (H1) Adekoya v. State (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 987; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1306) 539

 

AUCTION SALES - Land law- Auction sale - Ordered by court - Effect - It is presumed that such judicial act is valid - Where there is no fraud - And security given to purchaser of such property - Is a statutory one (H3) Osidele v. Sokunbi (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2857; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1324) 470

 

BANKING - Actions - Claim for interest - Exhibit E - Not pleaded - Since appellant did not plea the exhibit - It is deemed that same was not intended - To guide transaction between the parties (H7) African Intn’l Bank Ltd. v. Integrated Dimensional System Ltd. (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1635; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 1

 

BANKING - Constitutional law - Courts - Jurisdiction - Banking matters - 1979 Constitution s. 230(1)(d) - The section does not confer exclusive jurisdiction on Federal High Court (H1) Merill Guaranty Savings & Loan Ltd. v. Worldgate Building Society Ltd. (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1331; (2013) 1 NWLR (PT.1336) 581

 

BANKING - Criminal procedure - Arraignment - Failure to prosecute co-accused - Non-prosecution of others who counter-signed cheques like appellant - Is a non issue (H7) Egunjobi v. FRN (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4259; (2013) 3 NWLR (PT.1342) 534

 

BANKING - Jurisdiction - Failed banks tribunal - Crime - By s.3(1)(b)(c)(d) of Decree No.18 1994 - The tribunal can try new offences specified under Pt.111 - As well as existing offences under other enactments (H5) Egunjobi v. FRN (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4259; (2013) 3 NWLR (PT.1342) 534

 

BILL OF LADING - Definition - Bill of lading is writing signed on behalf of ship owner - Acknowledging receipt of goods - And undertaking to deliver same - Subject to conditions stated therein (H5) Nig. Ports Plc. v. Beecham Pharm. Ltd (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4155; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1333) 454

 

BILLS OF LADING - Contract - Notify party - Right of action - He cannot sue because he is not a party to the contract - But merely a person to be notified of the arrival of the goods (H3) Pacers Multi-Dynamics Ltd v. The M.V. Dancing Sister (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 385; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1289) 169

 

BILLS OF LADING - Contract - Parties to - It is a contract for carriage of goods by sea - Between ship-owner and consignor on one part - And consignee on the other - Which allows only parties therein to sue on it (H2) Pacers Multi-Dynamics Ltd v. The M.V. Dancing Sister (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 385; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1289) 169

 

BILLS OF LADING - Endorsement - Meaning - This is where consignee writes his name on the back of the bills (H7) Pacers Multi-Dynamics Ltd v. The M.V. Dancing Sister (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 385; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1289) 169

 

CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA - Bills of lading - Contract - Parties to - It is a contract for carriage of goods by sea - Between ship-owner and consignor on one part - And consignee on the other - Which allows only parties therein to sue on it (H2) Pacers Multi-Dynamics Ltd v. The M.V. Dancing Sister (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 385; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1289) 169

 

CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA - Contract - Negligence - Right of action - Where damage to goods occurred during discharge operation - The owner can sue stevedores and their principals (H9) Pacers Multi-Dynamics Ltd v. The M.V. Dancing Sister (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 385; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1289) 169

 

CASE LAW - Citation - Counsel must cite case with clarity - Providing inter alia name of the law report - Or a certified true copy - Where case is unreported (H1) Chidoka v. First City Finance Co. Ltd. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2585; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1346) 144

 

CHARGES - Proof - Standard of - Criminal trial is proved beyond reasonable doubt - And a conviction would not be upset on appeal - If the charge was proved based on the standard (H12) Okoro v. State (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 337; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1290) 351

 

CHARGES - Admitted facts - Since appellants pleaded guilty - They are deemed to have admitted the offences - With which they have been charged (H5) Offor v. State (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3207; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1333) 421

 

CHARGES - Amendment - Need for fresh plea - CPA s. 164 - Amended charge must be read to accused - And fresh plea taken - Otherwise the proceedings will become a nullity (H7) Bassey v. State (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1495; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1314) 209

 

CHARGES - Arraignment - Principle - CPC s.187 (1)(2) - The charge must be read and explained to accused in open court - And his plea thereto shall be taken (H1) Offor v. State (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3207; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1333) 421

 

CHARGES - Arraignment - Principles - CPA s. 215 - Accused must be unfettered - And charge shall be read and explained to him - He shall then be called upon to plead (H6) Bassey v. State (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1495; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1314) 209

 

CHARGES - Arraignment - Requirements - CPA s. 215 - Accused must be brought to court unfettered - And charge is read and explained to him - With a call on him to plea to same (H5) Timothy v. FRN (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 313) 2191; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1344) 213

 

CHARGES - Arraignment - Requirements - CPL s.215 - Accused must be brought to court unfettered - And charge is read and explained to him - With his plea taken thereupon (H1) Madu v. State (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 313) 2087; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1324) 405

 

CHARGES - Arraignment - Validity - Appellant was properly arraigned and tried - Since his fresh plea was taken - After amendment of the charge (H3) Osung v. State (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2425; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1332) 256

 

CHARGES - Conspiracy & substantive charges - Determination - Procedure - Proper approach is to first deal with the latter - Then proceed to consider the former (H1) Osetola v. State (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2399; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1329) 251

 

CHARGES - Discharge of accused - Effect on co-accused - Ebri v State - Where two or more are charged with an offence - With similar evidence adduced against them - Discharge of one must affect the discharge of the others (H8) Okoro v. State (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 337; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1290) 351

 

CHARGES - Guilty plea - Where accused pleads guilty - The same shall be recorded - And court may convict upon such confession - Provided charge is not punishable with death (H2) Offor v. State (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3207; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1333) 421

 

CHARGES - Jurisdiction - Definition - Jurisdiction is court’s power to decide case or issue a decree - And it is the charge before court - That determines the jurisdiction thereof (H1) Egunjobi v. FRN (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4259; (2013) 3 NWLR (PT.1342) 534

 

CHARGES - Language used - Objection to - Failure to raise - Effect - Accused is deemed to have understood the language - And has no cause to complain (H2) Madu v. State (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 313) 2087; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1324) 405

 

CHARGES - Objection - When to raise - The time to object is immediately the charge was read to accused - As any objection on appeal is waste of time (H2) Timothy v. FRN (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 313) 2191; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1344) 213

 

CHARGES - Objections to - When to raise - Appropriate time is at the point of reading - And before the plea (H4) Okewu v. FRN (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 923; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1305) 327

 

CHARGES - Plea - Meaning of - This is the act of accused responding to criminal charge - Either as guilty or not guilty (H3) Okewu v. FRN (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 923; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1305) 327

 

CHARGES - Plea - Validity of - Where accused raises no objection prior to his plea - The presumption is that the plea is valid (H5) Okewu v. FRN (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 923; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1305) 327

 

CHARGES - Proceedings - Commencement - Proceedings starts with reading of charge to accused - And anything done thereafter falls within things done in the course of proceedings (H5) Audu v. A-G Fed (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3321; (2013) 8 NWLR (PT.1355) 175

 

CHARGES - Rape - Corroboration - Relevancy of - Corroboration must be material to the charge - And must be completely credible evidence (H2) Ezigbo v. State (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 314) 2219; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1326) 318

 

CHARGES - Validity of - Where accused pleads to a charge without objection - The presumption is that he understands the charges preferred (H2) Okewu v. FRN (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 923; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1305) 327

 

CHARTERPARTIES - Contract - Exemption clause - Binding nature - Clause 11 & 14 exempts 2nd respondent from liability - And court as well as the parties are bound by same (H11) Pacers Multi-Dynamics Ltd v. The M.V. Dancing Sister (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 385; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1289) 169

 

CHIEFTAINCY MATTERS - Appeals - Actions - Pleadings - Proof - Plaintiff must rely on strength of his case - And not on weakness of defence (H1) Akande v. Adisa (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1681; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1324) 538

 

CHIEFTAINCY MATTERS - Customary law - Registered declaration - Effect - It constitutes statement of the applicable customs - And court and parties are bound by same - Save where the declaration is fundamentally defective (H1) Adeosun v. Gov. of Ekiti State (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 1; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1291) 581

 

CHIEFTAINCY MATTERS - Evidence - Contradictions - Effect on appeal - It must be shown that trial court - Failed to advert its mind to the contradictions - Before its judgment can be reversed (H2) Taiwo v. Ogundele (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 2027; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1322) 57

 

CHIEFTAINCY MATTERS - Judicial Precedents - Rule in Kojo v. Bonsie - Application - The rule is not applicable to present case - That requires strict prove of native law (H1) Taiwo v. Ogundele (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 2027; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1322) 57

 

COMMERCIAL LAW - Contracts - Interest on debt - Is not ordinarily payable - In the absence of express - Or implied term in contract (H10) African Intn’l Bank Ltd. v. Integrated Dimensional System Ltd. (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1635; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 1

 

COMPANY LAW - Acquisition - Proof - Person who asserts acquisition of a company by another - Must inter alia place before court - Instrument of transfer obtained from the CAC (H4) Afolabi v. Western Steel Works Ltd. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2503; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1329) 286

 

COMPANY LAW - Actions - Evidence - Admitted facts - Effect - Appellant’s earlier position that the property belongs to the company - Stands against his present posture (H1) Mezu v. Co-operative & Commerce Bank Plc (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2831; (2013) 3 NWLR (PT.1340) 188

 

COMPANY LAW - Legal practitioners - Law firm - Signing of process - Propriety - Registration of law firm under CAMA s.573(1) - Does not entitle the firm to validly sign process (H4) FBN Ltd. v. Jawa Intn’l Ltd. (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1749

 

CONFLICT OF LAWS - Constitution - Election petitions - Applicable law - Specific provisions of 1999 Constitution s. 285 on election matters - Must prevail over s. 294 being a general provision (H11) Abubakar v. Nasamu (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 479; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1330) 407

 

CONFLICT OF LAWS - Oil & Gas - Petroleum Act vis-à-vis Back-in-Right Regulation - Oil mining lease - Acquisition of - Procedure - Method provided by Petroleum Act - Should be strictly followed (H5) NNPC v. Famfa Oil Ltd (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1947; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 148

 

CONFLICT OF LAWS - Statutes & Rules of Court - Legal Practitioners Act - Where there is conflict - Provisions of the Act supersedes the rules (H3) FBN Ltd. v. Jawa Intn’l Ltd. (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1749

 

CONSPIRACY - Essential element - The offence is complete upon meeting of the minds - And in order to complete the offence - It is not necessary that anything should be done beyond the agreement (H5) Bright v. State (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 123; (2012) 8 NWLR (PT.1302) 297

 

CONSPIRACY - Ingredients - How to prove - Proof of the offence is a matter of inference - Hence the involvement of appellant can be inferred from the circumstances of the case (H4) Bright v. State (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 123; (2012) 8 NWLR (PT.1302) 297

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - 1979 Constitution s. 230(1) - Interpretation - “Any of its agencies” - The phrase is interpreted to cover all organs established by law - Through which Federal government carries out its functions (H5) Agbule v. Warri Refinery (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3435; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1350) 318

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Actions - Appeals - Parties - Right of appeal - 1999 Constitution s. 233(5) - The right is reserved to party - Aggrieved at decision in a proceeding (H1) Elelu-Habeeb v. A-G Federation (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 743; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1318) 423

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Appeal - Leave - To appeal against interlocutory decisions - And on grounds that are not of law - Are to be separately secured vide provisions of the Constitution - Failing which offending grounds will be struck out (H2) Asogwa v. PDP (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4155; (2013) 7 NWLR (PT.1353) 207

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Appeals - Election petitions - Failure to hear within time - Effect - By 1999 Constitution s. 285(7) - Non compliance with the provision - Renders the appeal a nullity (H2) Amadi v. INEC (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 533; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1345) 595

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Appeals - Grounds of law - Since the nature of the grounds are jurisdictional - And raises issue of fair hearing - 1999 Constitution s. 241(1) is applicable - Hence leave is not required (H2) Lovleen Toys Ind. Ltd. v. Komolafe (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3395; (2013) 14 NWLR (PT.1375) 542

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Appeals - Right of appeal - 1999 Constitution ss. 241(1) & 242(1) - Under the provisions - Aggrieved party can appeal as of right - Or with leave of court (H3) Nig. Laboratory Corp. v. Pacific Merchant Bank (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 314) 2249; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1324) 505

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Appeals - Right of appeal - Actions - Undefended list - 1999 Constitution s. 241(2)(a) - No right of appeal exists against order of court - Transferring suit from the list to general cause list (H7) Bona.V. Textile Ltd. v. Asaba Textile Mill Plc (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3063; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1338) 357

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Appeals - Right of appeal - Leave - Grounds of law - Since the grounds in issue are of law - Leave is not required - Thus the appeal is competently initiated (H1) Amadi v. INEC (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 533; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1345) 595

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Constitution - “The Court” - Meaning - The phrase used in s. 285(8) refers to Court of Appeal - Hearing appeal from States and National Assembly elections (H2) PDP v. Okorocha (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1155; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1323) 205

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Constitution - Interpretation - Constitution is interpreted to reveal the intention of legislature - Hence the sections are never to be read in isolation (H3) Lafia L.G. v. Gov. Nasarawa State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4385; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 94

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Constitution - Interpretation - Election petitions - 1999 Constitution s. 285(6) - Since the provisions are unambiguous - Supreme Court cannot extend the period provided therein (H1) Akpanudoedehe v. Akpabio (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 314) 2211; (2013) 7 NWLR (PT.1354) 485

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Constitution - Interpretation - Literal rule - Court must confine itself to the ordinary meaning of words used - Save it is at variance with legislature’s intention (H5) Dangana v. Usman (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 577; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1349) 50

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Constitution - Interpretation - Objective - It is to discover the intention of the legislature - Which is usually deduced from the language used (H4) Marwa v. Nyako (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 231; (2012) 6 NWLR (PT.1296) 199

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Constitution - Interpretation - Principle - Where the words used are unambiguous - Court must give the words their ordinary meaning (H2) Merill Guaranty Savings & Loan Ltd. v. Worldgate Building Society Ltd. (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1331

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Constitution - Interpretation - Principle - Liberal approach must be adopted in interpreting constitution - Especially fundamental rights provisions (H4) Lafia L.G. v. Gov. Nasarawa State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4385; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 94

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Constitution - Interpretation - Principles - Where words used in constitutional provisions are unambiguous - Same must be given their ordinary meaning - In order not to defeat the intention of the lawmakers (H4) Abubakar v. Nasamu (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 479; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1330) 407

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Constitution - Interpretation - Words used in s. 285(7)(8) are unambiguous - And ought to be given their ordinary meaning (H1) PDP v. Okorocha (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1155; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1323) 205

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Constitution - Interpretation - Words used must be given their ordinary meaning - Where they are unambiguous (H8) Elelu-Habeeb v. A-G Federation (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 743; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1318) 423

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Constitution - Limitation period - Effect on right to fair hearing - 1999 Constitution s. 285(7) - Does not deny the right - It provides time frame to exercise same (H3) Amadi v. INEC (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 533; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1345) 595

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Constitution - Time fixed - Adherence - Such time cannot be extended beyond constitutional provisions - Hence tenure of governors cannot be calculated from dates of their second oaths - As that will lead to extension (H9) Marwa v. Nyako (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 231; (2012) 6 NWLR (PT.1296) 199

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Constitution - Time fixed - Adherence - Such time cannot be extended beyond constitutional provisions - And non compliance robs court of jurisdiction over an action (H4) ANPP v. Goni (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 701; (2012) 7 NWLR (PT.1298) 147

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Court processes - Originating summons - Application - Doherty v. Doherty - The summons is not available for actions - Where the facts are in dispute - And can be used in interpretation of contracts documents Constitution (H6) Elelu-Habeeb v. A-G Federation (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 743; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1318) 423

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Courts - Appeals - Application as interested party - Exercise of discretion - Since Court of Appeal complied with 1999 Constitution s. 243(a)(b) in granting the application - Supreme Court will not interfere (H2) Waziri v. Gumel (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1473; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1304) 185

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Courts - Criminal procedure - Need for interpreter - By 1999 constitution s. 36 (6) (e) - Anyone charged with a criminal offence - Is entitled to an interpreter - If he does not understand the language of the court (H1) Okoro v. State (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 337; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1290) 351

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Courts - Federal High court - Declaratory and injunctive reliefs - By 1999 Constitution s. 251(1)(r) - Reliefs claimed are within the court’s jurisdiction - Since the COP being also a party - Is a federal government agency (H6) NURTW v. RTEAN (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 149; (2012) 10 NWLR (PT.1307) 170

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Courts - Federal High Court - Jurisdiction - 1979 Constitution s. 230(1)(q)(r)(s) - The court has exclusive jurisdiction - In any matter affecting the Federal government or any of its agencies (H3) Agbule v. Warri Refinery (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3435; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1350) 318

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Courts - Jurisdiction - Banking matters - 1979 Constitution s. 230(1)(d) - The section does not confer exclusive jurisdiction on Federal High Court (H1) Merill Guaranty Savings & Loan Ltd. v. Worldgate Building Society Ltd. (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1331; (2013) 1 NWLR (PT.1336) 581

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Courts - Jurisdiction - Fundamental right - Enforcement of - Trial court can only proceed to enforce a fundamental right of an applicant guaranteed under Chapter IV of Constitution - If the main relief discloses a breach of such right (H2) Amale v. Sokoto L. G. (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 99; (2012) 5 NWLR (PT.1292) 181

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Election petition - Appeals - Judgment - 1999 Constitution s. 285(6) - Once tribunal gives decision within 180 days and aggrieved party appeals - Its time runs until the 180 days shall be exhausted - And appellate court cannot extend the time (H2) Udenwa v. Uzodinma (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 4093; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1346) 94; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1346) 94

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Election petition - Appeals - National Assembly election - Final court - By s. 246(3) 1999 Constitution - Court of Appeal is the final court to determine dispute arising therefrom (H4) Udenwa v. Uzodinma (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 4093; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1346) 94; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1346) 94

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Election petitions - Appeals - Courts - Judgments - Reasons - S.C. and C.A. can give their decisions in final appeals under s. 285(8) 1999 Constitution - And reserve reasons thereof (H4) CPC v. Suntai (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3543

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Election petitions - Appeals - Governorship Election Tribunal - Judgment - Deferment of reasons - 1999 Constitution s. 285(8) - Supreme Court is solely empowered to defer reasons for its judgment - In appeals arising from the tribunal (H2) Ikenya v. PDP (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1139; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1315) 493

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Election petitions - Appeals - Hearing - Limitation - 1999 Constitution s. 285(7) - The 60 days prescribed by the section for hearing appeal by CA & SC respectively - Cannot be extended (H3) Udenwa v. Uzodinma (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 4093; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1346) 94; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1346) 94

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Election petitions - Appeals - Judgments - Deferment of reasons - By 1999 constitution s. 285(7)(8) - Where the appeals are final - Court of Appeal and Supreme Court may give decisions - And reserve the reasons to later date (H3) Abubakar v. Nasamu (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 479; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1330) 407

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Election petitions - Appeals - Jurisdiction - Court of Appeal - By 1999 Constitution s. 246(3) - It shall be the final court - In respect of appeals arising from National Assembly election petition tribunal (H6) Dangana v. Usman (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 577; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1349) 50

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Election petitions - Appeals - National & State Assembly Elections Tribunal - Judgment - Deferment of reasons - 1999 Constitution s. 285(8) - Court of Appeal can defer reasons for its judgment - In appeals arising from the tribunal (H1) Ikenya v. PDP (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1139; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1315) 493

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Election petitions - Appeals - Rehearing - 1999 Constitution s.285(7) - Since 60 days provided in the Constitution has elapsed - Relief of rehearing cannot be granted (H3) Ikenya v. PDP (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1139; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1315) 493

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Election petitions - Applicable law - Specific provisions of 1999 Constitution s. 285 on election matters - Must prevail over s. 294 being a general provision (H11) Abubakar v. Nasamu (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 479; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1330) 407

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Election petitions - Governorship election tribunal - Court of Appeal - Judgment - Reasons for - 1999 Constitution s. 285(7) - Mandates the court to deliver its judgment with reasons - Within 60 days (H11) Ogboru v. Uduaghan (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1351; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1311) 357

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Election petitions - Gubernatorial election - Appeal - Judgment - Final court - Since C.A. is not final court by virtue of s.233(2)(e)(iv) 1999 Constitution - The judgment is appellable to S.C (H2) CPC v. Suntai (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3543

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Election petitions - Hearing - 1999 Constitution s. 285(6) - Petition must be heard and judgment delivered within 180 days - From the filing date - And court cannot extend the period (H1) Ugba v. Suswam (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 314) 2345; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1345) 427

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Election petitions - Jurisdiction - Court of Appeal - By 1999 Constitution s. 246(3) - Court of Appeal is the final court - In appeal arising from National Assembly Election Petition Tribunal (H3) Okadigbo v. Emeka (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 181; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1311) 237

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Election petitions - Jurisdiction - Court of Appeal - By 1999 constitution s. 246(3) - Appeals arising from National and State House of Assembly election petition tribunal - Terminates at Court of Appeal (H2) Abubakar v. Nasamu (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 479; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1330) 407

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Election petitions - Jurisdiction - Supreme Court - By 1999 constitution s. 233(2)(e)(iv) as amended - Decisions of Court of Appeal on who is validly elected as Governor - Is now appealable (H1) Abubakar v. Nasamu (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 479; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1330) 407

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Election petitions - Legislative Houses elections - Appeal - Final court - By virtue of ss. 246(1)(b)(c) & 285(8) 1999 Constitution - Appeals from such elections terminate at Court of Appeal (H3) CPC v. Suntai (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3543

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Election petitions - Right of appeal - 1999 Constitution s. 246(c) - Aggrieved person can appeal against - Decision of governorship election tribunal (H8) Ogboru v. Uduaghan (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1351; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1311) 357

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Election petitions - Tribunal - Judgment - Appeals - By 1999 Constitution ss. 246 & 318 - The aspect of the Tribunal’s judgment appellant purports to appeal against is not appealable - Since same was not its decision (H1) ACN v. Nyako (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3267

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Election petitions - Tribunal - Jurisdiction - 1999 Constitution s. 285(6) - Non compliance with - Effect - Jurisdiction of tribunal lapses - And same cannot be conferred by court order (H2) ANPP v. Goni (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 701; (2012) 7 NWLR (PT.1298) 147

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Elections - Gubernatorial - Commencement of tenure - By 1999 constitution s. 180(2) - Four year tenure of the Governors started the date they took their 1st oaths of office - After a duly conducted election (H1) Marwa v. Nyako (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 231; (2012) 6 NWLR (PT.1296) 199

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Elections petitions - Appeals - Judgment - Reasons for - Given outside time - Fate - 1999 Constitution s. 285 (7) - The judgment is a nullity (H4) PDP v. Okorocha (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1155; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1323) 205

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Evidence - Evaluation - Interference - Since trial Judge did not evaluate exhibits D-F1 and s. 42 of 1999 Constitution - Court of Appeal rightly did the evaluation - And come to correct decision (H8) Lafia L.G. v. Gov. Nasarawa State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4385; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 94

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Fair hearing - Audi alteram partem - Meaning - 1999 Constitution s. 36(1) - The maxim denotes fairness and natural justice - As a Judge must hear both parties before judgment (H3) Audu v. A-G Fed (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3321; (2013) 8 NWLR (PT.1355) 175

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Fair hearing - Principles - Basis - 1999 Constitution s. 36(1) - Fair hearing is conducting of trial - According to legal rules formulated - To ensure that justice is done to parties (H2) Military Gov. Lagos State v. Adeyiga (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 839; (2012) 5 NWLR (PT.1293) 291

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Fundamental rights - Discrimination based on ethnicity - Courts must review acts of Govt or its agencies - In protection of fundamental rights of the individual (H5) Lafia L.G. v. Gov. Nasarawa State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4385; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 94

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - High Court - Referral to appeal court - By 1999 Constitution s. 295(2) - Reference can be made by Judge suo motu - Or by one or both parties - And it is not mandatory that parties are heard (H2) Audu v. A-G Fed (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3321; (2013) 8 NWLR (PT.1355) 175

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Interpretation - 1999 constitution s. 180 - Intendment - The provision intends that a governor of a State - Shall only have a tenure of four years from the date he took the oaths of office (H5) Marwa v. Nyako (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 231; (2012) 6 NWLR (PT.1296) 199

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Interpretation - 1999 Constitution s. 285(6) - Principle - Court must give effect to ordinary meaning of the words used therein (H1) ANPP v. Goni (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 701; (2012) 7 NWLR (PT.1298) 147

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Jurisdiction - Federal High Court - 1999 Constitution s. 251(1)(q) - The court has jurisdiction over actions - Involving Federal Government or any of its agencies (H5) Elelu-Habeeb v. A-G Federation (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 743; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1318) 423

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Jurisdiction - Federal High Court - 1999 Constitution s.251 - Confers exclusive jurisdiction to the court - Over items listed therein (H8) PDP v. Sylva (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1575; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1316) 85

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Jurisdiction - Source of - It is derived from the Constitution and statutes creating a court - Hence court and parties cannot assume jurisdiction by agreement (H1) Dangana v. Usman (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 577; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1349) 50

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Jurisdiction - Sources - Basis - Jurisdiction is granted by statute or Constitution - Hence no court can confer same on itself (H4) Ugba v. Suswam (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 314) 2345; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1345) 427

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Legislation - Existing law - Meaning - Existing law is one that is not repealed - And has been adopted by National Assembly - With modifications - To bring same in conformity with Constitution (H1) Timothy v. FRN (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 313) 2191; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1344) 213

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - National Judicial Council - Powers - 1999 Constitution para. 21(d) of pt.1 of 3rd Schedule - Council can recommend persons for appointment and removal as judicial officers (H9) Elelu-Habeeb v. A-G Federation (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 743; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1318) 423

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - State Chief Judge - Removal of - 1999 Constitution s. 292 (1)(a)(ii) - Removal must be based on inability to discharge official functions - Or on misconduct or for contravention of code of conduct (H10) Elelu-Habeeb v. A-G Federation (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 743; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1318) 423

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Statutes - Interpretation - Role of Judge - In statutory interpretation - Judge should not flout the constitutional duty of legislature - To make laws (H2) FBN Ltd. v. Jawa Intn’l Ltd. (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1749

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Supreme Court - Original jurisdiction - Parties - 1999 Constitution s. 232(1) - The court sits on disputes bordering on extent of legal right - Between Federal and State(s) Government - Or between States Government (H3) A-G Rivers State v. A-G Bayelsa State (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2519; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1340) 123

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Time - Stipulated in the Constitution - Cannot be extended by court - In purported exercise of discretion (H6) Abubakar v. Nasamu (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 479; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1330) 407

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Words & phrases - “Decision” - Definition - Decision means determination of court or tribunal - Which includes judgment or recommendation (H3) Ogboru v. Uduaghan (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1351; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1311) 357

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Words & phrases - Constitution - “All final appeals” - Meaning - It means all appeals - After which there is no further appeal to a higher court or tribunal (H10) Abubakar v. Nasamu (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 479; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1330) 407

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Words & phrases - Constitution - “Final appeals” - Meaning - The phrase does not relate to final decisions of election tribunal - It relates to the final court - Beyond which there is no further appeal (H9) Abubakar v. Nasamu (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 479; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1330) 407

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Words & phrases - Constitution - “The court” - Meaning - By 1999 Constitution s. 285(8) - It refers to Court of Appeal and Supreme Court - Depending on the facts of the case (H8) Abubakar v. Nasamu (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 479; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1330) 407

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Words & phrases - Decision - Meaning - 1999 Constitution s.318 - Decision means any determination of court - Which includes judgment - Decree - Or Order (H5) CPC v. Suntai (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3543

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Words & phrases - Decision of a court - Meaning - By 1999 Constitution s. 285(7) - The phrase means decision and the reasons for same - Which must be given within the assigned sixty days (H7) Abubakar v. Nasamu (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 479; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1330) 407

 

CONTRACTS - Bailment - Liability - Appellant has no protection under s.72(1) Nigeria Ports Act - Since contract of bailment for reward - Is not a duty imposed by statute on appellant (H4) Nig. Ports Plc. v. Beecham Pharm. Ltd (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4155; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1333) 454

 

CONTRACTS - Bill of lading - Definition - Bill of lading is writing signed on behalf of ship owner - Acknowledging receipt of goods - And undertaking to deliver same - Subject to conditions stated therein (H5) Nig. Ports Plc. v. Beecham Pharm. Ltd (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4155; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1333) 454

 

CONTRACTS - Bills of lading - Contract - Notify party - Right of action - He cannot sue because he is not a party to the contract - But merely a person to be notified of the arrival of the goods (H3) Pacers Multi-Dynamics Ltd v. The M.V. Dancing Sister (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 385; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1289) 169

 

CONTRACTS - Bills of lading - Parties to - It is a contract for carriage of goods by sea - Between ship-owner and consignor on one part - And consignee on the other - Which allows only parties therein to sue on it (H2) Pacers Multi-Dynamics Ltd v. The M.V. Dancing Sister (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 385; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1289) 169

 

CONTRACTS - Binding nature - Since respondent accepted the original offer made to him by appellant - He is bound by the terms spelt out by exhibit B (H4) Akinyemi v. Odu’a Inv. Co. Ltd (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 55; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1329) 209

 

CONTRACTS - Carriage of goods by sea - Negligence - Right of action - Where damage to goods occurred during discharge operation - The owner can sue stevedores and their principals (H9) Pacers Multi-Dynamics Ltd v. The M.V. Dancing Sister (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 385; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1289) 169

 

CONTRACTS - Charterparties - Exemption clause - Binding nature - Clause 11 & 14 exempts 2nd respondent from liability - And court as well as the parties are bound by same (H11) Pacers Multi-Dynamics Ltd v. The M.V. Dancing Sister (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 385; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1289) 169

 

CONTRACTS - Commercial transaction - Interest on debt - Is not ordinarily payable - In the absence of express - Or implied term in contract (H10) African Intn’l Bank Ltd. v. Integrated Dimensional System Ltd. (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1635; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 1

 

CONTRACTS - Consideration - Definition - Consideration is impelling influence - Which induces a contracting party - To enter into contract (H5) BFI Group Corp. v. Bureau of Public Enterpr. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2553; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1332) 209

 

CONTRACTS - Counter offer - Meaning - It is an outright rejection of the original offer - And it is tantamount to a new offer (H5) Akinyemi v. Odu’a Inv. Co. Ltd (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 55; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1329) 209

 

CONTRACTS - Court processes - Originating summons - Application - Doherty v. Doherty - The summons is not available for actions - Where the facts are in dispute - And can be used in interpretation of contracts documents Constitution (H6) Elelu-Habeeb v. A-G Federation (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 743; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1318) 423

 

CONTRACTS - Courts - Award of interest - Court can award interest as consequential order - Even where same is not claimed in writ of summons (H11) African Intn’l Bank Ltd. v. Integrated Dimensional System Ltd. (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1635; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 1

 

CONTRACTS - Courts - Damages - Power to Award - Damages are awarded by trial court - And such power is exercised after judicious estimation of loss to victim - Once breach of contract has been established (H1) Ahmed v. CBN (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 277; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1339) 524; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1339) 524

 

CONTRACTS - Damages - Determination - Measure of damages in breach of contract - Is the loss flowing naturally from the breach - And is incurred in direct consequence of the violation (H6) Marine Mgt. Asso. v. N.M.A. (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3863; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1333) 506

 

CONTRACTS - Discharge - By breach - Meaning - This occurs where party acted contrary to terms by non performance - Or performing contrary to terms - Or by wrongful repudiation (H3) Ahmed v. CBN (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 277; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1339) 524

 

CONTRACTS - Discharge - Means of - Contract may be discharged by performance - Agreement - Frustration - Or by breach (H2) Ahmed v. CBN (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 277; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1339) 524

 

CONTRACTS - Essentials of - Determination of - The test is to ask whether an offer has been made by one party - And accepted by the other (H3) Akinyemi v. Odu’a Inv. Co. Ltd (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 55; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1329) 209

 

CONTRACTS - Estoppel by conduct - Contract - Party who by conduct induces another to enter into legal relationship with him - Will not be permitted to act inconsistently with same (H6) BFI Group Corp. v. Bureau of Public Enterpr. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2553; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1332) 209

 

CONTRACTS - Estoppel by contract - Principle - A person is barred from denying term - Arising from contract that he has entered into (H2) A-G Nasarawa State v. A-G Plateau State (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1011; (2012) 10 NWLR (PT.1309) 419

 

CONTRACTS - Frustration - Determination - Frustration occurs whenever court recognizes that - Without default of either party - Contractual obligation has become incapable of being performed (H5) A-G Cross-River State v. A-G Fed. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2717; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1327) 425

 

CONTRACTS - Frustration - Effect - Contract which is discharged by frustration - Is brought to an end automatically by operation of law - Irrespective of wishes of parties (H6) A-G Cross-River State v. A-G Fed. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2717; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1327) 425

 

CONTRACTS - Legal relation - Intention to create - Lack of - Effect - Such a contract is incompetent - And it cannot be enforced as it is not legally binding (H6) Akinyemi v. Odu’a Inv. Co. Ltd (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 55; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1329) 209

 

CONTRACTS - Offer - Failure to reject - Effect - Since appellant failed to utilize his right to reject the original offer - Court cannot do so on his behalf (H7) Akinyemi v. Odu’a Inv. Co. Ltd (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 55; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1329) 209

 

CONTRACTS - Statutes - Statutory employment - Since exhibit A is found to be made pursuant to the NEPA Act - Appointment of staff therein must attract statutory flavour (H2) PHCN v. Offoelo (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 4001; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1344) 380

 

CONTRACTS - Statutes ­- Statutory employment - Status - Mere creation of employer by statute - Does not elevate its employment to statutory flavour - As employee’s appointment must be linked with the statute (H5) PHCN v. Offoelo (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 4001; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1344) 380

 

CONTRACTS - Statutory employment - Notice of retirement - Respondent is entitled to three months notice before retirement - As required by exhibit A (H3) PHCN v. Offoelo (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 4001; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1344) 380

 

CONTRACTS - Statutory employment - Retirement - Communication of retirement to respondent amounts to nullity - Since it was not done in accordance with regulations in exhibit A (H4) PHCN v. Offoelo (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 4001; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1344) 380

 

CONTRACTS - Statutory employment - Retirement - Propriety - Retirement of respondent by appellant is a premature one - And same shall be null and void (H6) PHCN v. Offoelo (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 4001; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1344) 380

 

CONTRACTS - Terms - Binding nature - Court must treat as sacrosanct - Terms of agreement freely entered into by parties (H4) BFI Group Corp. v. Bureau of Public Enterpr. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2553; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1332) 209

 

CONVEYANCING - Property law - Transfer - Meaning in relation to the Edict in issue - It is assignment or conveyance of all assets and liabilities - That may vest in transferee as the transferor had therein (H2) Lagos State Bulk Purchase Corp. v. Purification Techn. Ltd. (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3829; (2013) 7 NWLR (PT.1352) 82

 

CONVICTION - Proof - Standard of - Criminal trial is proved beyond reasonable doubt - And a conviction would not be upset on appeal - If the charge was proved based on the standard (H12) Okoro v. State (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 337; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1290) 351

 

CONVICTION - Armed Robbery - Confession - Conviction - Validity - Court can convict solely on confessional statement of accused (H6) Adekoya v. State (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 987; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1306) 539

 

CONVICTION - Armed Robbery - Conspiracy - Meaning - Conspiracy consists of intention of persons - To commit an unlawful act - And conviction is on circumstantial evidence (H5) Adekoya v. State (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 987; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1306) 539

 

CONVICTION - Based on retracted confession - Validity - Prior to conviction - Extraneous evidence needs to be adduced - To make it probable that the confession is true (H4) Haruna v. A-G Federation (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1309; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1306) 419

 

CONVICTION - Basis - Conviction - Based on uncorroborated confession - Propriety - Court can convict an accused upon such - Provided among other items - That there is something outside the confession - Which shows that it may be true (H3) Bright v. State (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 123; (2012) 8 NWLR (PT.1302) 297

 

CONVICTION - Basis - Upon retracted confession - Validity - Before accused is convicted on such confession - Court must look for extraneous evidence - Which makes the confession probable (H3) Bassey v. State (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1495; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1314) 209

 

CONVICTION - Confession - Validity - Accused can be convicted on his confession without corroboration - Provided the truth therein is unequivocal (H4) Igri v. State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3799

 

CONVICTION - Confession - Validity - Confession is sufficient to support conviction without corroboration - Provided court is satisfied of the truth therein (H1) Galadima v. State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4339; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1333) 610

 

CONVICTION - Confession - Validity - Where confession is unequivocal and amounts to guilt - Conviction can be made - Irrespective of retraction by accused (H1) State v. Isah (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 4037; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1327) 613

 

CONVICTION - Confession - Validity - Where court is satisfied of the truth therein - Confession is sufficient to support conviction - Without corroboration (H4) Oseni v. State (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 953; (2012) 5 NWLR (PT.1293) 351

 

CONVICTION - Confession - When confessional statement is proved to be voluntary - It is enough to sustain conviction - And a retraction of same at trial is immaterial (H2) Adesina v. State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3713; (2012) 14 NWLR (PT.1321) 429

 

CONVICTION - Conspiracy - Meaning - Conspiracy is agreement between persons to do unlawful act - And failure to prove substantive offence - Does not render conviction for conspiracy inappropriate (H2) Osetola v. State (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2399; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1329) 251

 

CONVICTION - Courts - Evidence - Evaluation - Trial court is not bound to make findings - As to probative value of Exhibits A-N - Before a conviction is grounded (H6) Haruna v. A-G Federation (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1309; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1306) 419

 

CONVICTION - Evidence - Circumstantial evidence - Conviction - Such evidence can ground conviction only - Where the inferences points strongly to the commission of the crime by accused (H5) Adesina v. State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3713; (2012) 14 NWLR (PT.1321) 429

 

CONVICTION - Guilty plea - Where accused pleads guilty - The same shall be recorded - And court may convict upon such confession - Provided charge is not punishable with death (H2) Offor v. State (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3207; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1333) 421

 

CONVICTION - Lesser offence - Plea of guilty - Procedure to adopt - Accused must personally plea - And a conviction can be based on same - And on evidence before judge (H7) Timothy v. FRN (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 313) 2191; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1344) 213

 

CONVICTION - Manslaughter - Since appellant’s action was not intentional - He should be convicted for manslaughter (H3) Chukwu v. State (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3101; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1343) 1

 

CONVICTION - Murder - Circumstantial evidence - Conviction is justified where the circumstances are cogent - And directly points to accused - As the person that killed deceased (H13) Okoro v. State (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 337; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1290) 351

 

CORROBORATION - Armed Robbery - Confession - Corroboration - Evidence of prosecution witnesses - Adequately corroborated Exhibit E (H3) Adekoya v. State (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 987; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1306) 539

 

CORROBORATION - Confession - Conviction - Validity - Confession is sufficient to support conviction without corroboration - Provided court is satisfied of the truth therein (H1) Galadima v. State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4339; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1333) 610

 

CORROBORATION - Confession - Validity - Since appellant’s confessions have not been found wanting - Same are sufficient to ground conviction - Without other evidence in corroboration (H1) Chiokwe v. State (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3517; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1347) 205

 

CORROBORATION - Confession - Validity - Where court is satisfied of the truth therein - Confession is sufficient to support conviction - Without corroboration (H4) Oseni v. State (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 953; (2012) 5 NWLR (PT.1293) 351

 

CORROBORATION - Conviction - Based on uncorroborated confession - Propriety - Court can convict an accused upon such - Provided among other items - That there is something outside the confession - Which shows that it may be true (H3) Bright v. State (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 123; (2012) 8 NWLR (PT.1302) 297

 

CORROBORATION - Rape - Evidence - Relevancy of - Corroboration must be material to the charge - And must be completely credible evidence (H2) Ezigbo v. State (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 314) 2219; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1326) 318

 

CORROBORATION - Test - It should be examined inter alia - To see if there is extraneous matter - That shows the truth of the confession (H1) Onyenye v. State (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 314) 2271; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1324) 586

 

COURT MARTIAL - Judge Advocate - Duties of - The role of judge advocate in court martial proceedings - Is an advisory one (H2) Nigerian Army v. Dodo (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 313) 2067; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1331) 151

 

COURT MARTIAL - Membership - Armed Forces Act s. 129(a) - Interpretation - Words used in the section - Suggest that Judge Advocate is not member of General Court Martial (H1) Nigerian Army v. Dodo (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 313) 2067; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1331) 151

 

COURT PROCESSES - Abuse - Characteristics - Abuse entails departure through improper use - Or perversion of court processes - After having been filed either in same court - Or various courts (H1) Barigha v. PDP (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4221; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1349) 108

 

COURT PROCESSES - Abuse - Characteristics - Abuse features in improper use of judicial process by party - To interfere with due administration of justice (H1) R-Benkay Nig. Ltd. v. Cadbury Nig. Ltd. (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1383; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1306) 596

 

COURT PROCESSES - Abuse - Characteristics - Saraki v. Kotoye - Abuse arises in improper use of judicial process by party - To interfere with due administration of justice (H2) TSA Ind. Ltd. v. FBN (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 4055; (2012) 14 NWLR (PT.1320) 326

 

COURT PROCESSES - Abuse - Determination - Conditions - To constitute abuse - Multiplicity of suits must have been instituted by a person - Against his opponent on same facts (H2) R-Benkay Nig. Ltd. v. Cadbury Nig. Ltd. (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1383; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1306) 596

 

COURT PROCESSES - Abuse - Proper order - Where court comes to conclusion that its process is abused - Appropriate order is that of dismissal (H4) TSA Ind. Ltd. v. FBN (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 4055; (2012) 14 NWLR (PT.1320) 326

 

COURT PROCESSES - Actions - Commencement - Jurisdiction - Failure to commence action with valid processes - Affects exercise of court’s jurisdiction in the matter (H1) Braithwaite v. Sky Bank Plc (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3087; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1346) 1

 

COURT PROCESSES - Actions - Judgments - Jurisdiction - Court processes - Defect in - As the processes have been voided as being nullities - Decisions arising therefrom are nullities (H11) Alawiye v. Ogunsanya (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 2957; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1348) 570

 

COURT PROCESSES - Actions - Legal practitioners - Signature - Since the processes were not signed by person cognizable as legal practitioner - The action should be struck out (H6) Alawiye v. Ogunsanya (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 2957; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1348) 570

 

COURT PROCESSES - Appeals - Application as interested party - 1st respondent’s application does not constitute abuse of process - And Court of Appeal was right in granting same (H1) Waziri v. Gumel (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1473; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1304) 185

 

COURT PROCESSES - Appeals - Record of appeal - Presumption of regularity - Record prepared by counsel is presumed correct - More so where counsel that prepared it did not challenged same (H8) Bassey v. State (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1495; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1314) 209

 

COURT PROCESSES - Compliance with laws - Court is to ensure that process filed by parties - Comply with provisions of applicable laws (H7) PDP v. Okorocha (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1155; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1323) 205

 

COURT PROCESSES - Courts - Jurisdiction - Actions - Commencement procedure - Since originating summons cannot properly initiate the matter - Court can convert the summons and order pleadings (H4) Atago v. Nwuche (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 2995; (2013) 3 NWLR (PT.1341) 337

 

COURT PROCESSES - Election petitions - Hearing - Applicable process - Because of the need for expeditious handling of election matter - Origination summons is most appropriate (H3) Nagogo v. CPC (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4441; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1339) 448

 

COURT PROCESSES - Failure to notify court - Effect - Where processes are not properly fixed for hearing - Court may not consider same (H3) MC Invest. Ltd. v. Core Invest. & Capital Market Ltd. (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 314) 2235; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1313) 1

 

COURT PROCESSES - Jurisdiction - Determination - Basis - It is plaintiff’s claim that determines jurisdiction - As can be seen in present case - From claims in the originating process (H7) Emeka v. Okadigbo (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2611; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1331) 55

 

COURT PROCESSES - Legal practitioners - Law firm - Signing of process - Propriety - Registration of law firm under CAMA s.573(1) - Does not entitle the firm to validly sign process (H4) FBN Ltd. v. Jawa Intn’l Ltd. (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1749

 

COURT PROCESSES - Originating summons - Application - Doherty v. Doherty - The summons is not available for actions - Where the facts are in dispute - And can be used in interpretation of contracts documents Constitution (H6) Elelu-Habeeb v. A-G Federation (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 743; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1318) 423

 

COURT PROCESSES - Statutes - Interpretation - Literal rule - Legal Practitioners Act s. 2(1) & 24 - The section simply ensures - That only qualified legal practitioners - Sign court processes (H1) FBN Ltd. v. Jawa Intn’l Ltd. (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1749

 

COURT PROCESSES - Technicalities - Wrong naming - The use of the word refinery or refining interchangeably - Did not overreach respondent - In absence of any earlier complaint (H2) Agbule v. Warri Refinery (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3435; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1350) 318

 

COURTS - Actions - Cause of action - Applicable law is the law in force at the time cause of action arose - And not the law at the time the jurisdiction of court is invoked (H5) Lagos State Bulk Purchase Corp. v. Purification Techn. Ltd. (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3829; (2013) 7 NWLR (PT.1352) 82

 

COURTS - Actions - Cause of action - Meaning - This is fact which gives rise to right to sue in court - And it includes every material fact - Which has to be proved to entitle plaintiff to succeed (H2) Uwazuruonye v. Gov. Imo State (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3415; (2013) 8 NWLR (PT.1355) 28

 

COURTS - Actions - Commencement - Court processes - Failure to commence action with valid processes - Affects exercise of court’s jurisdiction in the matter (H1) Braithwaite v. Sky Bank Plc (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3087; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1346) 1

 

COURTS - Actions - Competence of courts - Basis - Court’s competence in a case depends on - The suit being initiated by due process of law - Before a properly constituted panel - With no feature preventing exercise of jurisdiction (H2) Egunjobi v. FRN (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4259; (2013) 3 NWLR (PT.1342) 534

 

COURTS - Actions - Consistency - Need for - Parties as well as counsel must be consistent in the presentation of their case - Both at trial and appellate courts (H6) Pacers Multi-Dynamics Ltd v. The M.V. Dancing Sister (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 385; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1289) 169

 

COURTS - Actions - Declaratory action - Purpose - Such action is to seek equitable relief - Whereby plaintiff prays court to exercise its jurisdiction - By declaring existing state of affairs in his favour (H3) A-G Cross-River State v. A-G Fed. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2717; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1327) 425

 

COURTS - Actions - Declaratory reliefs - Grant - Without evidence from claimant - Court does not grant such relief - As plaintiff succeeds on the strength of his case (H8) CPC v. Suntai (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3543

 

COURTS - Actions - Jurisdiction - Determination - Existing law - The law in force at time of trial - Based on cause of action - Determines court with jurisdiction (H6) Goldmark Nig. Ltd. v. Ibafon Co. Ltd. (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1251; (2012) 10 NWLR (PT.1308) 291

 

COURTS - Actions - Jurisdiction - Fundamental nature - Once the issue is raised - Court must not order against defendant - Until the issue is settled (H12) Ajayi v. Adebiyi (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1843; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1310) 137

 

COURTS - Actions - Jurisdiction - Waiver - Instance of - Waiver of procedural jurisdiction occurs - When a litigant submits to jurisdiction of court - In spite of his misgiving of initiating process (H2) Nagogo v. CPC (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4441; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1339) 448

 

COURTS - Actions - Limitation - Preliminary objection - Purpose - Objection is to show court that action is statute barred - And that plaintiff has no locus standi - Hence court must address the issue first (H7) Ajayi v. Adebiyi (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1843; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1310) 137

 

COURTS - Actions - Locus standi - Absence of - Effect - The suit is incompetent - And court lacks jurisdiction to entertain same - Save to give an order of dismissal (H10) Ajayi v. Adebiyi (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1843; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1310) 137

 

COURTS - Actions - Locus standi - Lack of - Proper order to make - Is to strike out the suit - Hence Court of Appeal was right in its decision (H10) Pacers Multi-Dynamics Ltd v. The M.V. Dancing Sister (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 385; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1289) 169

 

COURTS - Actions - Locus standi - Meaning - Locus standi is legal right of party - To institute an action in court - Without any inhibition (H8) Ajayi v. Adebiyi (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1843; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1310) 137

 

COURTS - Actions - Necessary party - Failure to join - Effect - Presence of such a party is apt for complete adjudication of the matter - And any judgment made behind the party - Will be to no avail (H1) NURTW v. RTEAN (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 149; (2012) 10 NWLR (PT.1307) 170

 

COURTS - Actions - Need to determine on merit - Court must jealously guard its jurisdiction - To hear and determine a case on the merits (H1) Adepoju v. Yinka (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 37; (2012) 3 NWLR (PT.1288) 567

 

COURTS - Actions - Nullification - Effect - Once an action or order is nullified by a court - Then the same is deemed void ab initio (H2) Marwa v. Nyako (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 231; (2012) 6 NWLR (PT.1296) 199

 

COURTS - Actions - Nullification - Need to pronounce - Court is required to declare an act void - Otherwise it remains valid and binding (H3) Marwa v. Nyako (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 231; (2012) 6 NWLR (PT.1296) 199

 

COURTS - Actions - Reliefs - Alternative claim - Award of - Court will make order in respect of the claim - Where main claim fails (H11) Goldmark Nig. Ltd. v. Ibafon Co. Ltd. (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1251; (2012) 10 NWLR (PT.1308) 291

 

COURTS - Actions - Undefended list - Ex parte hearing - Court can hear application for such action ex parte - And can enter the suit in the list - Where it is satisfied that there is no defence to plaintiff’s claim (H2) Bona.V. Textile Ltd. v. Asaba Textile Mill Plc (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3063; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1338) 357

 

COURTS - Actions - Undefended list - Fair hearing - Parties are taken to have been heard - By virtue of affidavits filed - Which are considered by court before deciding to adopt a procedure (H5) Bona.V. Textile Ltd. v. Asaba Textile Mill Plc (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3063; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1338) 357

 

COURTS - Actions - Undefended list - Leave to defend - Where leave is granted by court - The action is automatically removed from the list - To general cause list (H4) Bona.V. Textile Ltd. v. Asaba Textile Mill Plc (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3063; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1338) 357

 

COURTS - Actions - Undefended list - Transfer to general list - Basis - Where a judge is satisfied that there is triable issue - The suit must be transferred to general list (H4) Intercontinental Bank Plc v. Brifina Ltd. (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1927; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1316) 1

 

COURTS - Affidavits - Conflicts - Resolution - It is not only from oral evidence that conflicts in affidavits would be resolved - As there are enough materials on which court could resolve conflict (H4) Nagogo v. CPC (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4441; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1339) 448

 

COURTS - Affidavits - Conflicts - Resolution - Where affidavits conflict - But there is documentary evidence in support of one - Court must examine it before coming to fair decision (H7) Lafia L.G. v. Gov. Nasarawa State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4385; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 94

 

COURTS - Appeals - Actions - Consistency - Without obtaining amendment from court - A party has to be consistent in his case - From lower to appellate court (H5) Asogwa v. PDP (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4155; (2013) 7 NWLR (PT.1353) 207

 

COURTS - Appeals - Application as interested party - Exercise of discretion - Since Court of Appeal complied with 1999 Constitution s. 243(a)(b) in granting the application - Supreme Court will not interfere (H2) Waziri v. Gumel (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1473; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1304) 185

 

COURTS - Appeals - Briefs - Failure to file - Dismissal order - Court of Appeal Rules O.6 r.10 - Dismissal based on such failure is final -And the court cannot give order of re-listing (H1) Gov. Zamfara State v. Gyalange (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1535; (2013) 8 NWLR (PT.1357) 462

 

COURTS - Appeals - Court of Appeal - “Nemo dat quod non habet - Use of - The doctrine was not wrongly used - As the court rightly clarified the effect of Decree 21 of 1996 - Which amended error in Decree 54 of 1993 (H2) Adeyemi-Bero v. L.S.D.P.C. (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3743; (2013) 8 NWLR (PT.1356) 238

 

COURTS - Appeals - Court of Appeal - Judgment - Deferment of reasons - Where the court is not sitting in final capacity - It cannot defer reasons for its decision (H5) PDP v. Okorocha (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1155; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1323) 205

 

COURTS - Appeals - Court of Appeal - Powers - By s.15 of Court of Appeal Act - The court is empowered to assume jurisdiction - Where trial court erroneously declines jurisdiction (H3) Peretu v. Gariga (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4543; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1348) 415

 

COURTS - Appeals - Criminal procedure - No case submission - Need to uphold - Following the successful plea of the submission - C.A. is empowered by C.A. Act s. 15 - To hold in appellant’s favour (H2) Ugwu v. State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 4133; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1344) 172

 

COURTS - Appeals - Cross-appeal - Purpose - Respondent who is dissatisfied with finding of court - Is not to raise preliminary objection - But to file a cross-appeal (H1) Kubor v. Dickson (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3121; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1345) 534

 

COURTS - Appeals - Decisions - Correctness of - Katto v. C.B.N - Court of Appeal as an intermediate court - Rightly proceeded with the appeal - Even though it ruled that Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction (H7) Elelu-Habeeb v. A-G Federation (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 743; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1318) 423

 

COURTS - Appeals - Determination - Basis - Supreme Court determines whether Court of Appeal’s judgment was correct - And not really whether its reasons were right or wrong (H2) Afolabi v. Western Steel Works Ltd. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2503; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1329) 286

 

COURTS - Appeals - Discretionary order of trial court - Interference - Appellate court does not interfere - Save on grounds of law - Or where the discretion was wrongly exercised (H10) Akinyemi v. Odu’a Inv. Co. Ltd (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 55; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1329) 209

 

COURTS - Appeals - Enlargement of time - Discretion - Basis - Doing substantial justice to the parties - Must be of paramount interest to court (H4) Olatubosun v. Texaco Nig. Plc (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1985; (2012) 14 NWLR (PT.1319) 200

 

COURTS - Appeals - Enlargement of time - Discretion - Rules of court - Need to obey - Court must obey its rules - To justify exercise of discretion (H3) Olatubosun v. Texaco Nig. Plc (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1985; (2012) 14 NWLR (PT.1319) 200

 

COURTS - Appeals - Entry of - Appeal is entered when Registrar of court from which appeal emanates - Has forwarded to Registrar of appellate court - Complete record of appeal filed by appellant in the registry (H10) Audu v. A-G Fed (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3321; (2013) 8 NWLR (PT.1355) 175

 

COURTS - Appeals - Evidence - Evaluation - Basis - Court of Appeal Act s.16 - Where appellate court evaluates evidence - It is bound by evidence placed before trial court (H2) Ehirim v. IMSIEC (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1521

 

COURTS - Appeals - Evidence - Evaluation - Findings of trial court - Appellate court does not interfere - When credibility of witness is involved - But it may reevaluate evidence (H5) Ayorinde v. Sogunro (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1895; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1312) 460

 

COURTS - Appeals - Evidence - Evaluation - Interference - If Supreme Court finds dereliction of duty in evaluation - It can interfere to do what lower court should have done (H6) Nagogo v. CPC (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4441; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1339) 448

 

COURTS - Appeals - Evidence - Evaluation - Trial court ascribes probative value to evidence - And appellate court does not interfere - Unless for compelling reasons (H6) Egunjobi v. FRN (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4259; (2013) 3 NWLR (PT.1342) 534

 

COURTS - Appeals - Evidence - Evaluation - Where Court of Appeal makes finding - Based on evidence adduced in trial court - Supreme Court will not interfere (H4) Nwakonobi v. Udeorah (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1555; (2013) 7 NWLR (PT.1354) 499

 

COURTS - Appeals - Evidence - Reevaluation - Since the matter does not involve assessment of credibility of witnesses - Supreme Court and Court of Appeal are in a position evaluate the evidence (H1) Eyiboh v. Abia (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4301; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1325) 51

 

COURTS - Appeals - Evidence - Retrial order - Correctness of - Since the evidence borders on credibility of witnesses - Court of Appeal rightly gave the order (H3) Mkpinang v. Ndem (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4425; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1344) 302

 

COURTS - Appeals - Extension of time - Application for - Grant of the application is at discretion of court - Which must be exercised judicially and judiciously - Without interference on appeal (H4) Nig. Laboratory Corp. v. Pacific Merchant Bank (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 314) 2249; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1324) 505

 

COURTS - Appeals - Fair hearing - Breach - Adjournments - Counsel that treated a procedure as regular before trial court - Cannot be heard to object to same on appeal (H4) Military Gov. Lagos State v. Adeyiga (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 839; (2012) 5 NWLR (PT.1293) 291

 

COURTS - Appeals - Fair hearing - It is wrong for court to dismiss an appeal - Without giving audience to counsel in the matter (H1) General Electric Company v. Akande (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1237; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1327) 593

 

COURTS - Appeals - Findings - Binding nature of - Holding by court which is not appealed against - Is binding on party against whom it was made (H2) Uwazurike v. Nwachukwu (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3249; (2013) 3 NWLR (PT.1342) 503

 

COURTS - Appeals - Findings of fact - Failure to appeal - Where appellant fails to appeal against such finding - He will not be allowed to submit thereon (H7) Atanda v. Iliasu (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3015; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1351) 529

 

COURTS - Appeals - Fresh issue - Leave - Where new issue is to be introduced and argued afresh - Party introducing it has duty to apply and obtain leave to do so from court (H7) Lagos State Bulk Purchase Corp. v. Purification Techn. Ltd. (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3829; (2013) 7 NWLR (PT.1352) 82

 

COURTS - Appeals - Ground - Competence - Ground must challenge the decision of court - And not what court has not decided in its judgment (H1) Ugwu v. State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 4133; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1344) 172

 

COURTS - Appeals - Ground is of law where court considered wrong criteria - Issues are based on legal interpretation of documents - And the complaint is about misapplication of law (H2) Atago v. Nwuche (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 2995; (2013) 3 NWLR (PT.1341) 337

 

COURTS - Appeals - Grounds - Mixed law & fact - Nature - How determined - Court should examine the grounds and their particulars - In order to identify the nature of complaint (H1) NNPC v. Famfa Oil Ltd (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1947; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 148

 

COURTS - Appeals - Grounds - Mixed law & facts - Ground can be only of facts or mixed law and facts - If it is based on a decision of court - Derived from disputed facts (H1) Atago v. Nwuche (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 2995; (2013) 3 NWLR (PT.1341) 337

 

COURTS - Appeals - Grounds - Vague particular (i) - Striking out of - Court of Appeal Rules O.6 r.3 - The court was right to suo motu strike out the particular (H1) Doma v. INEC (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1095; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1317) 297

 

COURTS - Appeals - Grounds of law - Leave - Since appellants’ three grounds are of law - Leave of Court of Appeal or Supreme Court - Is not required (H1) Marine Mgt. Asso. v. N.M.A. (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3863; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1333) 506

 

COURTS - Appeals - Issue - Jurisdiction - As there is no appeal on issue of jurisdiction - Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to reopen the issue - Already settled by trial court (H4) Akere v. Gov. Oyo State (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3471; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1314) 240

 

COURTS - Appeals - Issue - Not considered - Proof - For appellant to succeed - He must show that - Court failed to consider a particular issue in its judgment (H3) Nwakonobi v. Udeorah (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1555; (2013) 7 NWLR (PT.1354) 499

 

COURTS - Appeals - Issues - Determination - Court must consider all issues that have been joined by parties - And raised before it for determination (H2) Marine Mgt. Asso. v. N.M.A. (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3863; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1333) 506

 

COURTS - Appeals - Issues - Determination - On single issue - Correctness of - Where appellate court considers an issue fit to dispose appeal - It is not bound to consider other issues raised (H4) African Intn’l Bank Ltd. v. Integrated Dimensional System Ltd. (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1635; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 1

 

COURTS - Appeals - Issues - Failure to raise timely - Complaint that appellants’ brief was lately filed is of no moment - Since respondent failed to raise the issue at Court of Appeal (H1) Iseogbekun v. Adelakun (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3573; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1337) 14

 

COURTS - Appeals - Issues - Formulation - Appellate court may formulate issues - That serve interest of justice - But it is not bound to decide on every issue (H4) Abiola & Sons Bottling Co. Ltd. v. 7Up Bottling Co. Ltd. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2487; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1322) 184

 

COURTS - Appeals - Issues - Formulation - When issues formulated by parties are not easily discernable - Appellate court may reformulate same - And such must be in conformity with grounds of appeal (H1) Peterside v. Fubara (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3969; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1349) 156

 

COURTS - Appeals - Issues - Formulation by court - Appellate court can formulate issues - Where the ones raised - Did not address the points in controversy (H1) PDP v. Sylva (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1575; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1316) 85

 

COURTS - Appeals - Issues - Formulation by court - Correctness of - Where issues are proliferated by parties - Court can reformulate same - For clarity sake (H6) African Intn’l Bank Ltd. v. Integrated Dimensional System Ltd. (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1635; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 1

 

COURTS - Appeals - Issues - Formulation by court - Correctness of - Appellate court can raise an issue - In order to state the correct position of the law (H5) Intercontinental Bank Plc v. Brifina Ltd. (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1927; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1316) 1

 

COURTS - Appeals - Issues - Fresh issue on appeal - Competence - Appellant must seek and obtain - Leave of court before raising the issue (H5) Oriorio v. Osain (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 2001; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1327) 560

 

COURTS - Appeals - Issues - Not raised in trial court - Fate - Such issues cannot be raised in appellate court - Save with leave of either of the courts (H3) Ohochukwu v. A-G Rivers State (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 885; (2012) 6 NWLR (PT.1295) 53

 

COURTS - Appeals - Issues - Suo motu raising - Court can formulate issues in interest of clarity - But such issues must arise from grounds of appeal - As put forward by appellant (H2) NDP v. INEC (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3901; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1350) 392

 

COURTS - Appeals - Judgment - Delivered without jurisdiction - Fate - The ruling of the Court of Appeal in an appeal not before it - Is a nullity since it was given without jurisdiction (H2) Aladinma Medicare Ltd v. Reg. Trustees of Overcomers Christian Mission (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 87; (2012) 5 NWLR (PT.1294) 41

 

COURTS - Appeals - Judgment - Mistake - It is not every error in judgment - That determines appeal in favour of appellant - As appeal court decides if judgment is correct - And not whether the reasons thereof are correct (H11) Audu v. A-G Fed (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3321; (2013) 8 NWLR (PT.1355) 175

 

COURTS - Appeals - Judgment - Setting aside - Application - By O. 7 r. 12 Court of Appeal Rules - The court rightly entertained the application - For good cause (H7) Barigha v. PDP (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4221; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1349) 108

 

COURTS - Appeals - Jurisdiction - Determination - Trial or appellate court must first determine - Whether or not it has jurisdiction over matter - Presented to it for adjudication (H2) Akere v. Gov. Oyo State (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3471; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1314) 240

 

COURTS - Appeals - Jurisdiction - Motions - Determination - Court of Appeal not being final court - Rightly determined on merit the motion it struck out - In case its decision on same is faulted on appeal (H2) Bala v. Dikko (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3049; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1343) 52

 

COURTS - Appeals - Leave - Grounds of facts - Raised without leave - Fate - Since grounds 3 and 4 are of facts - And were raised without leave - They are deemed incompetent and liable to be struck out (H2) Akinyemi v. Odu’a Inv. Co. Ltd (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 55; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1329) 209

 

COURTS - Appeals - Notice of appeal - Amendment - Notice can be amended at any stage of the proceedings in court - With leave of court predicated upon special circumstances (H5) Alawiye v. Ogunsanya (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 2957; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1348) 570

 

COURTS - Appeals - Notice of appeal - Failure to file - Effect - By O.8 r.18 Court of Appeal Rules - Respondent may by motion on notice - Move the court to dismiss the appeal (H1) Nigerian Navy v. Labinjo (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 313) 2135; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 56

 

COURTS - Appeals - Notice of appeal - Filing - Appeal is deemed to have been brought - When the notice has been filed at registry of Court of Appeal - Or leave to appeal has been granted (H2) Barigha v. PDP (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4221; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1349) 108

 

COURTS - Appeals - Notice of appeal - Filing - Time frame - By s.27(2)(b) Supreme Court Act - Criminal appeal to the court must be filed within 30 days from date Court of Appeal delivered its judgment (H5) Okereke v. James (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2385; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1326) 339

 

COURTS - Appeals - Notices of appeal - Multiple filing - Appellant may file more than one notice - But must indicate to court - The notice he wants to rely on (H2) PDP v. Sylva (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1575; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1316) 85

 

COURTS - Appeals - Obiter dictum - Where opinion expressed by Court of Appeal is an obiter - Appellant’s appeal against same is baseless - And liable to be discountenanced (H5) NDP v. INEC (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3901; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1350) 392

 

COURTS - Appeals - Preliminary objection - Purpose - The aim is to bring appeal to an end - Having been discovered to be incompetent - And court is expected to deal with the objection once it is raised (H1) Udenwa v. Uzodinma (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 4093; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1346) 94; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1346) 94

 

COURTS - Appeals - Record of appeal - Binding nature - The record is presumed to be correct - Once no complaint is made against it - And appellate court as well as litigants are bound by the contents therein (H7) Audu v. A-G Fed (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3321; (2013) 8 NWLR (PT.1355) 175

 

COURTS - Appeals - Record of appeal - Questions arising in proceedings - As the record shows that proceedings were conducted - And the questions arose therein - Court of Appeal was wrong in its conclusion (H6) Audu v. A-G Fed (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3321; (2013) 8 NWLR (PT.1355) 175

 

COURTS - Appeals - Retrial - When to order - Where High Court and Court of Appeal were partly wrong and right - Retrial is necessary - But where the latter corrects errors of the former - Retrial is unnecessary (H3) Afolabi v. Western Steel Works Ltd. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2503; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1329) 286

 

COURTS - Appeals - Right of appeal - 1999 Constitution ss. 241(1) & 242(1) - Under the provisions - Aggrieved party can appeal as of right - Or with leave of court (H3) Nig. Laboratory Corp. v. Pacific Merchant Bank (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 314) 2249; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1324) 505

 

COURTS - Appeals - Stay of execution - Grant - Justification - Court is justified to grant stay - Where notice of appeal has disclosed substantial arguable grounds (H4) Alawiye v. Ogunsanya (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 2957; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1348) 570

 

COURTS - Appeals - Striking out - Suo motu striking out - Correctness of - Appellate court has jurisdiction - To summarily dismiss appeal for want of prosecution - Without any application by respondent (H3) Nigerian Navy v. Labinjo (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 313) 2135; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 56

 

COURTS - Armed Robbery - Appeals - Evidence - Inconsistency - Appellate court will set aside findings of trial court - Where there are material contradictions in evidence (H4) Adekoya v. State (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 987; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1306) 539

 

COURTS - Armed Robbery - Confession - Conviction - Validity - Court can convict solely on confessional statement of accused (H6) Adekoya v. State (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 987; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1306) 539

 

COURTS - Arraignment - Requirements - CPA s. 215 - Accused must be brought to court unfettered - And charge is read and explained to him - With a call on him to plea to same (H5) Timothy v. FRN (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 313) 2191; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1344) 213

 

COURTS - Arraignment - Requirements - CPL s.215 - Accused must be brought to court unfettered - And charge is read and explained to him - With his plea taken thereupon (H1) Madu v. State (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 313) 2087; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1324) 405

 

COURTS - Charterparties - Exemption clause - Binding nature - Clause 11 & 14 exempts 2nd respondent from liability - And court as well as the parties are bound by same (H11) Pacers Multi-Dynamics Ltd v. The M.V. Dancing Sister (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 385; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1289) 169

 

COURTS - Chief Magistrate court - Powers - Penal Code s.78 & CPC s.365(1) - It must be shown inter alia that offence for which accused was charged - Is within jurisdiction of the court (H3) Martins v. COP (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3167; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1343) 25

 

COURTS - Chieftaincy matters - Customary law - Registered declaration - Effect - It constitutes statement of the applicable customs - And court and parties are bound by same - Save where the declaration is fundamentally defective (H1) Adeosun v. Gov. of Ekiti State (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 1; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1291) 581

 

COURTS - Chieftaincy matters - Evidence - Contradictions - Effect on appeal - It must be shown that trial court - Failed to advert its mind to the contradictions - Before its judgment can be reversed (H2) Taiwo v. Ogundele (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 2027; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1322) 57

 

COURTS - Competence - Basis - Court is competent in a suit - When it is properly constituted - The subject matter being within its jurisdiction - And the case is initiated by due process of law (H12) Lafia L.G. v. Gov. Nasarawa State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4385; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 94

 

COURTS - Competence - Basis - Madukolu v. Nkemdilim - Court is competent when it is properly constituted - With the subject matter within its jurisdiction - And the case initiated by due process of law (H3) Emeka v. Okadigbo (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2611; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1331) 55

 

COURTS - Competence - Court is competent to entertain a case - When it has unfettered jurisdiction over the subject matter - With a properly constituted judicial membership (H3) Dangana v. Usman (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 577; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1349) 50

 

COURTS - Competence - Court must ensure its competence - And that of matters presented to it - For adjudication (H8) PDP v. Okorocha (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1155; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1323) 205

 

COURTS - Competence - Madukolu v. Nkemdilim - Court is competent to entertain a case - When it has unfettered jurisdiction over the subject matter - With a properly constituted judicial membership (H2) Elelu-Habeeb v. A-G Federation (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 743; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1318) 423

 

COURTS - Competence of - A court is competent to entertain a case - When the subject matter of the action is within its jurisdiction - And the action is initiated by due process of law (H3) NURTW v. RTEAN (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 149; (2012) 10 NWLR (PT.1307) 170

 

COURTS - Confession - Retraction of - Admissibility - Court can admit and convict on such confession - If satisfied that accused made same (H3) Haruna v. A-G Federation (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1309; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1306) 419

 

COURTS - Confession - Validity - Where court is satisfied of the truth therein - Confession is sufficient to support conviction - Without corroboration (H4) Oseni v. State (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 953; (2012) 5 NWLR (PT.1293) 351

 

COURTS - Confession - Voluntariness - When the voluntariness of confessional statement is an issue - Trial court has a duty to conduct a trial within trial - To determine the voluntariness or otherwise of same (H2) Bright v. State (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 123; (2012) 8 NWLR (PT.1302) 297

 

COURTS - Confession - Weight - Test of - Judge must apply the six tests in R v. Sykes - While determining weight to be attached to confession (H5) Oseni v. State (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 953; (2012) 5 NWLR (PT.1293) 351

 

COURTS - Constitution - Interpretation - Literal rule - Court must confine itself to the ordinary meaning of words used - Save it is at variance with legislature’s intention (H5) Dangana v. Usman (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 577; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1349) 50

 

COURTS - Constitution - Interpretation - Principle - Where the words used are unambiguous - Court must give the words their ordinary meaning (H2) Merill Guaranty Savings & Loan Ltd. v. Worldgate Building Society Ltd. (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1331; (2013) 1 NWLR (PT.1336) 581

 

COURTS - Constitution - Time fixed - Adherence - Such time cannot be extended beyond constitutional provisions - And non compliance robs court of jurisdiction over an action (H4) ANPP v. Goni (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 701; (2012) 7 NWLR (PT.1298) 147

 

COURTS - Constitutional law - Fundamental rights - Discrimination based on ethnicity - Courts must review acts of Govt or its agencies - In protection of fundamental rights of the individual (H5) Lafia L.G. v. Gov. Nasarawa State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4385; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 94

 

COURTS - Constitutional law - Jurisdiction - Banking matters - 1979 Constitution s. 230(1)(d) - The section does not confer exclusive jurisdiction on Federal High Court (H1) Merill Guaranty Savings & Loan Ltd. v. Worldgate Building Society Ltd. (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1331; (2013) 1 NWLR (PT.1336) 581

 

COURTS - Constitutional law - Referral to appeal court - By 1999 Constitution s. 295(2) - Reference can be made by Judge suo motu - Or by one or both parties - And it is not mandatory that parties are heard (H2) Audu v. A-G Fed (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3321; (2013) 8 NWLR (PT.1355) 175

 

COURTS - Constitutional law - Time - Stipulated in the Constitution - Cannot be extended by court - In purported exercise of discretion (H6) Abubakar v. Nasamu (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 479; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1330) 407

 

COURTS - Contracts - Award of interest - Court can award interest as consequential order - Even where same is not claimed in writ of summons (H11) African Intn’l Bank Ltd. v. Integrated Dimensional System Ltd. (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1635; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 1

 

COURTS - Contracts - Frustration - Determination - Frustration occurs whenever court recognizes that - Without default of either party - Contractual obligation has become incapable of being performed (H5) A-G Cross-River State v. A-G Fed. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2717; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1327) 425

 

COURTS - Contracts - Offer - Failure to reject - Effect - Since appellant failed to utilize his right to reject the original offer - Court cannot do so on his behalf (H7) Akinyemi v. Odu’a Inv. Co. Ltd (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 55; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1329) 209

 

COURTS - Contracts - Terms - Binding nature - Court must treat as sacrosanct - Terms of agreement freely entered into by parties (H4) BFI Group Corp. v. Bureau of Public Enterpr. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2553; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1332) 209

 

COURTS - Conviction - Based on uncorroborated confession - Propriety - Court can convict an accused upon such - Provided among other items - That there is something outside the confession - Which shows that it may be true (H3) Bright v. State (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 123; (2012) 8 NWLR (PT.1302) 297

 

COURTS - Conviction - Upon retracted confession - Validity - Before accused is convicted on such confession - Court must look for extraneous evidence - Which makes the confession probable (H3) Bassey v. State (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1495; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1314) 209

 

COURTS - Court processes - Appeals - Application as interested party - 1st respondent’s application does not constitute abuse of process - And Court of Appeal was right in granting same (H1) Waziri v. Gumel (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1473; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1304) 185

 

COURTS - Criminal procedure - Appeals - Murder - Finding of not guilty - Proper order to make - By Criminal Procedure Act s. 246 - Court of Appeal was duty bound - To discharge and acquit the accused (H3) State v. Okpala (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 437; (2012) 3 NWLR (PT.1287) 388

 

COURTS - Criminal procedure - Arraignment - Principle - CPC s.187 (1)(2) - The charge must be read and explained to accused in open court - And his plea thereto shall be taken (H1) Offor v. State (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3207; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1333) 421

 

COURTS - Criminal procedure - Confession - Conviction - Validity - Confession is sufficient to support conviction without corroboration - Provided court is satisfied of the truth therein (H1) Galadima v. State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4339; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1333) 610

 

COURTS - Criminal procedure - Confession - Test - Court must test the truth of confession by inter alia determining - If there is anything outside the confession - That shows it is true (H3) Adesina v. State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3713; (2012) 14 NWLR (PT.1321) 429

 

COURTS - Criminal procedure - Guilty plea - Where accused pleads guilty - The same shall be recorded - And court may convict upon such confession - Provided charge is not punishable with death (H2) Offor v. State (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3207; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1333) 421

 

COURTS - Criminal procedure - Need for interpreter - By 1999 constitution s. 36 (6) (e) - Anyone charged with a criminal offence - Is entitled to an interpreter - If he does not understand the language of the court (H1) Okoro v. State (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 337; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1290) 351

 

COURTS - Criminal procedure - No case submission - Lesser offence - Notwithstanding the submission - Trial Judge is obliged where a lesser offence is disclosed - To rule that accused has case to answer (H4) Ugwu v. State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 4133; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1344) 172

 

COURTS - Criminal procedure - Presence of interpreter - Failure to record - Effect - There is an irrebuttable presumption of the presence of an interpreter - And failure to so record by the judge - Is an omission that can be waived aside as mere irregularity (H4) Okoro v. State (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 337; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1290) 351

 

COURTS - Criminal proceedings - Nolle prosequi - Entry of - This may be entered at any stage of proceedings by A.G. State or A.G. Federation - By information given to court - And Judge cannot question the decision (H8) Audu v. A-G Fed (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3321; (2013) 8 NWLR (PT.1355) 175

 

COURTS - Criminal proceedings - Nolle prosequi - Filing - Implication ­- Appellant ought to be discharged and case struck out - Hence Court of Appeal wrongly considered the questions referred to it for determination (H9) Audu v. A-G Fed (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3321; (2013) 8 NWLR (PT.1355) 175

 

COURTS - Customary courts - Procedure in superior courts are not strictly followed - As it is the substance of the matter - That is of importance in customary court (H6) Gbagbarigha v. Toruemi (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4355; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1350) 289

 

COURTS - Customary courts - Proceedings - The proceedings therein should be examined - As rules of superior court of record are not strictly followed in such courts (H4) Okereke v. James (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2385; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1326) 339

 

COURTS - Damages - Award by trial court - Interference - Appellate court will not interfere - Save where inter alia - Exercise of discretion by trial court is perverse (H4) Ahmed v. CBN (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 277; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1339) 524

 

COURTS - Damages - Power to Award - Damages are awarded by trial court - And such power is exercised after judicious estimation of loss to victim - Once breach of contract has been established (H1) Ahmed v. CBN (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 277; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1339) 524

 

COURTS - Declaratory action - Proof - Plaintiff must show existence of subsisting or future legal right - Court is prepared to recognize - And that same is contested (H4) A-G Cross-River State v. A-G Fed. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2717; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1327) 425

 

COURTS - Discretion - Appeals - Enlargement of time - Exercise of discretion - Interference - Appellate courts do not interfere - Save where discretion was based on wrong principle of law - Or it occasioned miscarriage of justice (H2) Olatubosun v. Texaco Nig. Plc (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1985; (2012) 14 NWLR (PT.1319) 200

 

COURTS - Discretion - Exercise of - Appellate court does not interfere with discretion of trial judges - Save where same was done arbitrary (H11) Military Gov. Lagos State v. Adeyiga (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 839; (2012) 5 NWLR (PT.1293) 291

 

COURTS - Discretion - Exercise of - Once discretion is exercised judicially and judiciously - Supreme Court does not interfere (H2) Rabiu v. Adebajo (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 314) 2329; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1322) 125

 

COURTS - Discretion - Exercise of - Principles - Discretion must be exercised judicially - And judiciously relying on sufficient materials (H11) Akinyemi v. Odu’a Inv. Co. Ltd (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 55; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1329) 209

 

COURTS - Discretion - Statutes - “Shall” and “within” - Meaning - The words mean that the applicable provision - Is mandatory as it admits of no discretion (H5) Abubakar v. Nasamu (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 479; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1330) 407

 

COURTS - Documents - Validity - Invitation to determine - Is proper if the validity of the document is put in issue - In the pleadings of parties before the court (H5) Adeosun v. Gov. of Ekiti State (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 1; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1291) 581

 

COURTS - Election petition - Appeals - National Assembly election - Final court - By s. 246(3) 1999 Constitution - Court of Appeal is the final court to determine dispute arising therefrom (H4) Udenwa v. Uzodinma (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 4093; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1346) 94; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1346) 94

 

COURTS - Election petitions - Appeals - Abuse of process - Appellant abused the process of court - By instituting this suit as election petition matter - When she has a similar pending suit at the Federal high court (H4) Okadigbo v. Emeka (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 181; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1311) 237

 

COURTS - Election petitions - Appeals - Final judgment - Meaning - Such judgment disposes of rights of parties - And puts an end to the action (H9) Ogboru v. Uduaghan (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1351; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1311) 357

 

COURTS - Election petitions - Appeals - Hearing - Limitation - 1999 Constitution s. 285(7) - The 60 days prescribed by the section for hearing appeal by CA & SC respectively - Cannot be extended (H3) Udenwa v. Uzodinma (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 4093; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1346) 94; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1346) 94

 

COURTS - Election petitions - Appeals - Judgments - Reasons - S.C. and C.A. can give their decisions in final appeals under s. 285(8) 1999 Constitution - And reserve reasons thereof (H4) CPC v. Suntai (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3543

 

COURTS - Election petitions - Appeals - Retrial order - Correctness of - Appellate court is competent to order retrial - Where appeal succeeds within prescribed time (H3) Ugba v. Suswam (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 314) 2345; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1345) 427

 

COURTS - Election petitions - Criminal & civil allegations - Severance - It is duty of petitioner and not that of the court - To distinguish criminal allegations - From those which are civil in nature (H10) Gundiri v. Nyako (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3341

 

COURTS - Election petitions - Documentary evidence - Proof - Such documents remain dormant - Unless they are activated by oral evidence - To allow court speak on them (H7) ACN v. Nyako (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3267

 

COURTS - Election petitions - Documents - Binding nature - Judge is restricted to case presented by parties - In order to avoid rendering perverse judgment (H6) Aliucha v. Elechi (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1065

 

COURTS - Election petitions - Documents - Oral evidence - Appellants must adduce oral evidence - Linking the documents to his case - As court is not supposed to do a party’s case (H6) CPC v. Suntai (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3543

 

COURTS - Election petitions - Governorship election tribunal - Court of Appeal - Judgment - Reasons for - 1999 Constitution s. 285(7) - Mandates the court to deliver its judgment with reasons - Within 60 days (H11) Ogboru v. Uduaghan (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1351; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1311) 357

 

COURTS - Election petitions - Gubernatorial election - Appeal - Judgment - Final court - Since C.A. is not final court by virtue of s.233(2)(e)(iv) 1999 Constitution - The judgment is appellable to S.C (H2) CPC v. Suntai (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3543

 

COURTS - Election petitions - Hearing - 1999 Constitution s. 285(6) - Petition must be heard and judgment delivered within 180 days - From the filing date - And court cannot extend the period (H1) Ugba v. Suswam (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 314) 2345; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1345) 427

 

COURTS - Election petitions - Judgment - 1999 Constitution s. 285(6) - Once tribunal gives decision within 180 days and aggrieved party appeals - Its time runs until the 180 days shall be exhausted - And appellate court cannot extend the time (H2) Udenwa v. Uzodinma (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 4093; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1346) 94

 

COURTS - Election petitions - Jurisdiction - Court of Appeal - By 1999 Constitution s. 246(3) - It shall be the final court - In respect of appeals arising from National Assembly election petition tribunal (H6) Dangana v. Usman (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 577; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1349) 50

 

COURTS - Election petitions - Legislative Houses elections - Appeal - Final court - By virtue of ss. 246(1)(b)(c) & 285(8) 1999 Constitution - Appeals from such elections terminate at Court of Appeal (H3) CPC v. Suntai (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3543

 

COURTS - Election petitions - Non compliance - Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) para. 4(5) (c) - Effect - Findings of the courts are in order - Since appellant failed to fully comply with the provisions (H3) ACN v. Lamido (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 621; (2012) 8 NWLR (PT.1303) 560

 

COURTS - Elections - Gubernatorial - Nullification - “Null & void” - Meaning - Where the acts of a governor whose election is nullified are saved - Court will describe the election as voidable (H6) Marwa v. Nyako (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 231; (2012) 6 NWLR (PT.1296) 199

 

COURTS - Elections - Gubernatorial - Presumption of validity - An election is deemed valid until courts declare it a nullity - Yet the declaration does not affect the validity of oaths - And actions taken by a governor (H8) Marwa v. Nyako (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 231; (2012) 6 NWLR (PT.1296) 199

 

COURTS - Elections - Jurisdiction - Pre-election matter - Court can determine whether a political party - In taking any action - Complied with or violated its own constitution (H1) Peretu v. Gariga (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4543; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1348) 415

 

COURTS - Elections - Nomination - Input of political party - Necessity of - Political party is expected to assist court - To determine who its candidate is (H14) Emeka v. Okadigbo (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2611; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1331) 55

 

COURTS - Elections - Political party’s primary - Failure to participate - Since appellant did not take part in the valid primary - He cannot validly - Activate jurisdiction of court (H6) Emenike v. PDP (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1717; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1315) 556

 

COURTS - Elections - Pre election matters - Jurisdiction - By virtue of Electoral Act s.87(9) - Courts can entertain complaints of aggrieved party - At primary election (H6) Emeka v. Okadigbo (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2611; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1331) 55

 

COURTS - Elections - Pre election matters - Right of action - Person who was not candidate at primary election - Cannot come to court - To complain about conduct of such primary (H5) Emeka v. Okadigbo (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2611; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1331) 55

 

COURTS - Elections - Pre-election matters - Courts - Jurisdiction - Joinder of electorates - Electorates cannot be rightly joined - In suit involving candidates in primary election (H2) Nwaogu v. Owuala (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3187

 

COURTS - Error - Effect on litigant - Party should not be punished because of error - Committed by judge counsel or court officials (H1) Fidelity Bank Plc v. Monye (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1203; (2012) 10 NWLR (PT.1307) 1

 

COURTS - Evidence - “Prove” - Meaning - The word connotes situation where there is evidence before court - On which statement would be tested - And its truthfulness confirmed (H2) State v. Isah (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 4037; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1327) 613

 

COURTS - Evidence - Admissibility - Basis - Exhibits M1-M3 - Once an evidence is relevant to fact in issue - It is considered admissible - And court is bound to admit same (H2) Haruna v. A-G Federation (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1309; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1306) 419

 

COURTS - Evidence - Admissibility - Exhibits P3 & P4 - Not pleaded - Fate - Court of Appeal was right in expunging the exhibits - Since same were not pleaded (H2) Phillips v. Eba Odan Commercial & Industrial Co. Ltd. (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1611; (2013) 1 NWLR (PT.1336) 618

 

COURTS - Evidence - Admitted facts - Proof - Facts admitted need no proof - And court is expected to act thereon (H3) Atanda v. Iliasu (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3015; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1351) 529

 

COURTS - Evidence - Appeals - Reevaluation - Justification - Where trial court failed to properly evaluate evidence before it - Appellate court is entitled to evaluate same (H8) Akinyemi v. Odu’a Inv. Co. Ltd (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 55; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1329) 209

 

COURTS - Evidence - Appeals - Reevaluation - Justification - Where trial court fails to properly evaluate evidence before it - Appellate court can interfere - Provided that credibility of witnesses is not involved (H8) Haruna v. A-G Federation (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1309; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1306) 419

 

COURTS - Evidence - Confession - Obtained via interpreter - Admissibility - Such statement is inadmissible - Save where interpreter and the person who recorded same - Testify in court (H3) FRN v. Usman (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1119; (2012) 8 NWLR (PT.1301) 141

 

COURTS - Evidence - Confession - Tendered without objection - Fate - Such confession is deemed voluntary - And court need not inquire into - Whether or not same was made voluntarily (H1) Osung v. State (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2425; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1332) 256

 

COURTS - Evidence - Contradiction - Effect - Contradiction must relate to material fact - Before it can affect judgment of court (H2) Osung v. State (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2425; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1332) 256

 

COURTS - Evidence - Crime - Testimony of lone witness - Admissibility - Where court founds such evidence to be true - It is bound to accept and act on same (H3) Ilodigwe v. State (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2789; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1331) 1

 

COURTS - Evidence - Evaluation - Appeals - Trial court ascribes probative value to evidence - Appellate court does not lightly interfere - Save where inter alia evidence has nothing to do with demeanour of witnesses (H1) BFI Group Corp. v. Bureau of Public Enterpr. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2553; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1332) 209

 

COURTS - Evidence - Evaluation - Appeals - Where trial court fails to properly evaluate evidence - Court of Appeal can evaluate - And come to a correct and fair decision to parties (H1) Afolabi v. Western Steel Works Ltd. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2503; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1329) 286

 

COURTS - Evidence - Evaluation - Ascription of probative value to witnesses - Is primary function of trial court - That heard and watched demeanour of the witnesses (H5) Haruna v. A-G Federation (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1309; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1306) 419

 

COURTS - Evidence - Evaluation - Ascription of probative value to evidence - Is the primary function of trial court - And appellate court does not intervene - Even it would have held otherwise (H5) Nagogo v. CPC (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4441; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1339) 448

 

COURTS - Evidence - Evaluation - Challenge - Principles - When evaluation by judge is in issue - It should inter alia be considered - Whether the evidence is admissible - Or relevant (H4) Tukur v. Uba (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2651; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1343) 90

 

COURTS - Evidence - Evaluation - Interference - Since trial Judge did not evaluate exhibits D-F1 and s. 42 of 1999 Constitution - Court of Appeal rightly did the evaluation - And come to correct decision (H8) Lafia L.G. v. Gov. Nasarawa State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4385; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 94

 

COURTS - Evidence - Evaluation - It is the duty of trial court to evaluate and ascribe probative value to evidence - But appellate court intervenes - Where trial Judge fails to evaluate evidence properly (H5) Otukpo v. John (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3667; (2012) 7 NWLR (PT.1299) 357

 

COURTS - Evidence - Evaluation - Trial court evaluates and ascribes probative value to evidence - And is thus in a position - To access credibility and demeanor of witnesses (H3) Tukur v. Uba (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2651; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1343) 90

 

COURTS - Evidence - Evaluation - Trial court evaluates and assigns probative value to evidence - And appellate court does not interfere - Save where evaluation was improper (H7) Military Gov. Lagos State v. Adeyiga (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 839; (2012) 5 NWLR (PT.1293) 291

 

COURTS - Evidence - Evaluation - Trial court is not bound to make findings - As to probative value of Exhibits A-N - Before a conviction is grounded (H6) Haruna v. A-G Federation (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1309; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1306) 419

 

COURTS - Evidence - Evaluation - Trial court’s duty is to receive relevant evidence - Examines them in the context of circumstances of the case - Before making its findings (H6) Lafia L.G. v. Gov. Nasarawa State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4385; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 94

 

COURTS - Evidence - Evaluation of - Is the duty of trial court - And appellate court should not interfere - Except where there is miscarriage of justice (H1) Gundiri v. Nyako (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3341

 

COURTS - Evidence - Identification parade - To ascribe value to evidence from such parade - Court must inter alia - Consider circumstances in which eyewitness saw the suspect (H7) Adesina v. State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3713; (2012) 14 NWLR (PT.1321) 429

 

COURTS - Evidence - Inadmissible evidence - Power to expunge - Court can expunge from its record - Evidence or document earlier admitted (H9) Kubor v. Dickson (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3121; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1345) 534

 

COURTS - Evidence - Indian Hemp - Report Certificate - Service of - Evidence Act s.43 - Where the certificate is not served on adverse party ten days before usage in court - Adjournment may be granted (H3) Ugwanyi v. FRN (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1407; (2012) 8 NWLR (PT.1302) 384

 

COURTS - Evidence - Previous proceedings - Evidence of - Admissibility - Evidence Act s.34(1) - Where issues are the same - Court will admit such evidence - But facts must be pleaded (H1) Ayorinde v. Sogunro (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1895; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1312) 460

 

COURTS - Evidence - Reevaluation - Justification - When trial court fails to properly evaluate evidence - Appellate court can intervene - And reevaluate such evidence (H5) Tukur v. Uba (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2651; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1343) 90

 

COURTS - Evidence - Retracted confession - Weight - Court is to test truthfulness of the confession - By inter alia looking for anything outside the confession - That shows it is true (H5) Osetola v. State (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2399; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1329) 251

 

COURTS - Evidence - Tainted witness - Instance - Mere employer/employee relationship - Does not make one a tainted witness - Thus the courts were right in not treating the witnesses as tainted (H8) ACN v. Lamido (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 621; (2012) 8 NWLR (PT.1303) 560

 

COURTS - Evidence - Unchallenged evidence - Admissibility - Evidence that is not challenged - Is deemed to have been admitted - And court can rely on same (H6) Gov. Zamfara State v. Gyalange (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1535; (2013) 8 NWLR (PT.1357) 462

 

COURTS - Evidence - Unchallenged evidence - Effect - Such evidence is accepted as proof of fact it seeks to establish - And court is to rely on same (H8) Military Gov. Lagos State v. Adeyiga (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 839; (2012) 5 NWLR (PT.1293) 291

 

COURTS - Expert witness - Qualification - Such witness must show skill in the field - In which he is called to give evidence - And the Judge decides whether or not a witness is an expert (H9) Oruwari v. Osler (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3941; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1348) 535

 

COURTS - Fair hearing - Meaning - Fair hearing entails complying with - Rules of procedure in court - And giving each litigant - An opportunity of being heard (H5) Gov. Zamfara State v. Gyalange (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1535; (2013) 8 NWLR (PT.1357) 462

 

COURTS - Fair hearing - Reference - Ex parte application for - As a Judge does not give an opinion - Or considers civil rights of parties in making reference - Denial of fair hearing does not arise (H2) Audu v. A-G Fed (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3321; (2013) 8 NWLR (PT.1355) 175

 

COURTS - Federal High Court - Jurisdiction - 1979 Constitution s. 230(1)(q)(r)(s) - The court has exclusive jurisdiction - In any matter affecting the Federal government or any of its agencies (H3) Agbule v. Warri Refinery (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3435; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1350) 318

 

COURTS - Federal High court - Jurisdiction - Declaratory and injunctive reliefs - By 1999 Constitution s. 251(1)(r) - Reliefs claimed are within the court’s jurisdiction - Since the COP being also a party - Is a federal government agency (H6) NURTW v. RTEAN (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 149; (2012) 10 NWLR (PT.1307) 170

 

COURTS - Findings - Discharge & acquittal of co-accused - Effect - Acquittal of 7th accused is not fatal to the findings - Since identification was spontaneous and natural (H4) Ilodigwe v. State (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2789; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1331) 1

 

COURTS - Incapacitation - Jurisdiction - Absence of - Without jurisdiction - A court is incapacitated - As any decision it reaches creates no obligation (H5) Okadigbo v. Emeka (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 181; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1311) 237

 

COURTS - Injunctions - Mandatory injunction - Grant of - Where injury done to plaintiff cannot be compensated by damages - Court can invoke its equitable jurisdiction and discretion - To grant the injunction (H10) Military Gov. Lagos State v. Adeyiga (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 839; (2012) 5 NWLR (PT.1293) 291

 

COURTS - Issue - Suo motu raising - Where court fails to invite parties to react to such issue - Before basing its judgment thereon - Such act is breach of right to fair hearing - And it renders the judgment a nullity (H1) Uwazuruonye v. Gov. Imo State (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3415; (2013) 8 NWLR (PT.1355) 28

 

COURTS - Issues - Binding nature of - Court is bound to consider - Issues properly placed before it - As it does not fish out issues for parties (H5) Chidoka v. First City Finance Co. Ltd. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2585; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1346) 144

 

COURTS - Issues - Determination - Court is to adjudicate between parties - In relation to their competing legal interest - And never to engage in mere academic discourse (H7) PHCN v. Offoelo (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 4001; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1344) 380

 

COURTS - Issues - Determination of - Cookey v. Fombo - Court must consider properly raised issues - And must reflect the result of such an exercise (H3) Aliucha v. Elechi (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1065

 

COURTS - Issues - Formulation - Correctness of - Court has discretion to re-arrange issues by parties - To meet the justice of the case (H3) Plateau State Health Serv. Mgt Board v. Goshwe (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3233; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1338) 383

 

COURTS - Issues - Raising suo motu - Propriety - It is wrong for court to raise a point suo motu - And resolve a case on that basis - Without inviting the parties or their counsel to address it on the point (H5) Amale v. Sokoto L. G. (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 99; (2012) 5 NWLR (PT.1292) 181

 

COURTS - Issues - Suo motu raising - Propriety - Court may raise issues - Provided that parties are given opportunity - Of being heard on the issues so raised (H6) PDP v. Okorocha (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1155; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1323) 205

 

COURTS - Issues - Suo motu raising - When an issue is raised suo motu - Parties should be heard before decision is reached on the issue - Save where some exceptions apply (H7) Gbagbarigha v. Toruemi (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4355; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1350) 289

 

COURTS - Judgments - Delivery - Basis - Judgment should be based on facts of case decided - As courts are not allowed to apply ratio of a case - With little regard to facts before them (H11) Emeka v. Okadigbo (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2611; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1331) 55

 

COURTS - Judgments - Meaning of - Judgment is court’s final determination of - Rights and obligations of parties in a case - And it includes any order from which appeal lies (H2) Ugba v. Suswam (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 314) 2345; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1345) 427

 

COURTS - Judgments - Reasons - Need for - Court must give reasons for its decision - In order not to give room to arbitrariness (H7) Ogboru v. Uduaghan (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1351; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1311) 357

 

COURTS - Judgments - Valid judgment - Ingredients - Judgment should set out and review action presented by parties - In relation to applicable laws - As well as gives reasons for conclusions reached (H6) Ogboru v. Uduaghan (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1351; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1311) 357

 

COURTS - Judgments - Validity - Essential requirements - Facts as pleaded by parties must be set out - As well as issues for determination and resolution thereon - And a final order of court (H1) CPC v. Suntai (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3543

 

COURTS - Judicial discretion - Meaning - It is exercise of judgment by a judge based on what is fair - And guided by the rules and principles of law (H9) Akinyemi v. Odu’a Inv. Co. Ltd (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 55; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1329) 209

 

COURTS - Jurisdiction - Absence of - Effect - Court must first decide on its jurisdiction - Because if it lacks same - Its proceedings would amount to nullity (H2) Dangana v. Usman (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 577; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1349) 50

 

COURTS - Jurisdiction - Absence of - Effect - Once court lacks jurisdiction in a suit - Then the proceedings and judgment arising therefrom - Would amount to nullity (H1) Emeka v. Okadigbo (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2611; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1331) 55

 

COURTS - Jurisdiction - Absence of - Effect - Where court lacks jurisdiction in a case - The proceedings therein remain nullity ab initio (H2) Goldmark Nig. Ltd. v. Ibafon Co. Ltd. (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1251; (2012) 10 NWLR (PT.1308) 291

 

COURTS - Jurisdiction - Absence of - Madukolu v. Nkemdilim - In absence of jurisdiction the court will be acting in futility - No matter how well a proceeding is conducted (H6) Agbule v. Warri Refinery (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3435; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1350) 318

 

COURTS - Jurisdiction - Absence of - Proper order to make - Where a court lacks jurisdiction - It should give an order striking out the matter (H7) Dangana v. Usman (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 577; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1349) 50

 

COURTS - Jurisdiction - Actions - Commencement procedure - Since originating summons cannot properly initiate the matter - Court can convert the summons and order pleadings (H4) Atago v. Nwuche (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 2995; (2013) 3 NWLR (PT.1341) 337

 

COURTS - Jurisdiction - Appeals - Supreme Court - Issue of jurisdiction can be raised any time even before Supreme Court - And court can suo motu raise same - But parties must be heard before decision is taken (H4) Egunjobi v. FRN (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4259; (2013) 3 NWLR (PT.1342) 534

 

COURTS - Jurisdiction - Challenge to - Court must first consider whether or not it has jurisdiction - As a defect in same - Renders the proceedings a nullity (H14) Ajayi v. Adebiyi (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1843; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1310) 137

 

COURTS - Jurisdiction - Definition - Jurisdiction is court’s power to decide case or issue a decree - And it is the charge before court - That determines the jurisdiction thereof (H1) Egunjobi v. FRN (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4259; (2013) 3 NWLR (PT.1342) 534

 

COURTS - Jurisdiction - Definition - Jurisdiction is the limit imposed on power of court - To determine issues between persons - Seeking to avail themselves of its process (H1) Goldmark Nig. Ltd. v. Ibafon Co. Ltd. (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1251; (2012) 10 NWLR (PT.1308) 291

 

COURTS - Jurisdiction - Determination - Basis - It is plaintiff’s claim that determines - And vests jurisdiction in court (H2) Ports & Cargo Handlings Services Ltd. v. Migfo Nig. Ltd. (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 314) 2297; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1333) 555

 

COURTS - Jurisdiction - Determination - Basis - It is plaintiff’s claim as stated in originating processes - That determines jurisdiction of court (H4) Uwazurike v. Nwachukwu (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3249; (2013) 3 NWLR (PT.1342) 503

 

COURTS - Jurisdiction - Determination - Basis - Jurisdiction of court is determined by plaintiff’s claim - As can be seen from the paragraphs of the statement of claim (H4) Agbule v. Warri Refinery (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3435; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1350) 318

 

COURTS - Jurisdiction - Determination of - Basis - Court must consider deposed facts in affidavits - Writ of summons and statement of claim (H11) Ajayi v. Adebiyi (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1843; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1310) 137

 

COURTS - Jurisdiction - Determination of - Basis - It is the claim of plaintiff - That court should examine to determine whether or not it has jurisdiction - To entertain the action (H4) NURTW v. RTEAN (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 149; (2012) 10 NWLR (PT.1307) 170

 

COURTS - Jurisdiction - Determination of - Basis - Jurisdiction is determined by plaintiff’s statement of claim - And not by statement of defence (H3) Elelu-Habeeb v. A-G Federation (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 743; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1318) 423

 

COURTS - Jurisdiction - Determination of - Basis - Jurisdiction is determined by plaintiff’s claim - As endorsed in the writ of summons - And statement of claim (H3) Goldmark Nig. Ltd. v. Ibafon Co. Ltd. (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1251; (2012) 10 NWLR (PT.1308) 291

 

COURTS - Jurisdiction - Determination of - Basis - Jurisdiction of court is resolved - By examining the writ of summons - And statement of claim (H7) PDP v. Sylva (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1575; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1316) 85

 

COURTS - Jurisdiction - Determination of - Principles - Jurisdiction inter alia is a matter of substantive law - Which cannot be conferred on court by litigant - Where statute has not vested same (H4) Dangana v. Usman (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 577; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1349) 50

 

COURTS - Jurisdiction - Federal High Court - 1999 Constitution s. 251(1)(q) - The court has jurisdiction over actions - Involving Federal Government or any of its agencies (H5) Elelu-Habeeb v. A-G Federation (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 743; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1318) 423

 

COURTS - Jurisdiction - Federal High Court - 1999 Constitution s.251 - Confers exclusive jurisdiction to the court - Over items listed therein (H8) PDP v. Sylva (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1575; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1316) 85

 

COURTS - Jurisdiction - Fundamental nature - Once issue of jurisdiction is raised - It must be resolved - Before further step is taken in a matter (H2) Oriorio v. Osain (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 2001; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1327) 560

 

COURTS - Jurisdiction - Fundamental nature - Once issue of jurisdiction is raised - Court must determine same - Before proceeding with the matter on merit (H3) Uwazurike v. Nwachukwu (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3249; (2013) 3 NWLR (PT.1342) 503

 

COURTS - Jurisdiction - Fundamental nature - Once issue of jurisdiction is raised - Same must be determined - Since if court proceeds without jurisdiction - The proceedings would amount to a nullity (H10) Lafia L.G. v. Gov. Nasarawa State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4385; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 94

 

COURTS - Jurisdiction - Fundamental nature - Where court has no jurisdiction - Any action it takes will be a nullity - Notwithstanding that the proceeding was well conducted (H1) Akere v. Gov. Oyo State (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3471; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1314) 240

 

COURTS - Jurisdiction - Fundamental nature - Where court lacks jurisdiction over a matter - The entire proceedings amount to nullity - No matter how well conducted (H1) Gbagbarigha v. Toruemi (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4355; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1350) 289

 

COURTS - Jurisdiction - Fundamental nature of - Court cannot deal with a matter without jurisdiction - As absence of same renders proceedings therein a nullity (H3) Alawiye v. Ogunsanya (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 2957; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1348) 570

 

COURTS - Jurisdiction - Fundamental right - Enforcement of - Trial court can only proceed to enforce a fundamental right of an applicant guaranteed under Chapter IV of Constitution - If the main relief discloses a breach of such right (H2) Amale v. Sokoto L. G. (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 99; (2012) 5 NWLR (PT.1292) 181

 

COURTS - Jurisdiction - Fundamentality of - It is to be determined at earliest opportunity - Because if a court lacks jurisdiction over a case - The proceeding remains a nullity ab initio - No matter how well conducted (H2) NURTW v. RTEAN (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 149; (2012) 10 NWLR (PT.1307) 170

 

COURTS - Jurisdiction - Fundamentality of - Jurisdiction should be determined when raised - Since if court lacks jurisdiction in a matter - The proceedings thereof remain a nullity ab initio (H3) Egunjobi v. FRN (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4259; (2013) 3 NWLR (PT.1342) 534

 

COURTS - Jurisdiction - Interpretation - Ouster clause - As Decree 21 of 1996 contains such clause - Effect must be given to the clause - And court is to decline jurisdiction (H4) Adeyemi-Bero v. L.S.D.P.C. (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3743; (2013) 8 NWLR (PT.1356) 238

 

COURTS - Jurisdiction - Issue of - Time to raise - Jurisdiction can be raised at anytime - Even for first time in Supreme Court - And can be raised suo motu by court - Provided counsel are heard (H11) Lafia L.G. v. Gov. Nasarawa State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4385; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 94

 

COURTS - Jurisdiction - Issue of - When to raise - It can be raised at any stage in trial court or on appeal - And can be raised by any party or suo motu by the court (H6) Amale v. Sokoto L. G. (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 99; (2012) 5 NWLR (PT.1292) 181

 

COURTS - Jurisdiction - Judges ought to expound - And not expand jurisdiction conferred on their courts (H4) Elelu-Habeeb v. A-G Federation (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 743; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1318) 423

 

COURTS - Jurisdiction - Manner of raising - Jurisdiction is raised by motion on notice in High Court - And by inclusion in ground of appeal in Court of Appeal and Supreme Court (H3) Gbagbarigha v. Toruemi (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4355; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1350) 289

 

COURTS - Jurisdiction - Objections - Basis - Objections to jurisdiction can inter alia - Be raised on the basis of statement of claim - And evidence received (H4) Goldmark Nig. Ltd. v. Ibafon Co. Ltd. (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1251; (2012) 10 NWLR (PT.1308) 291

 

COURTS - Jurisdiction - Ouster clause - For jurisdiction of court to be ousted - Ambiguity or doubt in statute should not be entertained (H5) Olaleye-ote v. Babalola (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3637; (2012) 6 NWLR (PT.1297) 574

 

COURTS - Jurisdiction - Raising suo motu - Propriety - Where there is clear want of jurisdiction in the court - It is the duty of the judge to raise the issue suo motu - If the parties fail to do so (H7) Amale v. Sokoto L. G. (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 99; (2012) 5 NWLR (PT.1292) 181

 

COURTS - Jurisdiction - Source of - It is derived from the Constitution and statutes creating a court - Hence court and parties cannot assume jurisdiction by agreement (H1) Dangana v. Usman (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 577; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1349) 50

 

COURTS - Jurisdiction - Sources - Basis - Jurisdiction is granted by statute or Constitution - Hence no court can confer same on itself (H4) Ugba v. Suswam (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 314) 2345; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1345) 427

 

COURTS - Jurisdiction - Suo motu raising - Correctness of - Court has duty to raise issue - Regarding whether or not it has jurisdiction - To entertain a matter (H1) Emenike v. PDP (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1717; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1315) 556

 

COURTS - Jurisdiction - Undefended list - Transfer to general list - Anambra State High Court Rules O. 24 r. 9(5) - At any stage of the proceedings - Court can order the suit to be so transferred (H3) Intercontinental Bank Plc v. Brifina Ltd. (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1927; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1316) 1

 

COURTS - Jurisdiction is a creation of statutes - And same is neither inherent in appellate court - Nor can it be conferred by court order (H3) ANPP v. Goni (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 701; (2012) 7 NWLR (PT.1298) 147

 

COURTS - Land law - Appeals - Actions - Need for consistency - Respondents must be consistent in their case - Since Appellate court cannot go - Outside issues settled by trial court (H4) Oriorio v. Osain (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 2001; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1327) 560

 

COURTS - Land law - Customary court - Jurisdiction - The value of land does not have to be stated in Grade A Customary Court - Since jurisdiction of the court is not limited - By value of the disputed land (H2) Olaleye-ote v. Babalola (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3637; (2012) 6 NWLR (PT.1297) 574

 

COURTS - Land law - Identity of land - Oral evidence - Such evidence is sufficient proof thereof - Which dispenses the need to tender site plan - Especially where court has visited the locus in quo (H5) Atanda v. Iliasu (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3015; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1351) 529

 

COURTS - Land law - Private land - Acquisition - Interference by court - Court will intervene - Where government acquires private land - Contrary to laid down procedures (H13) Goldmark Nig. Ltd. v. Ibafon Co. Ltd. (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1251; (2012) 10 NWLR (PT.1308) 291

 

COURTS - Land law - Title - Grant - Appellant cannot be granted title - Without a proper hearing and determination of the suit - By the court (H3) Oronti v. Onigbanjo (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1825; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1313) 23

 

COURTS - Land law - Trespass - Damages - Award of - Where damages are awarded for trespass - And there is claim for injunction - Court will grant same - To prevent multiplicity of actions (H7) Oriorio v. Osain (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 2001; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1327) 560

 

COURTS - Land law- Auction sale - Ordered by court - Effect - It is presumed that such judicial act is valid - Where there is no fraud - And security given to purchaser of such property - Is a statutory one (H3) Osidele v. Sokunbi (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2857; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1324) 470

 

COURTS - Legal practitioners - Attendance - Where hearing notice has been served - And counsel fails to attend due to illness - Court must be notified of same (H3) Gov. Zamfara State v. Gyalange (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1535; (2013) 8 NWLR (PT.1357) 462

 

COURTS - Legal practitioners - Submissions - Effect - Submissions of counsel however beautiful - Cannot take the place of evidence - As such addresses must be a reminder to court of evidence proffered (H3) Chiokwe v. State (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3517; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1347) 205

 

COURTS - Legislation - Amendment - Effect on right of action - Decree No.107 of 1993 - An existing right is not lost - Where new law transfers jurisdiction of court (H5) Goldmark Nig. Ltd. v. Ibafon Co. Ltd. (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1251; (2012) 10 NWLR (PT.1308) 291

 

COURTS - Legislation - Interpretation - Courts applies the law as it is - And it is left for legislature to amend any hardship in the law (H5) Ugba v. Suswam (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 314) 2345; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1345) 427

 

COURTS - Motions - Legal practitioner - Failure to sign - In absence of credible evidence of signing by a legal practitioner - Court of Appeal rightly held that the motion was incompetent (H1) Bala v. Dikko (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3049; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1343) 52

 

COURTS - Motions - Pending motion - Failure to hear - Effect - Failure of trial court to hear such motion before judgment - Is not always fatal - As Appeal Court should examine the motion (H10) Emeka v. Okadigbo (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2611; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1331) 55

 

COURTS - National Industrial court - Jurisdiction - By Trade Dispute Act s. 15 - The jurisdiction of the court does not include - Power to make declarations and to order injunctions (H7) NURTW v. RTEAN (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 149; (2012) 10 NWLR (PT.1307) 170

 

COURTS - Objection - Touching on powers of court - Need to decide - Court must first have the objection disposed of - Since entertaining a matter when court has no vires - Will be a mere academic exercise (H1) Okadigbo v. Emeka (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 181; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1311) 237

 

COURTS - Objections - Appeals - Preliminary objection - Leave - Failure to apply - Where objection is filed in briefs - Leave must be sought orally - To argue same in court - Otherwise it is deemed abandoned (H2) Aliucha v. Elechi (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1065

 

COURTS - Order of non suit - Propriety - Parties ought to be given opportunity of being heard - Before the order was made by trial court - Hence Court of Appeal was right to set aside same (H3) Adusei v. Adebayo (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 205; (2012) 3 NWLR (PT.1288) 534

 

COURTS - Orders - Prejudice - Order made without jurisdiction - It is advisable but not mandatory for court to set such order aside - But it is better ignored where no one is prejudiced by same (H11) Okoro v. State (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 337; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1290) 351

 

COURTS - Pleadings - Binding nature - Issues for trial are joined in pleadings - And parties as well as court - Are bound by pleadings (H2) Kubor v. Dickson (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3121; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1345) 534

 

COURTS - Pleadings - Binding nature of - Courts are bound by pleadings before them - And should confine themselves - To the case presented by parties (H4) Ohochukwu v. A-G Rivers State (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 885; (2012) 6 NWLR (PT.1295) 53

 

COURTS - Pleadings - Content - Basis - Pleadings are required to contain facts - That assist court in just determination of a case (H5) Ohochukwu v. A-G Rivers State (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 885; (2012) 6 NWLR (PT.1295) 53

 

COURTS - Pleadings - Failure to raise triable issue - Court can in appropriate case - Draw conclusions from pleadings - And enter judgment for a party (H3) Unity Bank Plc v. Denclag Ltd. (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1427; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1332) 293

 

COURTS - Political parties - Nomination of candidates - Jurisdiction of court - Court can inquire whether - Nomination complied with Electoral Act - And political party’s constitution (H5) Emenike v. PDP (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1717; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1315) 556

 

COURTS - Politics - Elections - Political parties - Nomination of candidates - Right to nominate candidates at election - Resides with political parties - And court has no jurisdiction over same (H5) PDP v. Sylva (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1575; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1316) 85

 

COURTS - Politics - Elections - Political parties - Nomination of candidates - Right of political party to nominate candidate - Cannot be questioned in court (H4) Emenike v. PDP (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1717; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1315) 556

 

COURTS - Politics - Pre election matters - Jurisdiction - Electoral Act 2010 s.87(9) - Confers jurisdiction on courts - Where political party fails - To comply with its constitution - In primary elections (H6) PDP v. Sylva (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1575; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1316) 85

 

COURTS - Processes - Abuse - Characteristics - Abuse entails departure through improper use - Or perversion of court processes - After having been filed either in same court - Or various courts (H1) Barigha v. PDP (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4221; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1349) 108

 

COURTS - Processes - Abuse - Need to avoid - Case ought to be determined within reasonable time - As no court would allow party - To abuse it (H3) Chidoka v. First City Finance Co. Ltd. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2585; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1346) 144

 

COURTS - Processes - Abuse - Proper order - Where court comes to conclusion that its process is abused - Appropriate order is that of dismissal (H4) TSA Ind. Ltd. v. FBN (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 4055; (2012) 14 NWLR (PT.1320) 326

 

COURTS - Processes - Compliance with laws - Court is to ensure that process filed by parties - Comply with provisions of applicable laws (H7) PDP v. Okorocha (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1155; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1323) 205

 

COURTS - Processes - Failure to notify court - Effect - Where processes are not properly fixed for hearing - Court may not consider same (H3) MC Invest. Ltd. v. Core Invest. & Capital Market Ltd. (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 314) 2235; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1313) 1

 

COURTS - Records of proceedings - Binding nature - Court and parties are bound by records of proceedings - Which were conducted in court (H3) Offor v. State (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3207; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1333) 421

 

COURTS - Reliefs - Grant of - Court may not grant unpleaded relief - But may do so to meet the circumstances of a case - More so where there are evidence to rely on (H4) Obueke v. Nnamchi (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1801; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1314) 327

 

COURTS - Res judicata - Estoppel - Plea - Conditions precedent - For the plea to be sustained - There must be inter alia judicial decision - And that court that heard the matter - Has jurisdiction over parties and subject matter (H1) Abiola & Sons Bottling Co. Ltd. v. 7Up Bottling Co. Ltd. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2487; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1322) 184

 

COURTS - Rules - Binding nature - The rules are for compliance of court and parties - Since they regulate matters in court - As well as help parties in prosecution of cases (H2) MC Invest. Ltd. v. Core Invest. & Capital Market Ltd. (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 314) 2235; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1313) 1

 

COURTS - Rules of court - Purpose - Rules of court stands as handmaid - In guiding courts in the conduct of its business (H5) Fidelity Bank Plc v. Monye (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1203; (2012) 10 NWLR (PT.1307) 1

 

COURTS - Statutes - Adherence - Court should ensure that it is bound by statutory provisions - In order to promote justice (H6) NNPC v. Famfa Oil Ltd (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1947; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 148

 

COURTS - Statutes - Federal High Court - Jurisdiction - Admiralty Jurisdiction Act s. 1(3) - Jurisdiction of the court cannot be expanded - By virtue of the clear provision of the Act (H4) Ports & Cargo Handlings Services Ltd. v. Migfo Nig. Ltd. (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 314) 2297; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1333) 555

 

COURTS - Statutes - Interpretation - “Must” “Shall”- The words are not always interpreted as mandatory - As they can mean “may” - Where the context so admits (H3) Fidelity Bank Plc v. Monye (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1203; (2012) 10 NWLR (PT.1307) 1

 

COURTS - Statutes - Interpretation - 1999 Constitution s. 285(6) - Principle - Court must give effect to ordinary meaning of the words used therein (H1) ANPP v. Goni (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 701; (2012) 7 NWLR (PT.1298) 147

 

COURTS - Statutes - Interpretation - Literal rule - Where words of enactments are clear and unambiguous - Courts must give such words their ordinary meaning (H2) Martins v. COP (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3167; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1343) 25

 

COURTS - Statutes - Interpretation - Principle - Court can supply an omission in a law - To ensure reasonableness therein (H6) Olaleye-ote v. Babalola (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3637; (2012) 6 NWLR (PT.1297) 574

 

COURTS - Statutes - Interpretation - Principles - Court should adopt broad and liberal approach - In interpretation of statutes (H9) NURTW v. RTEAN (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 149; (2012) 10 NWLR (PT.1307) 170

 

COURTS - Statutes - Interpretation - Role of Judge - FBN v. Mainada - A Judge should be firm and pungent in interpretation of law - But should be short of being a legislator (H1) Adeyemi-Bero v. L.S.D.P.C. (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3743; (2013) 8 NWLR (PT.1356) 238

 

COURTS - Statutes - Interpretation - Role of Judge - In statutory interpretation - Judge should not flout the constitutional duty of legislature - To make laws (H2) FBN Ltd. v. Jawa Intn’l Ltd. (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1749

 

COURTS - Statutes - Limitation - Public Officers Protection Law - Pleadings - Defendant must specifically plead the defence at trial court - Otherwise he cannot rely on same on appeal (H6) Ajayi v. Adebiyi (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1843; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1310) 137

 

COURTS - Stay of execution - Application for - Basis for grant - Applicant must show exceptional circumstances - As court do not usually deprive litigant of his success in a judgment (H1) Amadi v. Chukwu (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2375; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1347) 301

 

COURTS - Stay of execution - Grant - Court has discretion to grant or refuse stay - And the discretion must be exercised judicially and judiciously (H2) Amadi v. Chukwu (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2375; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1347) 301

 

COURTS - Stay of execution - Grant - Parties - Court exercises its discretion judicially and judiciously - Where applicant has presented necessary materials - For grant of stay (H1) Alawiye v. Ogunsanya (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 2957; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1348) 570

 

COURTS - Supreme Court - Appeals - Determination - The court has no jurisdiction to sit on appeal from Chief Magistrate court - But sits on appeal from Court of Appeal (H1) Martins v. COP (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3167; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1343) 25

 

COURTS - Supreme Court - Appeals - Hearing - Supreme Court hears appeals against judgment of Court of Appeal - And not against judgment of High Court (H15) Emeka v. Okadigbo (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2611; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1331) 55

 

COURTS - Supreme Court - Elections - Jurisdiction - S.22 of Supreme Court Act - The section cannot be invoked - Since courts have no power - To question nomination of candidates for election (H9) PDP v. Sylva (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1575; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1316) 85

 

COURTS - Supreme Court - Hierarchy of courts - Supreme Court is not bound by decisions of Court of Appeal - As it is the highest court in the land - Whose decisions are binding on all and sundry (H7) Marwa v. Nyako (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 231; (2012) 6 NWLR (PT.1296) 199

 

COURTS - Supreme Court - Powers - Orders of court - Modification - By s.22 S.C. Act - The court is empowered to modify orders - Given by Court of Appeal (H8) Iseogbekun v. Adelakun (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3573; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1337) 14

 

COURTS - Torts - Defamatory words - Interpreter - Trial court must satisfy itself as to correct English translation of the words in foreign language - By an independent sworn interpreter (H2) Oruwari v. Osler (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3941; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1348) 535

 

COURTS - Trade Unions - National Industrial Court - Trade dispute - Manner of initiating - By 1976 Trade Dispute Act s. 10 - All matters within the competence of the court - Must be referred to the court by the Minister of Labour (H8) NURTW v. RTEAN (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 149; (2012) 10 NWLR (PT.1307) 170

 

COURTS - Tribunals - Land tribunal - Judicial notice of - No evidence is required to prove existence or otherwise of the tribunal - As it is a matter court can take judicial notice of (H5) Akere v. Gov. Oyo State (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3471; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1314) 240

 

COURTS - Undefended list - Determination - Court must consider notice of intention to defend - And examine if plaintiff has established prima facie claim - In the affidavit (H1) Intercontinental Bank Plc v. Brifina Ltd. (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1927; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1316) 1

 

COURTS - Words & Phrases - “Judgment” - Definition - Judgment is the official and authentic decision of court - Upon rights of parties in an action (H4) Ogboru v. Uduaghan (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1351; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1311) 357

 

COURTS - Words & Phrases - Constitution - “Decision” - Definition - Decision means determination of court or tribunal - Which includes judgment or recommendation (H3) Ogboru v. Uduaghan (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1351; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1311) 357

 

COURTS - Words & phrases - Constitution - “Final appeals” - Meaning - The phrase does not relate to final decisions of election tribunal - It relates to the final court - Beyond which there is no further appeal (H9) Abubakar v. Nasamu (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 479; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1330) 407

 

COURTS - Words & phrases - Constitution - “The court” - Meaning - By 1999 Constitution s. 285(8) - It refers to Court of Appeal and Supreme Court - Depending on the facts of the case (H8) Abubakar v. Nasamu (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 479; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1330) 407

 

COURTS - Words & Phrases - Constitution - “The Court” - Meaning - The phrase used in s. 285(8) refers to Court of Appeal - Hearing appeal from States and National Assembly elections (H2) PDP v. Okorocha (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1155; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1323) 205

 

COURTS - Words & phrases - Decision - Meaning - 1999 Constitution s.318 - Decision means any determination of court - Which includes judgment - Decree - Or Order (H5) CPC v. Suntai (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3543

 

COURTS PROCESSES - Abuse - Case ought to be determined within reasonable time - As no court would allow party - To abuse it (H3) Chidoka v. First City Finance Co. Ltd. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2585; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1346) 144

 

CRIME - Actions - Criminal act of cross respondent is mere allegation - And under s. 465 Criminal Code - It must be proved beyond reasonable doubt - That exhibit A was forged (H8) Marine Mgt. Asso. v. N.M.A. (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3863; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1333) 506

 

CRIMINAL LAW - Armed robbery - Meaning of - Armed robbery means stealing with violence - While robbery is stealing without violence - And person that aids in commission of the offence - Is guilty of armed robbery (H2) Bassey v. State (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1495; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1314) 209

 

CRIMINAL LAW - Conspiracy - Effect - When two or more persons agree to prosecute unlawful purpose - Which leads to commission of an offence - Each of such persons is deemed to be an offender (H8) Osetola v. State (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2399; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1329) 251

 

CRIMINAL LAW - Conspiracy - Essential element - The offence is complete upon meeting of the minds - And in order to complete the offence - It is not necessary that anything should be done beyond the agreement (H5) Bright v. State (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 123; (2012) 8 NWLR (PT.1302) 297

 

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE - Courts - Chief Magistrate court - Powers - Penal Code s.78 & CPC s.365(1) - It must be shown inter alia that offence for which accused was charged - Is within jurisdiction of the court (H3) Martins v. COP (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3167; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1343) 25

 

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE - Self-defence - Conditions - Accused must establish that his own life was in danger - And that his action was intended to preserve his life (H1) Chukwu v. State (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3101; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1343) 1

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - “Judgment” - Meaning - Judgment refers to conviction and sentence - Pronounced upon finding of guilt (H5) Ogboru v. Uduaghan (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1351; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1311) 357

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Acquittal - Murder - Discharge and acquittal of 2nd & 3rd accused - Are correct because the evidence - Adduced against them and appellant are not similar (H9) Okoro v. State (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 337; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1290) 351

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Alibi - Plea of - Sustainability - For the plea to be successful - Defence must show inter alia - That accused is separated by distance or ill health - From the crime scene (H6) Ilodigwe v. State (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2789; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1331) 1

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Appeals - Murder - Finding of not guilty - Proper order to make - By Criminal Procedure Act s. 246 - Court of Appeal was duty bound - To discharge and acquit the accused (H3) State v. Okpala (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 437; (2012) 3 NWLR (PT.1287) 388

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Appeals - No case submission - Need to uphold - Following the successful plea of the submission - C.A. is empowered by C.A. Act s. 15 - To hold in appellant’s favour (H2) Ugwu v. State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 4133; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1344) 172

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Armed Robbery - Confession - Conviction - Validity - Court can convict solely on confessional statement of accused (H6) Adekoya v. State (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 987; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1306) 539

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Armed Robbery - Confession - Corroboration - Evidence of prosecution witnesses - Adequately corroborated Exhibit E (H3) Adekoya v. State (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 987; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1306) 539

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Armed Robbery - Conspiracy - Meaning - Conspiracy consists of intention of persons - To commit an unlawful act - And conviction is on circumstantial evidence (H5) Adekoya v. State (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 987; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1306) 539

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Armed Robbery - Conspiracy - Proof - Exhibit E and evidence of prosecution witnesses - Adequately proved the offences - Beyond reasonable doubt (H8) Adekoya v. State (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 987; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1306) 539

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Armed robbery - Ingredients - Proof - Prosecution must establish that there was robbery - Which was an armed robbery - And that accused was the armed robber (H3) Osetola v. State (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2399; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1329) 251

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Armed robbery - Proof - Essential element - Robbery & Firearms Act s. 1(2)(b) - Prosecution succeeds if it establishes - That accused violently stole a thing capable of being stolen (H2) FRN v. Usman (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1119; (2012) 8 NWLR (PT.1301) 141

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Armed robbery - Proof - Ikemson v. State - Prosecution must proof beyond reasonable doubt - That appellant participated in the robbery (H4) Ikaria v. State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4371

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Arraignment - Failure to prosecute co-accused - Non-prosecution of others who counter-signed cheques like appellant - Is a non issue (H7) Egunjobi v. FRN (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4259; (2013) 3 NWLR (PT.1342) 534

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Arraignment - Principle - CPC s.187 (1)(2) - The charge must be read and explained to accused in open court - And his plea thereto shall be taken (H1) Offor v. State (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3207; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1333) 421

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Arraignment - Principles - CPA s. 215 - Accused must be unfettered - And charge shall be read and explained to him - He shall then be called upon to plead (H6) Bassey v. State (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1495; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1314) 209

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Arraignment - Requirements - CPA s. 215 - Accused must be brought to court unfettered - And charge is read and explained to him - With a call on him to plea to same (H5) Timothy v. FRN (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 313) 2191; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1344) 213

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Arraignment - Requirements - CPL s.215 - Accused must be brought to court unfettered - And charge is read and explained to him - With his plea taken thereupon (H1) Madu v. State (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 313) 2087; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1324) 405

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Burden of proof - Shift in - In the case of recent possession of stolen property - Burden on accused is discharged on balance of probabilities (H2) Igri v. State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3799

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Charge - Amendment - Need for fresh plea - CPA s. 164 - Amended charge must be read to accused - And fresh plea taken - Otherwise the proceedings will become a nullity (H7) Bassey v. State (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1495; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1314) 209

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Charges - Admitted facts - Since appellants pleaded guilty - They are deemed to have admitted the offences - With which they have been charged (H5) Offor v. State (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3207; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1333) 421

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Charges - Arraignment - Validity - Appellant was properly arraigned and tried - Since his fresh plea was taken - After amendment of the charge (H3) Osung v. State (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2425; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1332) 256

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Charges - Conspiracy & substantive charges - Determination - Procedure - Proper approach is to first deal with the latter - Then proceed to consider the former (H1) Osetola v. State (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2399; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1329) 251

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Charges - Language used - Objection to - Failure to raise - Effect - Accused is deemed to have understood the language - And has no cause to complain (H2) Madu v. State (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 313) 2087; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1324) 405

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Charges - Objection - When to raise - The time to object is immediately the charge was read to accused - As any objection on appeal is waste of time (H2) Timothy v. FRN (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 313) 2191; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1344) 213

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Charges - Objections to - When to raise - Appropriate time is at the point of reading - And before the plea (H4) Okewu v. FRN (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 923; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1305) 327

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Charges - Plea - Validity of - Where accused raises no objection prior to his plea - The presumption is that the plea is valid (H5) Okewu v. FRN (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 923; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1305) 327

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Charges - Validity of - Where accused pleads to a charge without objection - The presumption is that he understands the charges preferred (H2) Okewu v. FRN (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 923; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1305) 327

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Circumstantial evidence - Conviction - Such evidence can ground conviction only - Where the inferences points strongly to the commission of the crime by accused (H5) Adesina v. State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3713; (2012) 14 NWLR (PT.1321) 429

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Confession - Admissibility - Under Evidence Act s. 27(2) - It is admissible against the maker if it is voluntarily made - And cannot be held inadmissible merely because the accused denies having made it (H1) Bright v. State (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 123; (2012) 8 NWLR (PT.1302) 297

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Confession - Conviction - Validity - Accused can be convicted on his confession without corroboration - Provided the truth therein is unequivocal (H4) Igri v. State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3799

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Confession - Conviction - Validity - Confession is sufficient to support conviction without corroboration - Provided court is satisfied of the truth therein (H1) Galadima v. State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4339; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1333) 610

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Confession - Conviction - Validity - Where confession is unequivocal and amounts to guilt - Conviction can be made - Irrespective of retraction by accused (H1) State v. Isah (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 4037; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1327) 613

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Confession - Conviction - When confessional statement is proved to be voluntary - It is enough to sustain conviction - And a retraction of same at trial is immaterial (H2) Adesina v. State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3713; (2012) 14 NWLR (PT.1321) 429

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Confession - Definition - By s. 27(1) Evidence Act - Confession is admission made by person charged with crime - Stating inference that he committed crime (H5) Igri v. State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3799

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Confession - Definition of - Evidence Act s. 27(1) - Confession is an admission made by accused - Stating the inference that he committed a crime (H1) Oseni v. State (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 953; (2012) 5 NWLR (PT.1293) 351

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Confession - Meaning - By s. 27 Evidence Act - Confession is admission made by accused - Stating the inference that he committed a crime (H1) Adesina v. State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3713; (2012) 14 NWLR (PT.1321) 429

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Confession - Obtained via interpreter - Admissibility - Such statement is inadmissible - Save where interpreter and the person who recorded same - Testify in court (H3) FRN v. Usman (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1119; (2012) 8 NWLR (PT.1301) 141

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Confession - Proof - Burden of - Prosecution has the duty - To prove beyond reasonable doubt - The voluntariness of a confession (H3) Oseni v. State (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 953; (2012) 5 NWLR (PT.1293) 351

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Confession - Proof - Since the truth of the statements could not be ascertained - Prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt (H4) State v. Isah (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 4037; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1327) 613

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Confession - Relevance of - Confession is relevant if it proves beyond reasonable doubt - Ingredients of crime for which accused is charged - As well as his identity (H1) Bassey v. State (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1495; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1314) 209

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Confession - Retraction - Proof - Accused must show inter alia that he did not make the statement - By calling evidence to prove same at trial within trial (H4) Osetola v. State (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2399; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1329) 251

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Confession - Retraction of - Admissibility - Court can admit and convict on such confession - If satisfied that accused made same (H3) Haruna v. A-G Federation (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1309; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1306) 419

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Confession - Retraction of - Effect - Mere denial of confession does not render same inadmissible (H2) Oseni v. State (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 953; (2012) 5 NWLR (PT.1293) 351

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Confession - Test - Court must test the truth of confession by inter alia determining - If there is anything outside the confession - That shows it is true (H3) Adesina v. State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3713; (2012) 14 NWLR (PT.1321) 429

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Confession - Test - Evidence Act s. 27(2) - It should be examined among other tests - To see if anything outside the confession shows its truthfulness (H7) Adekoya v. State (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 987; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1306) 539

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Confession - Validity - Accused can be solely convicted on his statement - Although some other evidence consistent with the confession may be needed (H4) Timothy v. FRN (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 313) 2191; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1344) 213

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Confession - Validity - Since appellant’s confessions have not been found wanting - Same are sufficient to ground conviction - Without other evidence in corroboration (H1) Chiokwe v. State (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3517; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1347) 205

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Confession - Validity - Where court is satisfied of the truth therein - Confession is sufficient to support conviction - Without corroboration (H4) Oseni v. State (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 953; (2012) 5 NWLR (PT.1293) 351

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Confession - Voluntariness - Effect - Where confession is positive and unequivocal - It is sufficient to ground a finding of guilt - Regardless of any retraction (H6) Osetola v. State (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2399; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1329) 251

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Confession - Voluntariness - When the voluntariness of confessional statement is an issue - Trial court has a duty to conduct a trial within trial - To determine the voluntariness or otherwise of same (H2) Bright v. State (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 123; (2012) 8 NWLR (PT.1302) 297

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Confession - Voluntariness of - Appellant’s statements are credible evidence - Having been admitted without any objection (H2) Ajibade v. State (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 2939; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1349) 25

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Confession - Weight - Test of - Judge must apply the six tests in R v. Sykes - While determining weight to be attached to confession (H5) Oseni v. State (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 953; (2012) 5 NWLR (PT.1293) 351

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Conspiracy - Ingredients - How to prove - Proof of the offence is a matter of inference - Hence the involvement of appellant can be inferred from the circumstances of the case (H4) Bright v. State (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 123; (2012) 8 NWLR (PT.1302) 297

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Conspiracy - Meaning - Conspiracy is agreement between persons to do unlawful act - And failure to prove substantive offence - Does not render conviction for conspiracy inappropriate (H2) Osetola v. State (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2399; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1329) 251

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Conviction - Based on retracted confession - Validity - Prior to conviction - Extraneous evidence needs to be adduced - To make it probable that the confession is true (H4) Haruna v. A-G Federation (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1309; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1306) 419

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Conviction - Based on uncorroborated confession - Propriety - Court can convict an accused upon such - Provided among other items - That there is something outside the confession - Which shows that it may be true (H3) Bright v. State (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 123; (2012) 8 NWLR (PT.1302) 297

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Conviction - Upon retracted confession - Validity - Before accused is convicted on such confession - Court must look for extraneous evidence - Which makes the confession probable (H3) Bassey v. State (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1495; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1314) 209

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Courts - Evidence - Evaluation - Trial court is not bound to make findings - As to probative value of Exhibits A-N - Before a conviction is grounded (H6) Haruna v. A-G Federation (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1309; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1306) 419

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Courts - Evidence - To ascribe value to evidence from such parade - Court must inter alia - Consider circumstances in which eyewitness saw the suspect (H7) Adesina v. State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3713; (2012) 14 NWLR (PT.1321) 429

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Courts - Findings - Discharge & acquittal of co-accused - Effect - Acquittal of 7th accused is not fatal to the findings - Since identification was spontaneous and natural (H4) Ilodigwe v. State (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2789; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1331) 1

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Courts - Need for interpreter - By 1999 constitution s. 36 (6) (e) - Anyone charged with a criminal offence - Is entitled to an interpreter - If he does not understand the language of the court (H1) Okoro v. State (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 337; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1290) 351

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Courts - Presence of interpreter - Failure to record - Effect - There is an irrebuttable presumption of the presence of an interpreter - And failure to so record by the judge - Is an omission that can be waived aside as mere irregularity (H4) Okoro v. State (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 337; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1290) 351

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Crime - Number of witness - Proof - Prosecution has prerogative to call relevant witnesses - And he is not bound to call all eyewitnesses to a crime (H8) Adesina v. State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3713; (2012) 14 NWLR (PT.1321) 429

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Crime - Proof - Evidence against each accused - Must be specifically considered against their respective defence (H5) Ilodigwe v. State (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2789; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1331) 1

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Crime - Proof - Means of - Prosecution proves its case by eye witness - Voluntary confession - And by positive circumstantial evidence (H2) Ilodigwe v. State (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2789; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1331) 1

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Crime - Proof - Number of witness - Prosecution has discretion to call only material witness - In proof of its case (H7) Ilodigwe v. State (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2789; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1331) 1

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Crime - Testimony of lone witness - Admissibility - Where court founds such evidence to be true - It is bound to accept and act on same (H3) Ilodigwe v. State (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2789; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1331) 1

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Discharge of accused - Effect on co-accused - Ebri v State - Where two or more are charged with an offence - With similar evidence adduced against them - Discharge of one must affect the discharge of the others (H8) Okoro v. State (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 337; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1290) 351

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Drug - Definition of - NDLEA Act s. 10 (h) - Drug is natural or synthetic substance - That alters ones perception (H6) Okewu v. FRN (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 923; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1305) 327

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Election petitions - Crime - Proof - By s.138(1)(2) Evidence Act - Onus is on appellant to prove beyond reasonable doubt - Allegation of corrupt practices (H7) CPC v. Suntai (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3543

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Evidence - Confession - Tendered without objection - Fate - Such confession is deemed voluntary - And court need not inquire into - Whether or not same was made voluntarily (H1) Osung v. State (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2425; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1332) 256

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Evidence - Confession is tested inter alia - To see if there is anything outside confession - To show that it is true (H3) State v. Isah (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 4037; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1327) 613

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Evidential burden of proof - Alibi - Burden of adducing evidence on an issue - Can be placed on either side - And where same is not discharged - The issue will be resolved against the party (H3) Ikaria v. State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4371

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Fair hearing - Denial - Allegation of - Since appellants chose to conduct their case - Absence of counsel did not affect their case negatively (H4) Offor v. State (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3207; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1333) 421

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Guilty plea - Where accused pleads guilty - The same shall be recorded - And court may convict upon such confession - Provided charge is not punishable with death (H2) Offor v. State (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3207; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1333) 421

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Hearsay evidence - Since PW1 PW3 & PW4 were not eyewitnesses to the event - Their testimonies are hearsay - Which is inadmissible in law (H4) Njoku v. State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4519; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1339) 548

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Identification parade - Purpose - The parade is needed to show that accused actually committed the offence - Save where PW knows accused (H6) Adesina v. State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3713; (2012) 14 NWLR (PT.1321) 429

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Identification parade - Weight - Where quality of evidence arising therefrom is poor - Accused should be acquitted - Unless other evidence abounds in support (H2) Ikaria v. State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4371

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Interpreter - Failure to supply - Effect - The failure is treated as a matter of procedure - And a conviction stands - Except where the judge is satisfied that such failure led to miscarriage of justice (H2) Okoro v. State (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 337; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1290) 351

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Interpreter - Non provision of - When to raise objection - Where accused is represented by counsel - Objection must be taken at the trial not on appeal (H3) Okoro v. State (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 337; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1290) 351

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Jurisdiction - Banking - Failed banks tribunal - Crime - By s.3(1)(b)(c)(d) of Decree No.18 1994 - The tribunal can try new offences specified under Pt.111 - As well as existing offences under other enactments (H5) Egunjobi v. FRN (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4259; (2013) 3 NWLR (PT.1342) 534

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Lesser offence - Plea of guilty - Procedure to adopt - Accused must personally plea - And a conviction can be based on same - And on evidence before judge (H7) Timothy v. FRN (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 313) 2191; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1344) 213

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Manslaughter - Conviction - Since appellant’s action was not intentional - He should be convicted for manslaughter (H3) Chukwu v. State (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3101; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1343) 1

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Mens rea - Narcotic drug - Possession of - Proof - NDLEA Act s. 10(h) - Unlawful possession is mens rea for establishing the offence (H1) Okewu v. FRN (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 923; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1305) 327

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Murder - Actus reus - Test - It is presumed that a man intends the natural consequence of his acts - And the applicable test is objective one - As opposed to subjective test (H3) Njoku v. State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4519; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1339) 548

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Murder - Cause of death - Proof of - Medical report - Relevance of - Cause of death can generally be determined from medical report - However medical evidence is not essential in all cases (H7) Bright v. State (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 123; (2012) 8 NWLR (PT.1302) 297

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Murder - Circumstantial evidence - Conviction is justified where the circumstances are cogent - And directly points to accused - As the person that killed deceased (H13) Okoro v. State (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 337; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1290) 351

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Murder - Doctrine of last seen - Application - The principle is invoked where there is no explanation - As to the cause of death of deceased last seen with accused (H5) Njoku v. State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4519; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1339) 548

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Murder - Doctrine of last seen - Presumption - It is presumed that person last seen with deceased - Bears full responsibility - For the death (H4) Madu v. State (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 313) 2087; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1324) 405

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Murder - Failure to prove - Effect - Accused is discharged and acquitted - Since prosecution has not proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt - As required by Evidence Act s. 138 (H1) State v. Okpala (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 437; (2012) 3 NWLR (PT.1287) 388

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Murder - Ingredients - Proof - By s. 316 Criminal Code - Prosecution must prove intent to kill - Or do some grievous harm to the person killed - Or to some other person (H2) Njoku v. State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4519; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1339) 548

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Murder - Ingredients - Proof - Prosecution must prove - That there was death of a human being - Which was caused by the intentional act of the accused (H6) Bright v. State (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 123; (2012) 8 NWLR (PT.1302) 297

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Murder - Ingredients - Proof - Prosecution must prove that deceased died - And the death was caused - By intentional act of accused (H3) Madu v. State (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 313) 2087; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1324) 405

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Murder - Ingredients - Proof - Prosecution must prove that deceased died - As a result of act or omission of accused - Which was intentional (H1) Ilodigwe v. State (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2789; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1331) 1

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Murder - Ingredients - Proof - Prosecution must inter alia prove death of deceased - And that it was voluntary act or omission of accused that caused the death (H3) Igri v. State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3799

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Murder - Plea of guilty - Procedure to adopt - CPA s. 215 - Judge must record a plea of not guilty on behalf of accused - And evidence is led on same (H6) Timothy v. FRN (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 313) 2191; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1344) 213

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Murder - Proof - Circumstantial evidence - By s. 139 Evidence Act - Court can accept proof of death by such evidence - Since possibility of not having eyewitness account in criminal cases is not rare (H4) Chiokwe v. State (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3517; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1347) 205

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Murder - Proof - Doctrine of last seen - Onus is on the person last seen with deceased - To offer minimum explanation - As to cause of the death (H11) Haruna v. A-G Federation (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1309; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1306) 419

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Murder - Proof - Duty on prosecution - Prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt - By adducing relevant evidence - And not by calling many witnesses (H8) Bright v. State (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 123; (2012) 8 NWLR (PT.1302) 297

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Murder - Proof - Ingredients - Prosecution must prove that deceased died - And that death occurred as a result of injury - Caused by the act of accused person (H10) Okoro v. State (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 337; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1290) 351

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Murder - Proof - Ingredients - Prosecution must prove that deceased died - And that the death was caused by act of accused - Which was intentional (H2) Chukwu v. State (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3101; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1343) 1

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Murder - Proof - Prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt - Not only that it was the act of appellant that resulted in death of the deceased - But also that death occurred in circumstances intended in CC s. 316 (H7) Okoro v. State (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 337; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1290) 351

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Murder - Search warrant - There is no need for the warrant - Since appellant took PW7 to the scene of the crime (H2) Chiokwe v. State (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3517; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1347) 205

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Narcotic drug - Proof - Prosecution must prove that the substance is cocaine - And that accused was unlawfully in possession of same (H3) Timothy v. FRN (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 313) 2191; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1344) 213

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - No case submission - Effect - Once prosecution’s evidence fails to disclose prima facie case against accused - The submission ought to succeed (H3) Ugwu v. State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 4133; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1344) 172

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - No case submission - Lesser offence - Notwithstanding the submission - Trial Judge is obliged where a lesser offence is disclosed - To rule that accused has case to answer (H4) Ugwu v. State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 4133; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1344) 172

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - No case submission - Precondition - The submission is made where there is no evidence - To prove the offence - And where prosecution’s evidence is discredited (H5) Ugwu v. State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 4133; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1344) 172

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Plea - Meaning of - This is the act of accused responding to criminal charge - Either as guilty or not guilty (H3) Okewu v. FRN (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 923; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1305) 327

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Proceedings - Commencement - Proceedings starts with reading of charge to accused - And anything done thereafter falls within things done in the course of proceedings (H5) Audu v. A-G Fed (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3321; (2013) 8 NWLR (PT.1355) 175

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Proof - Beyond reasonable doubt - Meaning - This does not mean proof beyond all shadow of doubt - It means establishing the guilt of accused - With compelling evidence (H2) Ugwanyi v. FRN (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1407; (2012) 8 NWLR (PT.1302) 384

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Proof - Beyond reasonable doubt - Meaning - It means prosecution establishing guilt of accused - With compelling evidence which is conclusive (H5) Bassey v. State (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1495; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1314) 209

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Proof - Burden of - Onus is on prosecution to establish the guilt of accused - Beyond reasonable doubt (H1) Igri v. State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3799

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Proof - Burden of - Onus is on prosecution to establish the guilt of accused - Beyond reasonable doubt (H1) Njoku v. State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4519; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1339) 548

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Proof - Burden of - Prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt - And quality of evidence adduced - Determines if the burden has been discharged (H1) Ikaria v. State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4371

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Proof - Indian hemp - Possession of - Prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt - That the substance is Indian hemp - And that appellant was unlawfully in possession of same (H1) Ugwanyi v. FRN (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1407; (2012) 8 NWLR (PT.1302) 384

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Proof - Number of witness - Prosecution and not defence - Has duty to determine number of witness - Needed to prove a case (H7) Osetola v. State (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2399; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1329) 251

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Proof - Number of witness - Prosecution is not bound to call any number of witnesses - As single credible witness - Can prove a crime even in murder charge (H6) Akindipe v. State (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 313) 2047; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1325) 94

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Proof - Onus - Appellant has duty to prove - That PW3 lacks capacity to remember events - Which makes his evidence unreliable (H9) Haruna v. A-G Federation (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1309; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1306) 419

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Proof - Prosecution is not bound to call all listed witnesses - In order to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt (H10) Haruna v. A-G Federation (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1309; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1306) 419

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Proof - Standard of - Criminal trial is proved beyond reasonable doubt - And a conviction would not be upset on appeal - If the charge was proved based on the standard (H12) Okoro v. State (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 337; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1290) 351

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Proof - Standard of - Evidence Act s. 138(1) - Prosecution must prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt - And burden never shifts to defence (H1) FRN v. Usman (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1119; (2012) 8 NWLR (PT.1301) 141

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Proof beyond reasonable doubt - Meaning - It does not mean proof beyond any degree of doubt - It is based on critical examination of facts and law (H3) Akindipe v. State (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 313) 2047; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1325) 94

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Provocation - Proof - Accused must prove that the act was grave and sudden - And that he was deprived of self control - And extent of the retaliation was proportionate to the provocation (H2) Galadima v. State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4339; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1333) 610

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Rape - Ingredients - Proof - Penal Code s.283 - Prosecution must inter alia prove - That there was penetration - And that the act was done in - Circumstances envisaged under s.282(1) thereof (H1) Ezigbo v. State (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 314) 2219; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1326) 318

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Retracted confession - Weight - Court is to test truthfulness of the confession - By inter alia looking for anything outside the confession - That shows it is true (H5) Osetola v. State (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2399; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1329) 251

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Robbery - Confession - Failure to retract - Where accused did not object to admission of his confession in evidence - There would be no need for extraneous evidence (H4) Bassey v. State (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1495; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1314) 209

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Words & phrases - “Shall” - Meaning - Under Criminal Procedure Act s. 246 - It connotes a command - And denotes of no other meaning than the command must be obeyed (H2) State v. Okpala (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 437; (2012) 3 NWLR (PT.1287) 388

 

CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS - Nolle prosequi - Entry of - This may be entered at any stage of proceedings by A.G. State or A.G. Federation - By information given to court - And Judge cannot question the decision (H8) Audu v. A-G Fed (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3321; (2013) 8 NWLR (PT.1355) 175

 

CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS - Nolle prosequi - Filing - Implication ­- Appellant ought to be discharged and case struck out - Hence Court of Appeal wrongly considered the questions referred to it for determination (H9) Audu v. A-G Fed (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3321; (2013) 8 NWLR (PT.1355) 175

 

CROSS EXAMINATION - Legal practitioners - Negligence - Conduct of case - Counsel is master of his case - As he may decide not to call witness - Or cross-examine witness of the other party - But may be sued for professional negligence (H2) Chidoka v. First City Finance Co. Ltd. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2585; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1346) 144

 

CROSS EXAMINATION - Objective - Crime - It is to test the correctness of testimony of plaintiff and his witness - Hence failure of appellant to cross examine PW1 on her testimony - Is deemed an acceptance of same (H6) Okoro v. State (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 337; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1290) 351

 

CUSTOMARY LAW - Chieftaincy matters - Judicial Precedents - Rule in Kojo v. Bonsie - Application - The rule is not applicable to present case - That requires strict prove of native law (H1) Taiwo v. Ogundele (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 2027; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1322) 57

 

CUSTOMARY LAW - Chieftaincy matters - Registered declaration - Effect - It constitutes statement of the applicable customs - And court and parties are bound by same - Save where the declaration is fundamentally defective (H1) Adeosun v. Gov. of Ekiti State (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 1; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1291) 581

 

CUSTOMARY LAW - Customary court - Procedure in superior courts are not strictly followed - As it is the substance of the matter - That is of importance in customary court (H6) Gbagbarigha v. Toruemi (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4355; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1350) 289

 

CUSTOMARY LAW - Customary courts - Proceedings - The proceedings therein should be examined - As rules of superior court of record are not strictly followed in such courts (H4) Okereke v. James (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2385; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1326) 339

 

CUSTOMARY LAW - Land law - Customary court - Jurisdiction - The value of land does not have to be stated in Grade A Customary Court - Since jurisdiction of the court is not limited - By value of the disputed land (H2) Olaleye-ote v. Babalola (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3637; (2012) 6 NWLR (PT.1297) 574

 

CUSTOMARY LAW - Land law - Customary land - Land Use Act - Application - Land Use Act confers jurisdiction on the customary court over the land - And it is the applicable law by virtue of s.41 thereof (H1) Olaleye-ote v. Babalola (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3637; (2012) 6 NWLR (PT.1297) 574

 

CUSTOMARY LAW - Land law - Title - Traditional history - Proof - Party who claims title vide such history - Must establish how his ancestor acquired the land (H4) Iseogbekun v. Adelakun (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3573; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1337) 14

 

CUSTOMARY LAW - Words & phrases - “Or” - Interpretation - As used in 1st schedule of Customary Court Law 1986 - “Or” means “and” not disjunctive (H4) Olaleye-ote v. Babalola (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3637; (2012) 6 NWLR (PT.1297) 574

 

DAMAGES - Award by trial court - Interference - Appellate court will not interfere - Save where inter alia - Exercise of discretion by trial court is perverse (H4) Ahmed v. CBN (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 277; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1339) 524

 

DAMAGES - Contracts - Determination - Measure of damages in breach of contract - Is the loss flowing naturally from the breach - And is incurred in direct consequence of the violation (H6) Marine Mgt. Asso. v. N.M.A. (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3863; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1333) 506

 

DAMAGES - Courts - Award of damages - Damages are awarded by trial court - And such power is exercised after judicious estimation of loss to victim - Once breach of contract has been established (H1) Ahmed v. CBN (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 277; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1339) 524

 

DAMAGES - Entitlement - Proof - Claimant must prove it was act of respondent that led to his loss - Failure of which will lead to dismissal of his claim (H5) Ahmed v. CBN (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 277; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1339) 524

 

DAMAGES - Exemplary damages - Proof - To justify award of such damages - It must be shown that the wrongful acts were high handed - Or in disregard of every decent conduct of civilized men (H7) Marine Mgt. Asso. v. N.M.A. (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3863; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1333) 506

 

DAMAGES - Fundamental rights - Proof - Once appellant proved violation of his fundamental right by respondent - Damages in form of compensation and even apology should follow (H4) Jim-jaja v. COP Rivers State (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3611; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1350) 225

 

DAMAGES - Land law - Trespass - Damages - Award of - Where damages are awarded for trespass - And there is claim for injunction - Court will grant same - To prevent multiplicity of actions (H7) Oriorio v. Osain (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 2001; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1327) 560

 

DAMAGES - Mandatory injunction - Grant of - Where injury done to plaintiff cannot be compensated by damages - Court can invoke its equitable jurisdiction and discretion - To grant the injunction (H10) Military Gov. Lagos State v. Adeyiga (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 839; (2012) 5 NWLR (PT.1293) 291

 

DAMAGES - Special damages - Pleading - Particulars of appellants’ loss were pleaded - By reference to report prepared by Ajibola Ogunsola (H3) Marine Mgt. Asso. v. N.M.A. (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3863; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1333) 506

 

DAMAGES - Special damages - Pleadings - Purpose - Particulars of such damages are given - In order to allow the other party know the case against it - So as to eliminate any element of surprise (H4) Marine Mgt. Asso. v. N.M.A. (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3863; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1333) 506

 

DAMAGES - Special damages - Proof - Appellant has the burden - To strictly plead the professional fees - As stated in paragraph 20 of supporting affidavit (H2) Intercontinental Bank Plc v. Brifina Ltd. (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1927; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1316) 1

 

DAMAGES - Torts - Slander - Proof - Slander is actionable without proof of damages - Being required of plaintiff to succeed in the action (H5) Oruwari v. Osler (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3941; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1348) 535

 

DEEDS - Deed of Assignment - Validity - Since plaintiff failed to show - That the military governor approved the assignment - The same cannot be valid (H1) Ohochukwu v. A-G Rivers State (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 885; (2012) 6 NWLR (PT.1295) 53

 

DOCUMENTS - Affidavits - Conflicts - Resolution - Where affidavits conflict - But there is documentary evidence in support of one - Court must examine it before coming to fair decision (H7) Lafia L.G. v. Gov. Nasarawa State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4385; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 94

 

DOCUMENTS - Appeals - Determination - Duty of appellant - Appellant must place before appellate court - All document that is relevant - For determination of his appeal (H4) Osung v. State (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2425; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1332) 256

 

DOCUMENTS - Appeals - Ground is of law where court considered wrong criteria - Issues are based on legal interpretation of documents - And the complaint is about misapplication of law (H2) Atago v. Nwuche (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 2995; (2013) 3 NWLR (PT.1341) 337

 

DOCUMENTS - Bond - Definition - Bond is evidence of debt -On which issuing company promises to pay the bond holder - Specified amount of interest for specified length of time - And to repay the loan on expiration date (H3) BFI Group Corp. v. Bureau of Public Enterpr. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2553; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1332) 209

 

DOCUMENTS - Company law - Acquisition - Proof - Person who asserts acquisition of a company by another - Must inter alia place before court - Instrument of transfer obtained from the CAC (H4) Afolabi v. Western Steel Works Ltd. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2503; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1329) 286

 

DOCUMENTS - Conflicts - Resolution - Where there is conflict in evidence of witnesses - Documentary evidence will serve as a hanger - On which truth shall be resolved (H2) BFI Group Corp. v. Bureau of Public Enterpr. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2553; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1332) 209

 

DOCUMENTS - Contracts - Binding nature - Since respondent accepted the original offer made to him by appellant - He is bound by the terms spelt out by exhibit B (H4) Akinyemi v. Odu’a Inv. Co. Ltd (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 55; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1329) 209

 

DOCUMENTS - Court processes - Originating summons - Application - Doherty v. Doherty - The summons is not available for actions - Where the facts are in dispute - And can be used in interpretation of contracts documents Constitution (H6) Elelu-Habeeb v. A-G Federation (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 743; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1318) 423

 

DOCUMENTS - Courts - Election petitions - Binding nature - Judge is restricted to case presented by parties - In order to avoid rendering perverse judgment (H6) Aliucha v. Elechi (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1065

 

DOCUMENTS - Courts - Evidence - Inadmissible evidence - Power to expunge - Court can expunge from its record - Evidence or document earlier admitted (H9) Kubor v. Dickson (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3121; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1345) 534

 

DOCUMENTS - Courts - Indian Hemp - Report Certificate - Service of - Evidence Act s.43 - Where the certificate is not served on adverse party ten days before usage in court - Adjournment may be granted (H3) Ugwanyi v. FRN (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1407; (2012) 8 NWLR (PT.1302) 384

 

DOCUMENTS - Courts - Records of proceedings - Binding nature - Court and parties are bound by records of proceedings - Which were conducted in court (H3) Offor v. State (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3207; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1333) 421

 

DOCUMENTS - Election petitions - Appeals - Oral evidence - Appellants must adduce oral evidence - Linking the documents to his case - As court is not supposed to do a party’s case (H6) CPC v. Suntai (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3543

 

DOCUMENTS - Election petitions - Fair hearing - Documents - Failure to annex - Effect - By Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) paragraphs 4(5)(c)41(8) - Such documents shall not be admitted in evidence (H2) ACN v. Lamido (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 621; (2012) 8 NWLR (PT.1303) 560

 

DOCUMENTS - Election petitions - Need to relate - Party must link document relied upon - To specific area of his petition (H5) Aliucha v. Elechi (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1065

 

DOCUMENTS - Election petitions - Non compliance - Allegation of - In addition to documents admitted in evidence - The allegation must be supported by oral evidence (H7) ACN v. Lamido (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 621; (2012) 8 NWLR (PT.1303) 560

 

DOCUMENTS - Election petitions - Proof - Such documents remain dormant - Unless they are activated by oral evidence - To allow court speak on them (H7) ACN v. Nyako (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3267

 

DOCUMENTS - Election petitions - Refusal to tender - Options - Appellant can move the Tribunal - To compel 5th respondent to comply with its order - Or the certified copies of the such documents can be tendered (H2) ACN v. Nyako (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3267

 

DOCUMENTS - Election petitions - Results sheets - Signing of - By signing the results sheet - Agents are presumed to understand what they appended to - And thus cannot deny contents of their signatures (H7) Gundiri v. Nyako (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3341

 

DOCUMENTS - Electronic document - Admissibility - By s.84(2) Evidence Act 2011 - Such document is admissible where inter alia - It was produced while a computer was put to regular usage (H6) Kubor v. Dickson (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3121; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1345) 534

 

DOCUMENTS - Land law - Title - Certificate of Occupancy - Proof - Mere possession of the certificate is not conclusive evidence - As it must be shown that there was no holder of a better title (H8) Atanda v. Iliasu (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3015; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1351) 529

 

DOCUMENTS - Legal practitioners - Case law - Citation - Counsel must cite case with clarity - Providing inter alia name of the law report - Or a certified true copy - Where case is unreported (H1) Chidoka v. First City Finance Co. Ltd. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2585; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1346) 144

 

DOCUMENTS - Public documents - Admissibility - The admissible secondary evidence of such documents - Are the certified true copies of same (H8) Kubor v. Dickson (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3121; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1345) 534

 

DOCUMENTS - Recitals in - Effect - Where accurate recitals and descriptions of facts and parties - Are made in document of more than 20 years - The same shall be taken as sufficient evidence of truth of such facts and matters (H4) Osidele v. Sokunbi (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2857; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1324) 470

 

DOCUMENTS - Rejection - Effect - Document rejected in evidence - Cannot be of any relevance in a matter - And its contents cannot fare better (H6) Nig. Ports Plc. v. Beecham Pharm. Ltd (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4155; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1333) 454

 

DOCUMENTS - Traditional history - Distinction - Whereas documents do not lie - Traditional history is recollection from memory - Dimmed by time and coloured by personal interest (H4) Purification Tech. Nig. Ltd. v. Jubril (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 313) 2157; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1331) 109

 

DOCUMENTS - Validity - Invitation to determine - Is proper if the validity of the document is put in issue - In the pleadings of parties before the court (H5) Adeosun v. Gov. of Ekiti State (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 1; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1291) 581

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Allegation of crime - Proof - Court of Appeal rightly held that the paragraphs relating to crimes are vague - Since particulars of fraud were not pleaded (H3) PDP v. INEC (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3693; (2012) 7 NWLR (PT.1300) 538

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Appeal - Documents - Oral evidence - Appellants must adduce oral evidence - Linking the documents to his case - As court is not supposed to do a party’s case (H6) CPC v. Suntai (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3543

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Appeals - Courts - Abuse of process - Appellant abused the process of court - By instituting this suit as election petition matter - When she has a similar pending suit at the Federal high court (H4) Okadigbo v. Emeka (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 181; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1311) 237

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Appeals - Courts - Judgments - Reasons - S.C. and C.A. can give their decisions in final appeals under s. 285(8) 1999 Constitution - And reserve reasons thereof (H4) CPC v. Suntai (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3543

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Appeals - Evidence on records - Evaluation of - Appellate court rightly exercised its powers - In affirming the decision of the tribunal (H6) ACN v. Lamido (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 621; (2012) 8 NWLR (PT.1303) 560

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Appeals - Failure to hear within time - Effect - By 1999 Constitution s. 285(7) - Non compliance with the provision - Renders the appeal a nullity (H2) Amadi v. INEC (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 533; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1345) 595

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Appeals - Findings of over voting - Court of Appeal was right in its findings - And upholding the objection raised by 4th respondent (H5) Doma v. INEC (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1095; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1317) 297

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Appeals - Governorship Election Tribunal - Judgment - Deferment of reasons - 1999 Constitution s. 285(8) - Supreme Court is solely empowered to defer reasons for its judgment - In appeals arising from the tribunal (H2) Ikenya v. PDP (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1139; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1315) 493

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Appeals - Hearing - Limitation - 1999 Constitution s. 285(7) - The 60 days prescribed by the section for hearing appeal by CA & SC respectively - Cannot be extended (H3) Udenwa v. Uzodinma (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 4093; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1346) 94

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Appeals - Judgment - 1999 Constitution s. 285(6) - Once tribunal gives decision within 180 days and aggrieved party appeals - Its time runs until the 180 days shall be exhausted - And appellate court cannot extend the time (H2) Udenwa v. Uzodinma (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 4093; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1346) 94

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Appeals - Judgment - Reasons for - Given outside time - Fate - 1999 Constitution s. 285 (7) - The judgment is a nullity (H4) PDP v. Okorocha (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1155; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1323) 205

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Appeals - Judgment - Validity of - Decision given by the tribunal on 10/08/11 is valid - Since there is no successful appeal against same (H5) ANPP v. Goni (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 701; (2012) 7 NWLR (PT.1298) 147

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Appeals - Judgments - Deferment of reasons - By 1999 constitution s. 285(7)(8) - Where the appeals are final - Court of Appeal and Supreme Court may give decisions - And reserve the reasons to later date (H3) Abubakar v. Nasamu (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 479; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1330) 407

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Appeals - Jurisdiction - Court of Appeal - By 1999 Constitution s. 246(3) - It shall be the final court - In respect of appeals arising from National Assembly election petition tribunal (H6) Dangana v. Usman (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 577; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1349) 50

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Appeals - National & State Assembly Elections Tribunal - Judgment - Deferment of reasons - 1999 Constitution s. 285(8) - Court of Appeal can defer reasons for its judgment - In appeals arising from the tribunal (H1) Ikenya v. PDP (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1139; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1315) 493

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Appeals - National Assembly election - Final court - By s. 246(3) 1999 Constitution - Court of Appeal is the final court to determine dispute arising therefrom (H4) Udenwa v. Uzodinma (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 4093; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1346) 94

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Appeals - National Assembly election tribunal - Appeals arising from the tribunal - Terminates at Court of Appeal (H10) Ogboru v. Uduaghan (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1351; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1311) 357

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Appeals - Notice of Appeal - Filing - Time limit - By para.1 Practice Directions 2011 - Appeal shall be filed within 14 days from the date of decision appealed against (H1) Audu v. Wada (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3039

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Appeals - Presidential & Governorship elections - Final court - Supreme Court is the final court of appeal - In respect of the elections (H3) PDP v. Okorocha (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1155; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1323) 205

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Appeals - Rehearing - 1999 Constitution s.285(7) - Since 60 days provided in the Constitution has elapsed - Relief of rehearing cannot be granted (H3) Ikenya v. PDP (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1139; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1315) 493

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Appeals - Retrial order - Correctness of - Appellate court is competent to order retrial - Where appeal succeeds within prescribed time (H3) Ugba v. Suswam (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 314) 2345; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1345) 427

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Appeals - Right of appeal - 1999 Constitution s. 246(c) - Aggrieved person can appeal against - Decision of governorship election tribunal (H8) Ogboru v. Uduaghan (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1351; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1311) 357

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Civil & criminal allegations - Proof - Where such facts pleaded are intertwined - Petitioner succeeds only if - The averments are proved beyond reasonable doubt (H5) ACN v. Nyako (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3267

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Constitution - Interpretation - Election petitions - 1999 Constitution s. 285(6) - Since the provisions are unambiguous - Supreme Court cannot extend the period provided therein (H1) Akpanudoedehe v. Akpabio (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 314) 2211; (2013) 7 NWLR (PT.1354) 485

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Constitutional law - Applicable law - Specific provisions of 1999 Constitution s. 285 on election matters - Must prevail over s. 294 being a general provision (H11) Abubakar v. Nasamu (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 479; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1330) 407

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Courts - Appeals - Final judgment - Meaning - Such judgment disposes of rights of parties - And puts an end to the action (H9) Ogboru v. Uduaghan (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1351; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1311) 357

 

ELECTIONS PETITIONS - Courts - Documents - Binding nature - Judge is restricted to case presented by parties - In order to avoid rendering perverse judgment (H6) Aliucha v. Elechi (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1065

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Crime - Allegation of - Standard of proof - Where petition is brought on criminal ground - Proof is beyond reasonable doubt (H11) Aliucha v. Elechi (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1065

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Crime - Proof - Appellant must file further affidavit - Giving particulars of the dead delegates alleged to have died in violence (H4) Eyiboh v. Abia (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4301; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1325) 51

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Crime - Proof - By s.138(1)(2) Evidence Act - Onus is on appellant to prove beyond reasonable doubt - Allegation of corrupt practices (H7) CPC v. Suntai (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3543

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Crime - Proof - Standard of - The alleged forgery must be proved beyond reasonable doubt - But appellant failed to do so (H4) ACN v. Lamido (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 621; (2012) 8 NWLR (PT.1303) 560

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Criminal & civil allegations - Proof - Appellants must prove the criminal allegation - As the Tribunal found that the allegation - Penetrated the entire election (H12) Gundiri v. Nyako (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3341

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Criminal & civil allegations - Severance - It is duty of petitioner and not that of the court - To distinguish criminal allegations - From those which are civil in nature (H10) Gundiri v. Nyako (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3341

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Declaratory relief - Proof - Petitioner must establish his case on strength of his evidence - And not on weakness of defendant (H11) Gundiri v. Nyako (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3341

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Documentary evidence - Proof - Such documents remain dormant - Unless they are activated by oral evidence - To allow court speak on them (H7) ACN v. Nyako (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3267

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Documents - Need to relate - Party must link document relied upon - To specific area of his petition (H5) Aliucha v. Elechi (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1065

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Documents - Refusal to tender - Options - Appellant can move the Tribunal - To compel 5th respondent to comply with its order - Or the certified copies of the such documents can be tendered (H2) ACN v. Nyako (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3267

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Electoral Act - Non compliance - Where petitioner raises such complaint - He has a duty to prove same based on polling unit by polling unit (H8) Gundiri v. Nyako (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3341

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Evidence - Admissibility - Basis - Election petition - Relevancy determines admissibility - Hence withdrawal of ground 2 of the petition - Renders Exhibit D irrelevant (H7) Kubor v. Dickson (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3121; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1345) 534

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Evidence - Conflict - Resolution - Conflict in evidence of DW3 & DW9 - Should be resolved by consideration of Exhibit 44(3) (H6) Doma v. INEC (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1095; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1317) 297

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Evidence - Evaluation - Appraisal & ascription of probative value to evidence - Is function of trial tribunal - And Supreme Court does not interfere - Save there is miscarriage of justice (H3) ACN v. Nyako (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3267

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Evidence - Hearsay - Admissibility - Evidence Act s.38 - Testimonies of PW14 & PW44 constitute hearsay - And same were rightly disregarded (H3) Doma v. INEC (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1095; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1317) 297

ELECTION PETITIONS - Evidence - Hearsay - Weight - Statements of appellant’s witnesses were rightly disregarded - Since same did not come from their personal knowledge (H4) ACN v. Nyako (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3267

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Evidence - Hostile witness - Failure to declare - Effect - Evidence of other witnesses cannot counter that of PW40 - Who was not re-examined (H4) Doma v. INEC (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1095; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1317) 297

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Evidence - Non compliance - Allegation of - In addition to documents admitted in evidence - The allegation must be supported by oral evidence (H7) ACN v. Lamido (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 621; (2012) 8 NWLR (PT.1303) 560

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Evidence - Polling agents - Petitioners have the burden to prove their petition - And failure to call polling agents as witnesses - Is detrimental to petitioners’ case (H6) Gundiri v. Nyako (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3341

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Evidence - Weight - Legal practitioners - Submission - Effect - Counsel’s submission no matter how brilliant - Cannot take the place of legal proof (H8) Aliucha v. Elechi (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1065

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Fair hearing - Breach - Elections - Adjournments - Where opportunity to present case was granted - But appellant failed to utilize it - He cannot be heard to complain of denial of fair hearing (H1) ACN v. Lamido (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 621; (2012) 8 NWLR (PT.1303) 560

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Fair hearing - Documents - Failure to annex - Effect - By Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) paragraphs 4(5)(c)41(8) - Such documents shall not be admitted in evidence (H2) ACN v. Lamido (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 621; (2012) 8 NWLR (PT.1303) 560

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Format - Pleadings - Vague paragraphs - Fate - Court of Appeal rightly described averments in paragraphs 18 and 19 as imprecise - And incapable of supporting allegation of non compliance (H9) ACN v. Lamido (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 621; (2012) 8 NWLR (PT.1303) 560

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Governorship election tribunal - Court of Appeal - Judgment - Reasons for - 1999 Constitution s. 285(7) - Mandates the court to deliver its judgment with reasons - Within 60 days (H11) Ogboru v. Uduaghan (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1351; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1311) 357

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Gubernatorial election - Appeal - Judgment - Final court - Since C.A. is not final court by virtue of s.233(2)(e)(iv) 1999 Constitution - The judgment is appellable to S.C (H2) CPC v. Suntai (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3543

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Hearing - 1999 Constitution s. 285(6) - Petition must be heard and judgment delivered within 180 days - From the filing date - And court cannot extend the period (H1) Ugba v. Suswam (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 314) 2345; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1345) 427

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Hearing - Applicable process - Because of the need for expeditious handling of election matter - Origination summons is most appropriate (H3) Nagogo v. CPC (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4441; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1339) 448

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Issues - Determination - Petition is determined - Once issue of proof is resolved against petitioner - Who alleged non compliance (H2) Doma v. INEC (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1095; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1317) 297

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Jurisdiction - Court of Appeal - By 1999 Constitution s. 246(3) - Court of Appeal is the final court - In appeal arising from National Assembly Election Petition Tribunal (H3) Okadigbo v. Emeka (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 181; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1311) 237

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Jurisdiction - Court of Appeal - By 1999 constitution s. 246(3) - Appeals arising from National and State House of Assembly election petition tribunal - Terminates at Court of Appeal (H2) Abubakar v. Nasamu (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 479; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1330) 407

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Jurisdiction - Precondition - For valid exercise of jurisdiction - Witness statements are to accompany the petition to be filed (H4) Gundiri v. Nyako (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3341

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Jurisdiction - Supreme Court - By 1999 constitution s. 233(2)(e)(iv) as amended - Decisions of Court of Appeal on who is validly elected as Governor - Is now appealable (H1) Abubakar v. Nasamu (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 479; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1330) 407

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Legislative Houses elections - Appeal - Final court - By virtue of ss. 246(1)(b)(c) & 285(8) 1999 Constitution - Appeals from such elections terminate at Court of Appeal (H3) CPC v. Suntai (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3543

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Non compliance - Allegation of - Standard of proof - Petitioner succeeds on strength of his case - And proof is on balance of probabilities (H4) Aliucha v. Elechi (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1065

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Non compliance - Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) para. 4(5) (c) - Effect - Findings of the courts are in order - Since appellant failed to fully comply with the provisions (H3) ACN v. Lamido (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 621; (2012) 8 NWLR (PT.1303) 560

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Objection - Hearing - By para. 12(5) Electoral Act 2010 - Respondent with an objection must file his reply with the objection - So as to avoid undue delay of hearing of the matter (H2) PDP v. INEC (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3693; (2012) 7 NWLR (PT.1300) 538

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Party primaries & main election - INEC as electoral umpire - Must ensure compliance with Electoral Act - And guidelines of the party - As to maintain sanctity in electoral process (H6) Asogwa v. PDP (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4155; (2013) 7 NWLR (PT.1353) 207

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Results sheets - Signing of - By signing the results sheet - Agents are presumed to understand what they appended to - And thus cannot deny contents of their signatures (H7) Gundiri v. Nyako (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3341

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Tribunal - Expert witness - Opinion - Where Tribunal requires to form to form opinion on a point - Opinion of persons specially skilled in the point - Are admissible (H6) ACN v. Nyako (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3267

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Tribunal - Judgment - Appeals - By 1999 Constitution ss. 246 & 318 - The aspect of the Tribunal’s judgment appellant purports to appeal against is not appealable - Since same was not its decision (H1) ACN v. Nyako (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3267

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Tribunal - Jurisdiction - 1999 Constitution s. 285(6) - Non compliance with - Effect - Jurisdiction of tribunal lapses - And same cannot be conferred by court order (H2) ANPP v. Goni (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 701; (2012) 7 NWLR (PT.1298) 147

 

ELECTION PETITIONS - Words & Phrases - Constitution - “The Court” - Meaning - The phrase used in s. 285(8) refers to Court of Appeal - Hearing appeal from States and National Assembly elections (H2) PDP v. Okorocha (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1155; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1323) 205

 

ELECTION PETITONS - Non compliance - Allegation of - Proof - Petitioner must prove that non compliance was occasioned by breach of Electoral Act - And that same substantially affected result of the election (H7) Aliucha v. Elechi (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1065

 

ELECTIONS - Actions - Inconsistency - Need to avoid - A party should be consistent - In stating as well as in proving its case (H8) Emenike v. PDP (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1717; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1315) 556

 

ELECTIONS - Actions - Joinder of party - Condition - Party wishing to be joined in existing action - Must have direct or legal interest in same (H3) Bala v. Dikko (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3049; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1343) 52

 

ELECTIONS - Affidavits - Depositions - Failure to deny - In absence of specific denial of a paragraph of the affidavit - 2nd plaintiff being a financial member of 1st plaintiff - Is eligible to contest the primary election (H7) Nagogo v. CPC (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4441; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1339) 448

 

ELECTIONS - Appeals - Election petitions - Presidential & Governorship elections - Final court - Supreme Court is the final court of appeal - In respect of the elections (H3) PDP v. Okorocha (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1155; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1323) 205

 

ELECTIONS - Appeals - Ground - Originating summons - Where reliefs sought cannot be dealt with under that summons - The ground on fair hearing will be struck out (H7) Asogwa v. PDP (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4155; (2013) 7 NWLR (PT.1353) 207

 

ELECTIONS - Constitution - Time fixed - Adherence - Such time cannot be extended beyond constitutional provisions - Hence tenure of governors cannot be calculated from dates of their second oaths - As that will lead to extension (H9) Marwa v. Nyako (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 231; (2012) 6 NWLR (PT.1296) 199

 

ELECTIONS - Courts - Jurisdiction - Pre-election matter - Court can determine whether a political party - In taking any action - Complied with or violated its own constitution (H1) Peretu v. Gariga (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4543; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1348) 415

 

ELECTIONS - Election time table - Cancellation - There is no law requiring INEC to furnish parties with reasons - Why a time table could not be used for an election (H4) NDP v. INEC (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3901; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1350) 392

 

ELECTIONS - Election time table - Notice of - Under Electoral Act 2010 - INEC shall publish notice of activities not later than 90 days - Before the day appointed for holding an election (H3) NDP v. INEC (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3901; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1350) 392

 

ELECTIONS - Gubernatorial - Commencement of tenure - By 1999 constitution s. 180(2) - Four year tenure of the Governors started the date they took their 1st oaths of office - After a duly conducted election (H1) Marwa v. Nyako (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 231; (2012) 6 NWLR (PT.1296) 199

 

ELECTIONS - Gubernatorial - Nullification - “Null & void” - Meaning - Where the acts of a governor whose election is nullified are saved - Court will describe the election as voidable (H6) Marwa v. Nyako (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 231; (2012) 6 NWLR (PT.1296) 199

 

ELECTIONS - Gubernatorial - Presumption of validity - An election is deemed valid until courts declare it a nullity - Yet the declaration does not affect the validity of oaths - And actions taken by a governor (H8) Marwa v. Nyako (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 231; (2012) 6 NWLR (PT.1296) 199

 

ELECTIONS - Nomination - Input of political party - Necessity of - Political party is expected to assist court - To determine who its candidate is (H14) Emeka v. Okadigbo (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2611; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1331) 55

 

ELECTIONS - Nomination - Political party - Is the proper body - To know who among aspirants - Is cleared for elections - And court does not question a party’s candidate - Where constitutionally nominated (H7) Tukur v. Uba (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2651; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1343) 90

 

ELECTIONS - Nomination - Proof - Evidence of nomination lies in declaration of winner of primary election - As well as forwarding of the winner’s names to INEC (H5) Kubor v. Dickson (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3121; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1345) 534

 

ELECTIONS - Originating summons - Applicability of - Appeal - Concurrent findings that the issues cannot be resolved by affidavits evidence - Were not shown to be perverse (H8) Asogwa v. PDP (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4155; (2013) 7 NWLR (PT.1353) 207

 

ELECTIONS - Political parties - Nomination of candidates - Jurisdiction of court - Court can inquire whether - Nomination complied with Electoral Act - And political party’s constitution (H5) Emenike v. PDP (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1717; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1315) 556

 

ELECTIONS - Political parties - Nomination of candidates - Right to nominate candidates at election - Resides with political parties - And court has no jurisdiction over same (H5) PDP v. Sylva (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1575; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1316) 85

 

ELECTIONS - Political parties - Nomination of candidates - Right of political party to nominate candidate - Cannot be questioned in court (H4) Emenike v. PDP (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1717; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1315) 556

 

ELECTIONS - Political parties - Substitution of candidates - Basis - By ss.33 & 35 of Electoral Act 2010 - Candidate can only be replaced - If he dies or withdraws (H3) PDP v. Sylva (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1575; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1316) 85

 

ELECTIONS - Political party’s constitution - Binding nature - Appellant is bound by Exhibit 7 - And cannot circumvent same to his own benefit (H7) Emenike v. PDP (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1717; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1315) 556

 

ELECTIONS - Political party’s primary - Failure to participate - Since appellant did not take part in the valid primary - He cannot validly - Activate jurisdiction of court (H6) Emenike v. PDP (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1717; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1315) 556

 

ELECTIONS - Politics - Pre election matters - Courts - Electoral Act 2010 s.87(9) - Confers jurisdiction on courts - Where political party fails - To comply with its constitution - In primary elections (H6) PDP v. Sylva (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1575; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1316) 85

 

ELECTIONS - Politics - Pre election matters - Electoral Act 2010 ss.33 & 35 - Applicability - The sections are irrelevant - Since INEC cancelled April 2011 election - Fixed for Bayelsa State (H4) PDP v. Sylva (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1575; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1316) 85

 

ELECTIONS - Pre election matters - Courts - Jurisdiction - By virtue of Electoral Act s.87(9) - Courts can entertain complaints of aggrieved party - At primary election (H6) Emeka v. Okadigbo (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2611; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1331) 55

 

ELECTIONS - Pre election matters - Right of action - Person who was not candidate at primary election - Cannot come to court - To complain about conduct of such primary (H5) Emeka v. Okadigbo (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2611; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1331) 55

 

ELECTIONS - Pre-election matters - Courts - Jurisdiction - Joinder of electorates - Electorates cannot be rightly joined - In suit involving candidates in primary election (H2) Nwaogu v. Owuala (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3187

 

ELECTIONS - Pre-election matters - Proper parties - By s.87(1)(9) Electoral Act 2012 - The parties are political party - Candidates at the election - And Independent National Electoral Commission (H3) Nwaogu v. Owuala (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3187

 

ELECTIONS - Primary election - Duty of party - By virtue of its Constitution - National Executive Committee of PDP - Is responsible for conduct of its National Assembly primary election (H4) Emeka v. Okadigbo (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2611; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1331) 55

 

ELECTIONS - Primary election - Validity of - Since there is evidence that the primary of 11/01/2011 was inconclusive - The authentic primary was the one of 15/01/2011 (H8) Nagogo v. CPC (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4441; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1339) 448

 

ELECTIONS - Supreme Court - Jurisdiction - S.22 of Supreme Court Act - The section cannot be invoked - Since courts have no power - To question nomination of candidates for election (H9) PDP v. Sylva (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1575; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1316) 85

 

ELECTIONS - Words & phrases - “Substitute” - Definition - Substitute means person or thing that is used - Instead of the one normally used (H2) Peretu v. Gariga (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4543; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1348) 415

 

ELECTIONS - Words & Phrases - Constitution - “The Court” - Meaning - The phrase used in s. 285(8) refers to Court of Appeal - Hearing appeal from States and National Assembly elections (H2) PDP v. Okorocha (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1155; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1323) 205

 

ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS - Admissibility - By s.84(2) Evidence Act 2011 - Such document is admissible where inter alia - It was produced while a computer was put to regular usage (H6) Kubor v. Dickson (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3121; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1345) 534

 

EQUITY - Actions - Declaratory action - Purpose - Such action is to seek equitable relief - Whereby plaintiff prays court to exercise its jurisdiction - By declaring existing state of affairs in his favour (H3) A-G Cross-River State v. A-G Fed. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2717; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1327) 425

 

EQUITY - Appeals - Fresh issue - Raised without leave - Fate - Since leave was not obtained to raise new issue of trust property - The issue shall be deemed incompetent (H6) Osidele v. Sokunbi (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2857; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1324) 470

 

EQUITY - Courts - Mandatory injunction - Grant of - Where injury done to plaintiff cannot be compensated by damages - Court can invoke its equitable jurisdiction and discretion - To grant the injunction (H10) Military Gov. Lagos State v. Adeyiga (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 839; (2012) 5 NWLR (PT.1293) 291

 

EQUITY - Courts - Stay of execution - Grant - Parties - Court exercises its discretion judicially and judiciously - Where applicant has presented necessary materials - For grant of stay (H1) Alawiye v. Ogunsanya (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 2957; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1348) 570

 

EQUITY - Estoppel by standing-by - Res judicata - Distinction - Whereas res judicata is a matter of record - Estoppel by standing-by is an equitable doctrine - Which is a question of fact (H2) Nwakonobi v. Udeorah (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1555; (2013) 7 NWLR (PT.1354) 499

 

EQUITY - Injunction - Meaning - Injunction is judicial process operating in personam - By which upon certain principles of equity - A party is to do or refrain from doing a thing (H3) Kubor v. Dickson (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3121; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1345) 534

 

EQUITY - Land law - Possession - Equitable interest - The interest is created for - Buyer who is in possession of the land - And same can only be defeated by purchaser for value without notice (H7) Goldmark Nig. Ltd. v. Ibafon Co. Ltd. (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1251; (2012) 10 NWLR (PT.1308) 291

 

EQUITY - Supreme Court - Equity jurisdiction - Applicability - The court will consider the motive and intention of the parties - So as to give effect to what was proved but was not awarded in law - Because it was not specifically claimed (H4) Adusei v. Adebayo (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 205; (2012) 3 NWLR (PT.1288) 534

 

ESTOPPEL - Application - Since parties and subject matter in earlier suit - Are not different from those of present suit - Appellant is properly stopped from pursuing the appeal (H3) Mezu v. Co-operative & Commerce Bank Plc (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2831; (2013) 3 NWLR (PT.1340) 188

 

ESTOPPEL - Contracts - Principle - A person is barred from denying term - Arising from contract that he has entered into (H2) A-G Nasarawa State v. A-G Plateau State (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1011; (2012) 10 NWLR (PT.1309) 419

 

ESTOPPEL - Estoppel by conduct - Applicability - The State Government is estopped - To resile from representation made in Exhibit P25 (H9) Military Gov. Lagos State v. Adeyiga (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 839; (2012) 5 NWLR (PT.1293) 291

 

ESTOPPEL - Estoppel by conduct - Contract - Party who by conduct induces another to enter into legal relationship with him - Will not be permitted to act inconsistently with same (H6) BFI Group Corp. v. Bureau of Public Enterpr. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2553; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1332) 209

 

ESTOPPEL - Estoppel by conduct - Principle - Evidence Act s.151 - Party who falsely induced another to act in a certain way - Is estopped from taking advantage of that other person (H3) A-G Nasarawa State v. A-G Plateau State (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1011; (2012) 10 NWLR (PT.1309) 419

 

ESTOPPEL - Estoppel by silence - Meaning - It arises when a party is under a duty to speak - But fails to do so (H9) Tukur v. Uba (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2651; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1343) 90

 

ESTOPPEL - Estoppel by standing-by - Proof - Party must establish that judgment was given against interest of another - Who knowingly did nothing - To safeguard the interest (H1) Nwakonobi v. Udeorah (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1555; (2013) 7 NWLR (PT.1354) 499

 

ESTOPPEL - Estoppel by standing-by - Res judicata - Distinction - Whereas res judicata is a matter of record - Estoppel by standing-by is an equitable doctrine - Which is a question of fact (H2) Nwakonobi v. Udeorah (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1555; (2013) 7 NWLR (PT.1354) 499

 

ESTOPPEL - Judgments - Actions - Res judicata - Application - Since the judgment upon which estoppel per rem judicatam was based is void - The doctrine cannot be applied in present suit (H6) Adeyemi-Bero v. L.S.D.P.C. (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3743; (2013) 8 NWLR (PT.1356) 238

 

ESTOPPEL - Meaning - It means a bar that prevents one from asserting a right - That contradicts what one has done before - Or what has been legally established as true (H8) Tukur v. Uba (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2651; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1343) 90

 

ESTOPPEL - Plea - Manner of - Estoppel need not be pleaded in a particular manner - So long as the facts show - That estoppel was clearly raised (H2) Mezu v. Co-operative & Commerce Bank Plc (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2831; (2013) 3 NWLR (PT.1340) 188

 

ESTOPPEL - Res judicata - Plea - Conditions precedent - For the plea to be sustained - There must be inter alia judicial decision - And that court that heard the matter - Has jurisdiction over parties and subject matter (H1) Abiola & Sons Bottling Co. Ltd. v. 7Up Bottling Co. Ltd. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2487; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1322) 184

 

EVIDENCE - “Prove” - Meaning - The word connotes situation where there is evidence before court - On which statement would be tested - And its truthfulness confirmed (H2) State v. Isah (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 4037; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1327) 613

 

EVIDENCE - Acquittal - Murder - Discharge and acquittal of 2nd & 3rd accused - Are correct because the evidence - Adduced against them and appellant are not similar (H9) Okoro v. State (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 337; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1290) 351

 

EVIDENCE - Actions - Admitted facts - Effect - Appellant’s earlier position that the property belongs to the company - Stands against his present posture (H1) Mezu v. Co-operative & Commerce Bank Plc (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2831; (2013) 3 NWLR (PT.1340) 188

 

EVIDENCE - Actions - Cause of action - Meaning - It refers to entire set of facts that give rise to enforceable claim - Comprising of every fact which if traversed - Plaintiff must prove to entitle him to judgment (H1) Lagos State Bulk Purchase Corp. v. Purification Techn. Ltd. (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3829; (2013) 7 NWLR (PT.1352) 82

 

EVIDENCE - Actions - Civil matters - Proof - Standard of - Civil suits are determined on preponderance of evidence - And balance of probability - As he who asserts must prove (H5) Iseogbekun v. Adelakun (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3573; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1337) 14

 

EVIDENCE - Actions - Crime - Fraud - Proof - Where allegation of commission of crime is an issue - The same must be proved beyond reasonable doubt (H1) Otukpo v. John (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3667; (2012) 7 NWLR (PT.1299) 357

 

EVIDENCE - Actions - Criminal act of cross respondent is mere allegation - And under s. 465 Criminal Code - It must be proved beyond reasonable doubt - That exhibit A was forged (H8) Marine Mgt. Asso. v. N.M.A. (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3863; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1333) 506

 

EVIDENCE - Actions - Declaratory reliefs - Grant - Without evidence from claimant - Court does not grant such relief - As plaintiff succeeds on the strength of his case (H8) CPC v. Suntai (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3543

 

EVIDENCE - Actions - Declaratory reliefs - Need to prove - Appellant has the burden - To establish the seven declaratory reliefs - He claimed (H3) Emenike v. PDP (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1717; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1315) 556

 

EVIDENCE - Actions - Doctrine of severance - Civil & criminal allegations - Where civil allegations are severable from criminal allegation - A party can succeed on his civil allegation - If proved (H9) Gundiri v. Nyako (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3341

 

EVIDENCE - Actions - Proof - Standard of - Actions are proved on preponderance of evidence - And balance of probabilities (H9) Ohochukwu v. A-G Rivers State (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 885; (2012) 6 NWLR (PT.1295) 53

 

EVIDENCE - Actions - Undefended list - Defence - Defendant who wishes to defend the action - Must disclose his intention to registrar - With affidavit disclosing defence on merit (H3) Bona.V. Textile Ltd. v. Asaba Textile Mill Plc (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3063; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1338) 357

 

EVIDENCE - Admissibility - Basis - Election petition - Relevancy determines admissibility - Hence withdrawal of ground 2 of the petition - Renders Exhibit D irrelevant (H7) Kubor v. Dickson (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3121; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1345) 534

 

EVIDENCE - Admissibility - Basis - Exhibits M1-M3 - Once an evidence is relevant to fact in issue - It is considered admissible - And court is bound to admit same (H2) Haruna v. A-G Federation (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1309; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1306) 419

 

EVIDENCE - Admissibility - Exhibits P3 & P4 - Not pleaded - Fate - Court of Appeal was right in expunging the exhibits - Since same were not pleaded (H2) Phillips v. Eba Odan Commercial & Industrial Co. Ltd. (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1611; (2013) 1 NWLR (PT.1336) 618

 

EVIDENCE - Admission - Effect - Respondent’s statements in exhibits 18, 18A & 18B constitute admission - Which do not require proof (H1) Adusei v. Adebayo (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 205; (2012) 3 NWLR (PT.1288) 534

 

EVIDENCE - Affidavits - Averments - Failure to deny - Effect - Since appellants failed to make proper denial - The averments of respondent are deemed admitted (H3) NNPC v. Famfa Oil Ltd (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1947; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 148

 

EVIDENCE - Admitted facts - Proof - Facts admitted need no proof - And court is expected to act thereon (H3) Atanda v. Iliasu (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3015; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1351) 529

 

EVIDENCE - Affidavits - Conflicts - Resolution - Where affidavits conflict - But there is documentary evidence in support of one - Court must examine it before coming to fair decision (H7) Lafia L.G. v. Gov. Nasarawa State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4385; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 94

 

EVIDENCE - Affidavits - Deposition - Not challenged - Effect - Deposition in affidavit which is not controverted - Is deemed admitted (H6) Tukur v. Uba (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2651; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1343) 90

 

EVIDENCE - Affidavits - Deposition - Not denied expressly - Or by necessary implication - Should be deemed to be admitted (H3) Eyiboh v. Abia (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4301; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1325) 51

 

EVIDENCE - Affidavits - Depositions - Not controverted - Uncontroverted facts in affidavits are taken as true - And only minimal proof is required of them (H2) Plateau State Health Serv. Mgt Board v. Goshwe (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3233; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1338) 383

 

EVIDENCE - Affidavits - Preliminary objection - Basis - Since such objection deals with law - No affidavit is necessary - But when facts are in issue - Affidavit would be necessary (H2) Okereke v. James (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2385; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1326) 339

 

EVIDENCE - Alibi - Plea of - Sustainability - For the plea to be successful - Defence must show inter alia - That accused is separated by distance or ill health - From the crime scene (H6) Ilodigwe v. State (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2789; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1331) 1

 

EVIDENCE - Appeals - Action - Need for consistency - Party must be consistent in his case - As it is unstable of 3rd respondent to admit paras 1-17 of supporting affidavit - But denied para 13 of same (H2) Eyiboh v. Abia (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4301; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1325) 51

 

EVIDENCE - Appeals - Concurrent findings - Supreme Court will not disturb the findings - That evidence of appellant’s handwriting expert is not reliable (H3) Phillips v. Eba Odan Commercial & Industrial Co. Ltd. (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1611; (2013) 1 NWLR (PT.1336) 618

 

EVIDENCE - Appeals - Courts - Evidence - Evaluation - Trial court ascribes probative value to evidence - And appellate court does not interfere - Unless for compelling reasons (H6) Egunjobi v. FRN (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4259; (2013) 3 NWLR (PT.1342) 534

 

EVIDENCE - Appeals - Evaluation - Basis - Court of Appeal Act s.16 - Where appellate court evaluates evidence - It is bound by evidence placed before trial court (H2) Ehirim v. IMSIEC (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1521

 

EVIDENCE - Appeals - Evaluation - Interference - If Supreme Court finds dereliction of duty in evaluation - It can interfere to do what lower court should have done (H6) Nagogo v. CPC (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4441; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1339) 448

 

EVIDENCE - Appeals - Evaluation - Where Court of Appeal makes finding - Based on evidence adduced in trial court - Supreme Court will not interfere (H4) Nwakonobi v. Udeorah (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1555; (2013) 7 NWLR (PT.1354) 499

 

EVIDENCE - Appeals - Evidence - Evaluation - Findings of trial court - Appellate court does not interfere - When credibility of witness is involved - But it may reevaluate evidence (H5) Ayorinde v. Sogunro (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1895; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1312) 460

 

EVIDENCE - Appeals - Extension of time - Application - Reason for - Since the supporting affidavit did not disclose cogent reason for delay - The application cannot be granted (H2) Audu v. Wada (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3039

 

EVIDENCE - Appeals - Judgment - Contradictions - Effect - It is only substantial inconsistencies in evidence - That can lead to reversal of judgment (H2) Akindipe v. State (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 313) 2047; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1325) 94

 

EVIDENCE - Appeals - Leave - Raising of fresh issues - Limitation - Fresh issues must be limited to the case as pleaded by parties - And evidence on record in support of their positions - As well as the judgment thereon (H4) Adeosun v. Gov. of Ekiti State (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 1; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1291) 581

 

EVIDENCE - Appeals - Orders of court - Retrial order - Correctness of - Since the evidence borders on credibility of witnesses - Court of Appeal rightly gave the order (H3) Mkpinang v. Ndem (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4425; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1344) 302

 

EVIDENCE - Appeals - Reevaluation - Justification - Where trial court failed to properly evaluate evidence before it - Appellate court is entitled to evaluate same (H8) Akinyemi v. Odu’a Inv. Co. Ltd (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 55; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1329) 209

 

EVIDENCE - Appeals - Reevaluation - Justification - Where trial court fails to properly evaluate evidence before it - Appellate court can interfere - Provided that credibility of witnesses is not involved (H8) Haruna v. A-G Federation (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1309; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1306) 419

 

EVIDENCE - Appeals - Reevaluation - Since the matter does not involve assessment of credibility of witnesses - Supreme Court and Court of Appeal are in a position evaluate the evidence (H1) Eyiboh v. Abia (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4301; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1325) 51

 

EVIDENCE - Armed Robbery - Appeals - Evidence - Inconsistency - Appellate court will set aside findings of trial court - Where there are material contradictions in evidence (H4) Adekoya v. State (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 987; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1306) 539

 

EVIDENCE - Armed Robbery - Confession - Corroboration - Evidence of prosecution witnesses - Adequately corroborated Exhibit E (H3) Adekoya v. State (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 987; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1306) 539

 

EVIDENCE - Armed Robbery - Conspiracy - Meaning - Conspiracy consists of intention of persons - To commit an unlawful act - And conviction is on circumstantial evidence (H5) Adekoya v. State (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 987; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1306) 539

 

EVIDENCE - Armed robbery - Conspiracy - Proof - Conspiracy is established - Since there is meeting of minds between appellant and others in respect of the robbery (H4) Onyenye v. State (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 314) 2271; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1324) 586

 

EVIDENCE - Armed Robbery - Conspiracy - Proof - Exhibit E and evidence of prosecution witnesses - Adequately proved the offences - Beyond reasonable doubt (H8) Adekoya v. State (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 987; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1306) 539

 

EVIDENCE - Armed robbery - Ingredients - Proof - Essential elements of the offence - Were proved by evidence of prosecution witnesses in this case (H3) Onyenye v. State (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 314) 2271; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1324) 586

 

EVIDENCE - Armed robbery - Ingredients - Proof - Prosecution must establish that there was robbery - Which was an armed robbery - And that accused was the armed robber (H3) Osetola v. State (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2399; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1329) 251

 

EVIDENCE - Armed robbery - Proof - Essential element - Robbery & Firearms Act s. 1(2)(b) - Prosecution succeeds if it establishes - That accused violently stole a thing capable of being stolen (H2) FRN v. Usman (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1119; (2012) 8 NWLR (PT.1301) 141

 

EVIDENCE - Armed robbery - Proof - Ikemson v. State - Prosecution must proof beyond reasonable doubt - That appellant participated in the robbery (H4) Ikaria v. State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4371

 

EVIDENCE - Best evidence - Meaning - Best evidence is the means of proof - Which is indicated by the nature of fact under investigation - As the most satisfactory (H5) Purification Tech. Nig. Ltd. v. Jubril (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 313) 2157; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1331) 109

 

EVIDENCE - Bond - Definition - Bond is evidence of debt -On which issuing company promises to pay the bond holder - Specified amount of interest for specified length of time - And to repay the loan on expiration date (H3) BFI Group Corp. v. Bureau of Public Enterpr. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2553; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1332) 209

 

EVIDENCE - Cause of action - Meaning - These are facts giving rise to enforceable claim - Including things necessary to give right of action - And material facts that entitle plaintiff to succeed (H1) Sulgrave v. FGN (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4565; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1329) 309

 

EVIDENCE - Charges - Admitted facts - Since appellants pleaded guilty - They are deemed to have admitted the offences - With which they have been charged (H5) Offor v. State (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3207; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1333) 421

 

EVIDENCE - Chieftaincy matters - Appeals - Actions - Pleadings - Proof - Plaintiff must rely on strength of his case - And not on weakness of defence (H1) Akande v. Adisa (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1681; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1324) 538

 

EVIDENCE - Chieftaincy matters - Evidence - Contradictions - Effect on appeal - It must be shown that trial court - Failed to advert its mind to the contradictions - Before its judgment can be reversed (H2) Taiwo v. Ogundele (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 2027; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1322) 57

 

EVIDENCE - Chieftaincy matters - Judicial Precedents - Rule in Kojo v. Bonsie - Application - The rule is not applicable to present case - That requires strict prove of native law (H1) Taiwo v. Ogundele (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 2027; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1322) 57

 

EVIDENCE - Circumstantial evidence - Conviction - Such evidence can ground conviction only - Where the inferences points strongly to the commission of the crime by accused (H5) Adesina v. State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3713; (2012) 14 NWLR (PT.1321) 429

 

EVIDENCE - Circumstantial evidence - Definition - It is defined as evidence of surrounding circumstances - Which by undersigned coincidence can prove a proposition with accuracy (H4) Adesina v. State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3713; (2012) 14 NWLR (PT.1321) 429

 

EVIDENCE - Circumvention - Elections - Political party’s constitution - Binding nature - Appellant is bound by Exhibit 7 - And cannot circumvent same to his own benefit (H7) Emenike v. PDP (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1717; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1315) 556

 

EVIDENCE - Company law - Acquisition - Proof - Person who asserts acquisition of a company by another - Must inter alia place before court - Instrument of transfer obtained from the CAC (H4) Afolabi v. Western Steel Works Ltd. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2503; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1329) 286

 

EVIDENCE - Confession - Admissibility - Under Evidence Act s. 27(2) - It is admissible against the maker if it is voluntarily made - And cannot be held inadmissible merely because the accused denies having made it (H1) Bright v. State (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 123; (2012) 8 NWLR (PT.1302) 297

 

EVIDENCE - Confession - Conviction - Validity - Accused can be convicted on his confession without corroboration - Provided the truth therein is unequivocal (H4) Igri v. State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3799

 

EVIDENCE - Confession - Conviction - When confessional statement is proved to be voluntary - It is enough to sustain conviction - And a retraction of same at trial is immaterial (H2) Adesina v. State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3713; (2012) 14 NWLR (PT.1321) 429

 

EVIDENCE - Confession - Corroboration - Test - It should be examined inter alia - To see if there is extraneous matter - That shows the truth of the confession (H1) Onyenye v. State (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 314) 2271; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1324) 586

 

EVIDENCE - Confession - Definition - By s. 27(1) Evidence Act - Confession is admission made by person charged with crime - Stating inference that he committed crime (H5) Igri v. State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3799

 

EVIDENCE - Confession - Definition of - Evidence Act s. 27(1) - Confession is an admission made by accused - Stating the inference that he committed a crime (H1) Oseni v. State (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 953; (2012) 5 NWLR (PT.1293) 351

 

EVIDENCE - Confession - Meaning - By s. 27 Evidence Act - Confession is admission made by accused - Stating the inference that he committed a crime (H1) Adesina v. State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3713; (2012) 14 NWLR (PT.1321) 429

 

EVIDENCE - Confession - Obtained via interpreter - Admissibility - Such statement is inadmissible - Save where interpreter and the person who recorded same - Testify in court (H3) FRN v. Usman (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1119; (2012) 8 NWLR (PT.1301) 141

 

EVIDENCE - Confession - Proof - Burden of - Prosecution has the duty - To prove beyond reasonable doubt - The voluntariness of a confession (H3) Oseni v. State (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 953; (2012) 5 NWLR (PT.1293) 351

 

EVIDENCE - Confession - Proof - Since the truth of the statements could not be ascertained - Prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt (H4) State v. Isah (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 4037; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1327) 613

 

EVIDENCE - Confession - Retraction - Proof - Accused must show inter alia that he did not make the statement - By calling evidence to prove same at trial within trial (H4) Osetola v. State (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2399; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1329) 251

 

EVIDENCE - Confession - Retraction of - Admissibility - Court can admit and convict on such confession - If satisfied that accused made same (H3) Haruna v. A-G Federation (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1309; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1306) 419

 

EVIDENCE - Confession - Retraction of - Effect - Mere denial of confession does not render same inadmissible (H2) Oseni v. State (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 953; (2012) 5 NWLR (PT.1293) 351

 

EVIDENCE - Confession - Tendered without objection - Fate - Such confession is deemed voluntary - And court need not inquire into - Whether or not same was made voluntarily (H1) Osung v. State (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2425; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1332) 256

 

EVIDENCE - Confession - Test - Confession is tested inter alia - To see if there is anything outside confession - To show that it is true (H3) State v. Isah (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 4037; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1327) 613

 

EVIDENCE - Confession - Test - Court must test the truth of confession by inter alia determining - If there is anything outside the confession - That shows it is true (H3) Adesina v. State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3713; (2012) 14 NWLR (PT.1321) 429

 

EVIDENCE - Confession - Test - Evidence Act s. 27(2) - It should be examined among other tests - To see if anything outside the confession shows its truthfulness (H7) Adekoya v. State (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 987; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1306) 539

 

EVIDENCE - Confession - Validity - Accused can be solely convicted on his statement - Although some other evidence consistent with the confession may be needed (H4) Timothy v. FRN (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 313) 2191; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1344) 213

 

EVIDENCE - Confession - Validity - Since appellant’s confessions have not been found wanting - Same are sufficient to ground conviction - Without other evidence in corroboration (H1) Chiokwe v. State (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3517; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1347) 205

 

EVIDENCE - Confession - Voluntariness - Effect - Where confession is positive and unequivocal - It is sufficient to ground a finding of guilt - Regardless of any retraction (H6) Osetola v. State (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2399; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1329) 251

 

EVIDENCE - Confession - Voluntariness - When the voluntariness of confessional statement is an issue - Trial court has a duty to conduct a trial within trial - To determine the voluntariness or otherwise of same (H2) Bright v. State (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 123; (2012) 8 NWLR (PT.1302) 297

 

EVIDENCE - Confession - Voluntariness of - Appellant’s statements are credible evidence - Having been admitted without any objection (H2) Ajibade v. State (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 2939; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1349) 25

 

EVIDENCE - Confession - Weight - Test of - Judge must apply the six tests in R v. Sykes - While determining weight to be attached to confession (H5) Oseni v. State (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 953; (2012) 5 NWLR (PT.1293) 351

 

EVIDENCE - Conflicts - Resolution - Where there is conflict in evidence of witnesses - Documentary evidence will serve as a hanger - On which truth shall be resolved (H2) BFI Group Corp. v. Bureau of Public Enterpr. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2553; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1332) 209

 

EVIDENCE - Conspiracy - Ingredients - How to prove - Proof of the offence is a matter of inference - Hence the involvement of appellant can be inferred from the circumstances of the case (H4) Bright v. State (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 123; (2012) 8 NWLR (PT.1302) 297

 

EVIDENCE - Conspiracy - Meaning - Conspiracy is agreement between persons to do unlawful act - And failure to prove substantive offence - Does not render conviction for conspiracy inappropriate (H2) Osetola v. State (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2399; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1329) 251

 

EVIDENCE - Contradiction - Effect - Contradiction must relate to material fact - Before it can affect judgment of court (H2) Osung v. State (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2425; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1332) 256

 

EVIDENCE - Contradictions - Previous statement - To contradict witness on matters of such statement - His attention must be drawn to them - Otherwise answers so elicited - Are inadmissible (H8) Ilodigwe v. State (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2789; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1331) 1

 

EVIDENCE - Conviction - Based on retracted confession - Validity - Prior to conviction - Extraneous evidence needs to be adduced - To make it probable that the confession is true (H4) Haruna v. A-G Federation (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1309; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1306) 419

 

EVIDENCE - Conviction - Upon retracted confession - Validity - Before accused is convicted on such confession - Court must look for extraneous evidence - Which makes the confession probable (H3) Bassey v. State (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1495; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1314) 209

 

EVIDENCE - Courts - Discretion - Exercise of - Principles - Discretion must be exercised judicially - And judiciously relying on sufficient materials (H11) Akinyemi v. Odu’a Inv. Co. Ltd (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 55; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1329) 209

 

EVIDENCE - Courts - Evaluation - Ascription of probative value to witnesses - Is primary function of trial court - That heard and watched demeanour of the witnesses (H5) Haruna v. A-G Federation (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1309; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1306) 419

 

EVIDENCE - Courts - Evaluation - Ascription of probative value to evidence - Is the primary function of trial court - And appellate court does not intervene - Even it would have held otherwise (H5) Nagogo v. CPC (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4441; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1339) 448

 

EVIDENCE - Courts - Evaluation - It is the duty of trial court to evaluate and ascribe probative value to evidence - But appellate court intervenes - Where trial Judge fails to evaluate evidence properly (H5) Otukpo v. John (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3667; (2012) 7 NWLR (PT.1299) 357

 

EVIDENCE - Courts - Evaluation - Trial court is not bound to make findings - As to probative value of Exhibits A-N - Before a conviction is grounded (H6) Haruna v. A-G Federation (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1309; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1306) 419

 

EVIDENCE - Courts - Evaluation - Trial court’s duty is to receive relevant evidence - Examines them in the context of circumstances of the case - Before making its findings (H6) Lafia L.G. v. Gov. Nasarawa State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4385; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 94

 

EVIDENCE - Courts - Identification parade - To ascribe value to evidence from such parade - Court must inter alia - Consider circumstances in which eyewitness saw the suspect (H7) Adesina v. State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3713; (2012) 14 NWLR (PT.1321) 429

 

EVIDENCE - Courts - Inadmissible evidence - Power to expunge - Court can expunge from its record - Evidence or document earlier admitted (H9) Kubor v. Dickson (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3121; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1345) 534

 

EVIDENCE - Courts - Indian Hemp - Report Certificate - Service of - Evidence Act s.43 - Where the certificate is not served on adverse party ten days before usage in court - Adjournment may be granted (H3) Ugwanyi v. FRN (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1407; (2012) 8 NWLR (PT.1302) 384

 

EVIDENCE - Courts - Reliefs - Grant of - Court may not grant unpleaded relief - But may do so to meet the circumstances of a case - More so where there are evidence to rely on (H4) Obueke v. Nnamchi (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1801; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1314) 327

 

EVIDENCE - Crime - Burden of proof - Shift in - In the case of recent possession of stolen property - Burden on accused is discharged on balance of probabilities (H2) Igri v. State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3799

 

EVIDENCE - Crime - Number of witness - Proof - Prosecution has prerogative to call relevant witnesses - And he is not bound to call all eyewitnesses to a crime (H8) Adesina v. State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3713; (2012) 14 NWLR (PT.1321) 429

 

EVIDENCE - Crime - Proof - Burden of - Onus is on prosecution to establish the guilt of accused - Beyond reasonable doubt (H1) Igri v. State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3799

 

EVIDENCE - Crime - Proof - Evidence against each accused - Must be specifically considered against their respective defence (H5) Ilodigwe v. State (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2789; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1331) 1

 

EVIDENCE - Crime - Proof - Means of - Prosecution proves its case by eye witness - Voluntary confession - And by positive circumstantial evidence (H2) Ilodigwe v. State (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2789; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1331) 1

 

EVIDENCE - Crime - Proof - Standard of - Evidence Act s. 138(1) - Prosecution must prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt - And burden never shifts to defence (H1) FRN v. Usman (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1119; (2012) 8 NWLR (PT.1301) 141

 

EVIDENCE - Crime - Testimony of lone witness - Admissibility - Where court founds such evidence to be true - It is bound to accept and act on same (H3) Ilodigwe v. State (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2789; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1331) 1

 

EVIDENCE - Criminal law - Self-defence - Conditions - Accused must establish that his own life was in danger - And that his action was intended to preserve his life (H1) Chukwu v. State (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3101; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1343) 1

 

EVIDENCE - Criminal procedure - Mens rea - Narcotic drug - Possession of - Proof - NDLEA Act s. 10(h) - Unlawful possession is mens rea for establishing the offence (H1) Okewu v. FRN (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 923; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1305) 327

 

EVIDENCE - Cross examination - Objective - Crime - It is to test the correctness of testimony of plaintiff and his witness - Hence failure of appellant to cross examine PW1 on her testimony - Is deemed an acceptance of same (H6) Okoro v. State (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 337; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1290) 351

 

EVIDENCE - Damages - Entitlement - Proof - Claimant must prove it was act of respondent that led to his loss - Failure of which will lead to dismissal of his claim (H5) Ahmed v. CBN (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 277; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1339) 524

 

EVIDENCE - Damages - Exemplary damages - Proof - To justify award of such damages - It must be shown that the wrongful acts were high handed - Or in disregard of every decent conduct of civilized men (H7) Marine Mgt. Asso. v. N.M.A. (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3863; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1333) 506

 

EVIDENCE - Damages - Special damages - Proof - Appellant has the burden - To strictly plead the professional fees - As stated in paragraph 20 of supporting affidavit (H2) Intercontinental Bank Plc v. Brifina Ltd. (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1927; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1316) 1

 

EVIDENCE - Declaratory action - Proof - Plaintiff must show existence of subsisting or future legal right - Court is prepared to recognize - And that same is contested (H4) A-G Cross-River State v. A-G Fed. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2717; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1327) 425

 

EVIDENCE - Defence - Evidence obtained from defence witness - Where it is in line with facts pleaded by plaintiff - It forms part of plaintiff’s evidence - And can be relied upon in proof of facts in dispute between the parties (H2) Adeosun v. Gov. of Ekiti State (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 1; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1291) 581

 

EVIDENCE - Deposition - Adoption of - Witnesses depositions are to be individually identified with the maker - And it is not enough that none of the witnesses disowned the statement (H3) Gundiri v. Nyako (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3341

 

EVIDENCE - Discharge of accused - Effect on co-accused - Ebri v State - Where two or more are charged with an offence - With similar evidence adduced against them - Discharge of one must affect the discharge of the others (H8) Okoro v. State (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 337; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1290) 351

 

EVIDENCE - Documents - Public documents - Admissibility - The admissible secondary evidence of such documents - Are the certified true copies of same (H8) Kubor v. Dickson (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3121; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1345) 534

 

EVIDENCE - Documents - Recitals in - Effect - Where accurate recitals and descriptions of facts and parties - Are made in document of more than 20 years - The same shall be taken as sufficient evidence of truth of such facts and matters (H4) Osidele v. Sokunbi (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2857; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1324) 470

 

EVIDENCE - Documents - Rejection - Effect - Document rejected in evidence - Cannot be of any relevance in a matter - And its contents cannot fare better (H6) Nig. Ports Plc. v. Beecham Pharm. Ltd (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4155; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1333) 454

 

EVIDENCE - Documents - Traditional history - Distinction - Whereas documents do not lie - Traditional history is recollection from memory - Dimmed by time and coloured by personal interest (H4) Purification Tech. Nig. Ltd. v. Jubril (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 313) 2157; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1331) 109

 

EVIDENCE - Documents - Validity - Invitation to determine - Is proper if the validity of the document is put in issue - In the pleadings of parties before the court (H5) Adeosun v. Gov. of Ekiti State (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 1; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1291) 581

 

EVIDENCE - Dying declaration - Admissibility - The statement is admissible where cause of death is in issue - And it must be made by a deceased - Who believed he was in danger of approaching death (H5) Okoro v. State (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 337; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1290) 351

 

EVIDENCE - Election petitions - Allegation of crime - Proof - Court of Appeal rightly held that the paragraphs relating to crimes are vague - Since particulars of fraud were not pleaded (H3) PDP v. INEC (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3693; (2012) 7 NWLR (PT.1300) 538

 

EVIDENCE - Election petitions - Appeal - Documents - Oral evidence - Appellants must adduce oral evidence - Linking the documents to his case - As court is not supposed to do a party’s case (H6) CPC v. Suntai (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3543

 

EVIDENCE - Election petitions - Appeals - Evidence on records - Evaluation of - Appellate court rightly exercised its powers - In affirming the decision of the tribunal (H6) ACN v. Lamido (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 621; (2012) 8 NWLR (PT.1303) 560

 

EVIDENCE - Election petitions - Civil & criminal allegations - Proof - Where such facts pleaded are intertwined - Petitioner succeeds only if - The averments are proved beyond reasonable doubt (H5) ACN v. Nyako (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3267

 

EVIDENCE - Election petitions - Crime - Proof - Appellant must file further affidavit - Giving particulars of the dead delegates alleged to have died in violence (H4) Eyiboh v. Abia (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4301; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1325) 51

 

EVIDENCE - Election petitions - Crime - Proof - By s.138(1)(2) Evidence Act - Onus is on appellant to prove beyond reasonable doubt - Allegation of corrupt practices (H7) CPC v. Suntai (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3543

 

EVIDENCE - Election petitions - Criminal & civil allegations - Proof - Appellants must prove the criminal allegation - As the Tribunal found that the allegation - Penetrated the entire election (H12) Gundiri v. Nyako (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3341

 

EVIDENCE - Election petitions - Declaratory relief - Proof - Petitioner must establish his case on strength of his evidence - And not on weakness of defendant (H11) Gundiri v. Nyako (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3341

 

EVIDENCE - Election petitions - Documentary evidence - Proof - Such documents remain dormant - Unless they are activated by oral evidence - To allow court speak on them (H7) ACN v. Nyako (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3267

 

EVIDENCE - Election petitions - Evaluation of evidence - Appraisal & ascription of probative value to evidence - Is function of trial tribunal - And Supreme Court does not interfere - Save there is miscarriage of justice (H3) ACN v. Nyako (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3267

 

EVIDENCE - Election petitions - Evidence - Conflict - Resolution - Conflict in evidence of DW3 & DW9 - Should be resolved by consideration of Exhibit 44(3) (H6) Doma v. INEC (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1095; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1317) 297

 

EVIDENCE - Election petitions - Fair hearing - Documents - Failure to annex - Effect - By Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) paragraphs 4(5)(c)41(8) - Such documents shall not be admitted in evidence (H2) ACN v. Lamido (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 621; (2012) 8 NWLR (PT.1303) 560

 

EVIDENCE - Election petitions - Hearsay - Weight - Statements of appellant’s witnesses were rightly disregarded - Since same did not come from their personal knowledge (H4) ACN v. Nyako (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3267

 

EVIDENCE - Election petitions - Hearsay evidence - Admissibility - Evidence Act s.38 - Testimonies of PW14 & PW44 constitute hearsay - And same were rightly disregarded (H3) Doma v. INEC (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1095; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1317) 297

 

EVIDENCE - Election petitions - Hostile witness - Failure to declare - Effect - Evidence of other witnesses cannot counter that of PW40 - Who was not re-examined (H4) Doma v. INEC (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1095; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1317) 297

 

EVIDENCE - Election petitions - Issues - Determination - Petition is determined - Once issue of proof is resolved against petitioner - Who alleged non compliance (H2) Doma v. INEC (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1095; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1317) 297

 

EVIDENCE - Election petitions - Non compliance - Allegation of - In addition to documents admitted in evidence - The allegation must be supported by oral evidence (H7) ACN v. Lamido (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 621; (2012) 8 NWLR (PT.1303) 560

 

EVIDENCE - Election petitions - Polling agents - Petitioners have the burden to prove their petition - And failure to call polling agents as witnesses - Is detrimental to petitioners’ case (H6) Gundiri v. Nyako (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3341

 

EVIDENCE - Election petitions - Tribunal - Expert witness - Opinion - Where Tribunal requires to form to form opinion on a point - Opinion of persons specially skilled in the point - Are admissible (H6) ACN v. Nyako (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3267

 

EVIDENCE - Elections - Inconsistency - Need to avoid - A party should be consistent - In stating as well as in proving its case (H8) Emenike v. PDP (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1717; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1315) 556

 

EVIDENCE - Elections - Nomination - Proof - Evidence of nomination lies in declaration of winner of primary election - As well as forwarding of the winner’s names to INEC (H5) Kubor v. Dickson (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3121; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1345) 534

 

EVIDENCE - Elections - Primary election - Validity of - Since there is evidence that the primary of 11/01/2011 was inconclusive - The authentic primary was the one of 15/01/2011 (H8) Nagogo v. CPC (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4441; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1339) 448

 

EVIDENCE - Electronic document - Admissibility - By s.84(2) Evidence Act 2011 - Such document is admissible where inter alia - It was produced while a computer was put to regular usage (H6) Kubor v. Dickson (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3121; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1345) 534

 

EVIDENCE - Evaluation - Appeals - Trial court ascribes probative value to evidence - Appellate court does not lightly interfere - Save where inter alia evidence has nothing to do with demeanour of witnesses (H1) BFI Group Corp. v. Bureau of Public Enterpr. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2553; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1332) 209

 

EVIDENCE - Evaluation - Appeals - Where trial court fails to properly evaluate evidence - Court of Appeal can evaluate - And come to a correct and fair decision to parties (H1) Afolabi v. Western Steel Works Ltd. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2503; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1329) 286

 

EVIDENCE - Evaluation - Basis - Evaluation is not based on number of witnesses - But rather on credibility and acceptability of evidence (H2) Gundiri v. Nyako (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3341

 

EVIDENCE - Evaluation - Challenge - Principles - When evaluation by judge is in issue - It should inter alia be considered - Whether the evidence is admissible - Or relevant (H4) Tukur v. Uba (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2651; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1343) 90

 

EVIDENCE - Evaluation - Interference - Decision to apply s. 4(2) Land Use Act was based on improper evaluation - Hence Supreme Court can rightly intervene - Since credibility of witnesses is not involved (H6) Akere v. Gov. Oyo State (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3471; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1314) 240

 

EVIDENCE - Evaluation - Interference - Since trial Judge did not evaluate exhibits D-F1 and s. 42 of 1999 Constitution - Court of Appeal rightly did the evaluation - And come to correct decision (H8) Lafia L.G. v. Gov. Nasarawa State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4385; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 94

 

EVIDENCE - Evaluation - Trial court evaluates and ascribes probative value to evidence - And is thus in a position - To access credibility and demeanor of witnesses (H3) Tukur v. Uba (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2651; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1343) 90

 

EVIDENCE - Evaluation - Trial court evaluates and assigns probative value to evidence - And appellate court does not interfere - Save where evaluation was improper (H7) Military Gov. Lagos State v. Adeyiga (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 839; (2012) 5 NWLR (PT.1293) 291

 

EVIDENCE - Evaluation of - Is the duty of trial court - And appellate court should not interfere - Except where there is miscarriage of justice (H1) Gundiri v. Nyako (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3341

 

EVIDENCE - Evidential burden of proof - Alibi - Burden of adducing evidence on an issue - Can be placed on either side - And where same is not discharged - The issue will be resolved against the party (H3) Ikaria v. State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4371

 

EVIDENCE - Examination of witnesses - Meaning - Evidence in chief testifies plaintiff’s case - Cross examination tests credibility of stated testimony - While re-examination restores credibility to the testimony (H2) Ayorinde v. Sogunro (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1895; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1312) 460

 

EVIDENCE - Expert witness - Qualification - Such witness must show skill in the field - In which he is called to give evidence - And the Judge decides whether or not a witness is an expert (H9) Oruwari v. Osler (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3941; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1348) 535

 

EVIDENCE - Facts - Distinction - By Evidence Act s. 115 - A deponent ought not to lump facts derived from personal knowledge - With those obtained from other sources (H5) Gundiri v. Nyako (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3341

 

EVIDENCE - Fundamental rights - Damages - Proof - Once appellant proved violation of his fundamental right by respondent - Damages in form of compensation and even apology should follow (H4) Jim-jaja v. COP Rivers State (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3611; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1350) 225

 

EVIDENCE - Hearsay - Meaning - Hearsay is testimony by witness - On what he heard from another - And such testimony is inadmissible (H4) FRN v. Usman (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1119; (2012) 8 NWLR (PT.1301) 141

 

EVIDENCE - Hearsay evidence - Since PW1 PW3 & PW4 were not eyewitnesses to the event - Their testimonies are hearsay - Which is inadmissible in law (H4) Njoku v. State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4519; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1339) 548

 

EVIDENCE - Identification parade - Purpose - The parade is needed to show that accused actually committed the offence - Save where PW knows accused (H6) Adesina v. State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3713; (2012) 14 NWLR (PT.1321) 429

 

EVIDENCE - Identification parade - Weight - Where quality of evidence arising therefrom is poor - Accused should be acquitted - Unless other evidence abounds in support (H2) Ikaria v. State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4371

 

EVIDENCE - Inconsistency - Contradiction - Meaning - Evidence contradicts one another - When they are inconsistent on material facts (H9) Bassey v. State (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1495; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1314) 209

 

EVIDENCE - Islamic law - Confirmation of - Paternity under Sharia is quite important - And it is confirmed by marriage - Or by acknowledgement or evidence (H1) Rabiu v. Amadu (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 417; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1337) 36

 

EVIDENCE - Islamic law - Expert evidence - Meaning - It is the opinion which an expert gives - In relation to some scientific or professional matters (H4) Rabiu v. Amadu (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 417; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1337) 36

 

EVIDENCE - Land law - Actions - Proof - Onus - Proof is on preponderance of evidence - And onus is on party who will fail - If no evidence is adduced on either side (H6) Ayorinde v. Sogunro (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1895; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1312) 460

 

EVIDENCE - Land law - Boundaries - Determination - Boundaries can be fixed by proved acts of prospective owners - By statutes - And by legal presumption (H5) A-G Rivers State v. A-G Bayelsa State (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2519; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1340) 123

 

EVIDENCE - Land law - Certificate of Occupancy - Relevance - The certificate is a prima facie evidence of title or possession - But is not conclusive proof of title to land (H4) Otukpo v. John (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3667; (2012) 7 NWLR (PT.1299) 357

 

EVIDENCE - Land law - Identity of land - Difference in names - Effect - Ascribing different names to land by parties - Is immaterial for proving identity (H4) Atanda v. Iliasu (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3015; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1351) 529

 

EVIDENCE - Land law - Identity of land - Oral evidence - Such evidence is sufficient proof thereof - Which dispenses the need to tender site plan - Especially where court has visited the locus in quo (H5) Atanda v. Iliasu (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3015; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1351) 529

 

EVIDENCE - Land law - Identity of land - Proof - Exception to - Claimant is to prove identity of land - Only where same has been put in issue in pleadings of parties (H2) Atanda v. Iliasu (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3015; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1351) 529

 

EVIDENCE - Land law - Identity of land - Proof - Party who seeks title to land - Must prove identity of the land - In respect of which he seeks remedy (H3) Iseogbekun v. Adelakun (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3573; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1337) 14

 

EVIDENCE - Land law - Identity of land - Proof - Plaintiff must prove the description and boundaries of land - To which he lays claim (H1) Atanda v. Iliasu (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3015; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1351) 529

 

EVIDENCE - Land law - Possession - Proof - As plaintiffs established possession of the disputed property - They are entitled to order of possession against respondents - Who have not proved better title (H7) Iseogbekun v. Adelakun (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3573; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1337) 14

 

EVIDENCE - Land law - Rule in Kojo II v. Bonsie - Application - The rule cannot be applied to present case - Since the traditional evidence was conclusive (H4) Ayorinde v. Sogunro (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1895; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1312) 460

 

EVIDENCE - Land law - Title - Certificate of Occupancy - Proof - Mere possession of the certificate is not conclusive evidence - As it must be shown that there was no holder of a better title (H8) Atanda v. Iliasu (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3015; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1351) 529

 

EVIDENCE - Land law - Title - Failure to prove - Counter-claim of 4th-6th defendants cannot be granted - Since they failed to adduce credible evidence - In proof of their title to the land (H6) Iseogbekun v. Adelakun (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3573; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1337) 14

 

EVIDENCE - Land law - Title - Means of proof - Title can be proved by traditional evidence - Documents of title - Acts of possession - Acts of ownership - And proof of possession of adjacent or connected land (H2) Otukpo v. John (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3667; (2012) 7 NWLR (PT.1299) 357

 

EVIDENCE - Land law - Title - Possession - Effect - Where defendant is in possession - Plaintiff must prove a better title than that of the former (H9) Atanda v. Iliasu (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3015; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1351) 529

 

EVIDENCE - Land law - Title - Possession - Proof - Possession when proved is a title against the whole world - Where no one has proved better title (H9) Iseogbekun v. Adelakun (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3573; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1337) 14

 

EVIDENCE - Land law - Title - Proof - Basis - Pleadings and evidence adduced by plaintiff - Determine whether he has proved his case or not (H1) Mkpinang v. Ndem (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4425; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1344) 302

 

EVIDENCE - Land law - Title - Proof - Conflicting claims - Where parties derived titles from different sources - The source with better title gives superior root of title (H2) Osidele v. Sokunbi (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2857; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1324) 470

 

EVIDENCE - Land law - Title - Proof - Idundun v. Okumagba - Title to land can be proved by traditional evidence - Documents of title - Acts of ownership - Acts of long possession - And possession of adjacent land (H1) Osidele v. Sokunbi (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2857; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1324) 470

 

EVIDENCE - Land law - Title - Proof - Means - Plaintiff may adopt any of the ways of proving ownership - And his claim should be dismissed - Where he fails to prove title as pleaded (H2) Mkpinang v. Ndem (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4425; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1344) 302

 

EVIDENCE - Land law - Title - Proof - Onus is on plaintiff - As defendant is never called upon to defend the claim of plaintiff - Until plaintiff establishes a prima facie case (H5) Osidele v. Sokunbi (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2857; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1324) 470

 

EVIDENCE - Land law - Title - Proof - Plaintiff must rely on strength of his case - To establish acts of ownership - And not on weakness of defence (H3) Ayorinde v. Sogunro (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1895; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1312) 460

 

EVIDENCE - Land law - Title - Proof - Plaintiff must rely on strength of his case - And not on the weakness of the defence (H6) Atanda v. Iliasu (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3015; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1351) 529

 

EVIDENCE - Land law - Title - Proof - Plaintiff must succeed on strength of his case - And not on weakness of defence - But plaintiff can take advantage - Where case of defence supports his case (H3) Otukpo v. John (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3667; (2012) 7 NWLR (PT.1299) 357

 

EVIDENCE - Land law - Title - Traditional history - Proof - Party who claims title vide such history - Must establish how his ancestor acquired the land (H4) Iseogbekun v. Adelakun (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3573; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1337) 14

 

EVIDENCE - Legal practitioners - Negligence - Conduct of case - Counsel is master of his case - As he may decide not to call witness - Or cross-examine witness of the other party - But may be sued for professional negligence (H2) Chidoka v. First City Finance Co. Ltd. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2585; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1346) 144

 

EVIDENCE - Legal practitioners - Submissions - Effect - Submissions of counsel however beautiful - Cannot take the place of evidence - As such addresses must be a reminder to court of evidence proffered (H3) Chiokwe v. State (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3517; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1347) 205

 

EVIDENCE - Lesser offence - Plea of guilty - Procedure to adopt - Accused must personally plea - And a conviction can be based on same - And on evidence before judge (H7) Timothy v. FRN (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 313) 2191; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1344) 213

 

EVIDENCE - Money lending - Admitted facts - Briefs of appeal - Since appellants expressly agreed that - Respondent was not a money lender - Respondent has nothing to prove (H6) Chidoka v. First City Finance Co. Ltd. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2585; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1346) 144

 

EVIDENCE - Motions - Legal practitioner - Failure to sign - In absence of credible evidence of signing by a legal practitioner - Court of Appeal rightly held that the motion was incompetent (H1) Bala v. Dikko (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3049; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1343) 52

 

EVIDENCE - Murder - Cause of death - Proof of - Medical report - Relevance of - Cause of death can generally be determined from medical report - However medical evidence is not essential in all cases (H7) Bright v. State (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 123; (2012) 8 NWLR (PT.1302) 297

 

EVIDENCE - Murder - Cause of death - Proof of - Medical report - Relevance of - Cause of death can generally be determined from medical report - However medical evidence is not essential in all cases (H7) Bright v. State (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 123; (2012) 8 NWLR (PT.1302) 297

 

EVIDENCE - Murder - Circumstantial evidence - Conviction is justified where the circumstances are cogent - And directly points to accused - As the person that killed deceased (H13) Okoro v. State (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 337; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1290) 351

 

EVIDENCE - Murder - Doctrine of last seen - Presumption - It is presumed that person last seen with deceased - Bears full responsibility - For the death (H4) Madu v. State (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 313) 2087; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1324) 405

 

EVIDENCE - Murder - Failure to prove - Effect - Accused is discharged and acquitted - Since prosecution has not proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt - As required by Evidence Act s. 138 (H1) State v. Okpala (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 437; (2012) 3 NWLR (PT.1287) 388

 

EVIDENCE - Murder - Ingredients - Proof - By s. 316 Criminal Code - Prosecution must prove intent to kill - Or do some grievous harm to the person killed - Or to some other person (H2) Njoku v. State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4519; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1339) 548

 

EVIDENCE - Murder - Ingredients - Proof - Prosecution must inter alia prove death of deceased - And that it was voluntary act or omission of accused that caused the death (H3) Igri v. State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3799

 

EVIDENCE - Murder - Ingredients - Proof - Prosecution must prove that deceased died - And the death was caused - By intentional act of accused (H3) Madu v. State (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 313) 2087; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1324) 405

 

EVIDENCE - Murder - Ingredients - Proof - Prosecution must prove that deceased died - As a result of act or omission of accused - Which was intentional (H1) Ilodigwe v. State (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2789; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1331) 1

 

EVIDENCE - Murder - Plea of guilty - Procedure to adopt - CPA s. 215 - Judge must record a plea of not guilty on behalf of accused - And evidence is led on same (H6) Timothy v. FRN (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 313) 2191; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1344) 213

 

EVIDENCE - Murder - Proof - Circumstantial evidence - By s. 139 Evidence Act - Court can accept proof of death by such evidence - Since possibility of not having eyewitness account in criminal cases is not rare (H4) Chiokwe v. State (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3517; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1347) 205

 

EVIDENCE - Murder - Proof - Duty on prosecution - Prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt - By adducing relevant evidence - And not by calling many witnesses (H8) Bright v. State (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 123; (2012) 8 NWLR (PT.1302) 297

 

EVIDENCE - Murder - Proof - Ingredients - Prosecution must prove that deceased died - And that death occurred as a result of injury - Caused by the act of accused person (H10) Okoro v. State (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 337; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1290) 351

 

EVIDENCE - Murder - Proof - Ingredients - Prosecution must prove that deceased died - And that the death was caused by act of accused - Which was intentional (H2) Chukwu v. State (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3101; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1343) 1

 

EVIDENCE - Narcotic drug - Proof - Prosecution must prove that the substance is cocaine - And that accused was unlawfully in possession of same (H3) Timothy v. FRN (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 313) 2191; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1344) 213

 

EVIDENCE - No case submission - Effect - Once prosecution’s evidence fails to disclose prima facie case against accused - The submission ought to succeed (H3) Ugwu v. State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 4133; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1344) 172

 

EVIDENCE - No case submission - Precondition - The submission is made where there is no evidence - To prove the offence - And where prosecution’s evidence is discredited (H5) Ugwu v. State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 4133; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1344) 172

 

EVIDENCE - Originating summons - Applicability of - Appeal - Concurrent findings that the issues cannot be resolved by affidavits evidence - Were not shown to be perverse (H8) Asogwa v. PDP (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4155; (2013) 7 NWLR (PT.1353) 207

 

EVIDENCE - Petroleum law - Exhibit EE2 - Validity of - The exhibit is invalid - Since the parties cannot by consent - Alter provisions of the Petroleum Act (H7) NNPC v. Famfa Oil Ltd (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1947; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 148

 

EVIDENCE - Pleadings - Averment - Not supported by evidence - Fate - Such averment is deemed abandoned - And is not to be relied upon (H2) Akande v. Adisa (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1681; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1324) 538

 

EVIDENCE - Pleadings - Averments - Denial - Defendant must expressly deny plaintiff’s material averment in statement of claim - Otherwise he will be taken as having admitted same (H6) Oruwari v. Osler (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3941; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1348) 535

 

EVIDENCE - Pleadings ­- Binding nature - Parties are bound by their pleadings - Facts not pleaded go to no issue - And are bound to be discountenanced and expunged from records (H7) Oruwari v. Osler (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3941; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1348) 535

 

EVIDENCE - Presumption - Evidence Act s. 149(d) - Application - The section relates to evidence which could be - And is not produced (H5) Akindipe v. State (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 313) 2047; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1325) 94

 

EVIDENCE - Previous proceedings - Evidence of - Admissibility - Evidence Act s.34(1) - Where issues are the same - Court will admit such evidence - But facts must be pleaded (H1) Ayorinde v. Sogunro (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1895; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1312) 460

 

EVIDENCE - Proof - Beyond reasonable doubt - Meaning - It means prosecution establishing guilt of accused - With compelling evidence which is conclusive (H5) Bassey v. State (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1495; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1314) 209

 

EVIDENCE - Proof - Beyond reasonable doubt - Meaning - This does not mean proof beyond all shadow of doubt - It means establishing the guilt of accused - With compelling evidence (H2) Ugwanyi v. FRN (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1407; (2012) 8 NWLR (PT.1302) 384

 

EVIDENCE - Proof - Burden of - Onus is on prosecution to establish the guilt of accused - Beyond reasonable doubt (H1) Njoku v. State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4519; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1339) 548

 

EVIDENCE - Proof - Burden of - Prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt - And quality of evidence adduced - Determines if the burden has been discharged (H1) Ikaria v. State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4371

 

EVIDENCE - Proof - Confession - Relevance of - Confession is relevant if it proves beyond reasonable doubt - Ingredients of crime for which accused is charged - As well as his identity (H1) Bassey v. State (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1495; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1314) 209

 

EVIDENCE - Proof - Indian hemp - Possession of - Prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt - That the substance is Indian hemp - And that appellant was unlawfully in possession of same (H1) Ugwanyi v. FRN (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1407; (2012) 8 NWLR (PT.1302) 384

 

EVIDENCE - Proof - Number of witness - Prosecution and not defence - Has duty to determine number of witness - Needed to prove a case (H7) Osetola v. State (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2399; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1329) 251

 

EVIDENCE - Proof - Number of witness - Prosecution is not bound to call any number of witnesses - As single credible witness - Can prove a crime even in murder charge (H6) Akindipe v. State (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 313) 2047; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1325) 94

 

EVIDENCE - Proof - Onus - Appellant has duty to prove - That PW3 lacks capacity to remember events - Which makes his evidence unreliable (H9) Haruna v. A-G Federation (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1309; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1306) 419

 

EVIDENCE - Proof - Onus - Evidence Act s. 135 - Plaintiff must prove his case - After which burden shifts to defendant (H6) Ohochukwu v. A-G Rivers State (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 885; (2012) 6 NWLR (PT.1295) 53

 

EVIDENCE - Proof - Standard of - Criminal trial is proved beyond reasonable doubt - And a conviction would not be upset on appeal - If the charge was proved based on the standard (H12) Okoro v. State (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 337; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1290) 351

 

EVIDENCE - Proof beyond reasonable doubt - Meaning - It does not mean proof beyond any degree of doubt - It is based on critical examination of facts and law (H3) Akindipe v. State (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 313) 2047; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1325) 94

 

EVIDENCE - Property - Ownership - Proof - Evidence Act s.146 - Possession of disputed property - Is good title against anyone who cannot prove better title (H5) Afolabi v. Western Steel Works Ltd. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2503; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1329) 286

 

EVIDENCE - Provocation - Proof - Accused must prove that the act was grave and sudden - And that he was deprived of self control - And extent of the retaliation was proportionate to the provocation (H2) Galadima v. State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4339; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1333) 610

 

EVIDENCE - Public Officers Protection Act s. 2(a) - Defence - The defence is available where a person is public officer - And the act was done in execution of his duty (H3) Sulgrave v. FGN (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4565; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1329) 309

 

EVIDENCE - Rape - Corroboration - Relevancy of - Corroboration must be material to the charge - And must be completely credible evidence (H2) Ezigbo v. State (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 314) 2219; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1326) 318

 

EVIDENCE - Rape - Ingredients - Proof - Penal Code s.283 - Prosecution must inter alia prove - That there was penetration - And that the act was done in - Circumstances envisaged under s.282(1) thereof (H1) Ezigbo v. State (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 314) 2219; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1326) 318

 

EVIDENCE - Reevaluation - Justification - When trial court fails to properly evaluate evidence - Appellate court can intervene - And reevaluate such evidence (H5) Tukur v. Uba (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2651; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1343) 90

 

EVIDENCE - Relevance - Adduced evidence - The available evidence show that the school is jointly owned by the parties - In spite of respondent being appointed the proprietor (H2) Adusei v. Adebayo (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 205; (2012) 3 NWLR (PT.1288) 534

 

EVIDENCE - Retracted confession - Weight - Court is to test truthfulness of the confession - By inter alia looking for anything outside the confession - That shows it is true (H5) Osetola v. State (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2399; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1329) 251

 

EVIDENCE - Robbery - Confession - Failure to retract - Where accused did not object to admission of his confession in evidence - There would be no need for extraneous evidence (H4) Bassey v. State (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1495; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1314) 209

 

EVIDENCE - Supreme Court Act s. 22 - The court can evaluate evidence - But has no jurisdiction to correct mistakes made by counsel (H9) Aliucha v. Elechi (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1065

 

EVIDENCE - Tainted witness - Instance - Mere employer/employee relationship - Does not make one a tainted witness - Thus the courts were right in not treating the witnesses as tainted (H8) ACN v. Lamido (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 621; (2012) 8 NWLR (PT.1303) 560

 

EVIDENCE - Torts - Slander - Foreign language - Interpreter - Plaintiff is to prove correctness of the translation of such language to English - By a sworn interpreter brought for that purpose (H8) Oruwari v. Osler (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3941; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1348) 535

 

EVIDENCE - Torts - Slander - Proof - Slander is actionable without proof of damages - Being required of plaintiff to succeed in the action (H5) Oruwari v. Osler (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3941; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1348) 535

 

EVIDENCE - Traditional histories - Conflict - Resolution of - Such histories must be tested by reference to facts in recent years - And by seeing which of them - Is more probable (H6) Purification Tech. Nig. Ltd. v. Jubril (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 313) 2157; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1331) 109

 

EVIDENCE - Tribunals - Land tribunal - Judicial notice of - No evidence is required to prove existence or otherwise of the tribunal - As it is a matter court can take judicial notice of (H5) Akere v. Gov. Oyo State (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3471; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1314) 240

 

EVIDENCE - Unchallenged evidence - Admissibility - Evidence that is not challenged - Is deemed to have been admitted - And court can rely on same (H6) Gov. Zamfara State v. Gyalange (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1535; (2013) 8 NWLR (PT.1357) 462

 

EVIDENCE - Unchallenged evidence - Effect - Such evidence is accepted as proof of fact it seeks to establish - And court is to rely on same (H8) Military Gov. Lagos State v. Adeyiga (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 839; (2012) 5 NWLR (PT.1293) 291

 

EVIDENCE - Unchallenged evidence - Evidence relevant to issue in controversy and is admissible - But has not been contradicted - Is reliable evidence to which probative value ought to be ascribed (H3) Jim-jaja v. COP Rivers State (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3611; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1350) 225

 

EVIDENCE - Undefended list - Determination - Court must consider notice of intention to defend - And examine if plaintiff has established prima facie claim - In the affidavit (H1) Intercontinental Bank Plc v. Brifina Ltd. (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1927; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1316) 1

 

EVIDENCE - Weight - Election petitions - Legal practitioners - Submission - Effect - Counsel’s submission no matter how brilliant - Cannot take the place of legal proof (H8) Aliucha v. Elechi (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1065

 

EVIDENCE - Weight - The fact that evidence is admissible - Does not mean that it has weight - Because same may be of no probative value (H7) Haruna v. A-G Federation (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1309; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1306) 419

 

EVIDENCE - Witnesses - “Tainted witness” - Meaning - The phrase refers to an accomplice - Or witness with some personal motives (H4) Akindipe v. State (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 313) 2047; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1325) 94

 

EVIDENCE - Words & phrase - “Tainted witness” - Meaning - The phrase refers to an accomplice - Or witness with some personal motives (H4) Akindipe v. State (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 313) 2047; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1325) 94

 

EVIDENCE - Words & Phrases - “May” - Meaning - The word is not always “may” - It sometimes may be equivalent to “shall” - Where the context so admits (H4) Ugwanyi v. FRN (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1407; (2012) 8 NWLR (PT.1302) 384

 

EXPERT EVIDENCE - Expert witness - Qualification - Such witness must show skill in the field - In which he is called to give evidence - And the Judge decides whether or not a witness is an expert (H9) Oruwari v. Osler (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3941; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1348) 535

 

FAIR HEARING - Constitution - Limitation period - Effect on right to fair hearing - 1999 Constitution s. 285(7) - Does not deny the right - It provides time frame to exercise same (H3) Amadi v. INEC (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 533; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1345) 595

 

FAIR HEARING - Actions - Application of fair hearing - It applies to live suit - And not to case that is dead by effluxion of time - As in this case (H2) Akpanudoedehe v. Akpabio (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 314) 2211; (2013) 7 NWLR (PT.1354) 485

 

FAIR HEARING - Actions - Nature - Determination of - It is appellant’s claim that determines the nature and competence of a suit - Thus appellant’s claim is for declaration of title - And not breach of fair hearing (H4) Amale v. Sokoto L. G. (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 99; (2012) 5 NWLR (PT.1292) 181

 

FAIR HEARING - Actions - Undefended list - Parties are taken to have been heard - By virtue of affidavits filed - Which are considered by court before deciding to adopt a procedure (H5) Bona.V. Textile Ltd. v. Asaba Textile Mill Plc (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3063; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1338) 357

 

FAIR HEARING - Appeals - Breach - Adjournment - Counsel who fails to utilize opportunity to be heard - Cannot complain of breach of same (H4) Gov. Zamfara State v. Gyalange (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1535; (2013) 8 NWLR (PT.1357) 462

 

FAIR HEARING - Appeals - Breach of fair hearing - Adjournments - Counsel that treated a procedure as regular before trial court - Cannot be heard to object to same on appeal (H4) Military Gov. Lagos State v. Adeyiga (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 839; (2012) 5 NWLR (PT.1293) 291

 

FAIR HEARING - Appeals - Ground - Originating summons - Where reliefs sought cannot be dealt with under that summons - The ground on fair hearing will be struck out (H7) Asogwa v. PDP (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4155; (2013) 7 NWLR (PT.1353) 207

 

FAIR HEARING - Appeals - Grounds of law - Since the nature of the grounds are jurisdictional - And raises issue of fair hearing - 1999 Constitution s. 241(1) is applicable - Hence leave is not required (H2) Lovleen Toys Ind. Ltd. v. Komolafe (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3395; (2013) 14 NWLR (PT.1375) 542

 

FAIR HEARING - Appeals - Issues - Failure to consider - Fair hearing - Litigant can only complain about the failure - Where same is material - And has occasioned miscarriage of justice (H9) African Intn’l Bank Ltd. v. Integrated Dimensional System Ltd. (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1635; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 1

 

FAIR HEARING - Audi alteram partem - Meaning - 1999 Constitution s. 36(1) - The maxim denotes fairness and natural justice - As a Judge must hear both parties before judgment (H3) Audu v. A-G Fed (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3321; (2013) 8 NWLR (PT.1355) 175

 

FAIR HEARING - Audi alteram partem - Meaning - The maxim denotes fairness - As a judge should allow both parties to be heard - Before resolving issue at stake (H8) Emeka v. Okadigbo (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2611; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1331) 55

 

FAIR HEARING - Breach - Adjournments - Where opportunity to present case was granted - But appellants failed to utilize it - They cannot be heard to complain of denial of fair hearing (H3) Military Gov. Lagos State v. Adeyiga (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 839; (2012) 5 NWLR (PT.1293) 291

 

FAIR HEARING - Breach - Allegation of - Appellant by reason of service having been validly effected on him - Cannot be heard to complain that he was not given fair hearing (H8) Barigha v. PDP (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4221; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1349) 108

 

FAIR HEARING - Breach - Allegation of - Party who fails to utilize opportunity given to present his case - Cannot be heard to complain of denial of right to fair hearing (H1) Ajibade v. State (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 2939; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1349) 25

 

FAIR HEARING - Breach - Complaint of - Where opportunities were given to party to present his case - But he failed to utilize same - Then he cannot complain of denial of fair hearing (H4) Chidoka v. First City Finance Co. Ltd. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2585; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1346) 144

 

FAIR HEARING - Breach - Elections - Adjournments - Where opportunity to present case was granted - But appellant failed to utilize it - He cannot be heard to complain of denial of fair hearing (H1) ACN v. Lamido (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 621; (2012) 8 NWLR (PT.1303) 560

 

FAIR HEARING - Court - Reference - Ex parte application for - As a Judge does not give an opinion - Or considers civil rights of parties in making reference - Denial of fair hearing does not arise (H2) Audu v. A-G Fed (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3321; (2013) 8 NWLR (PT.1355) 175

 

FAIR HEARING - Courts - Appeals - It is wrong for court to dismiss an appeal - Without giving audience to counsel in the matter (H1) General Electric Company v. Akande (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1237; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1327) 593

 

FAIR HEARING - Courts - Issues - Suo motu raising - Propriety - Court may raise issues - Provided that parties are given opportunity - Of being heard on the issues so raised (H6) PDP v. Okorocha (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1155; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1323) 205

 

FAIR HEARING - Criminal procedure - Denial - Allegation of - Since appellants chose to conduct their case - Absence of counsel did not affect their case negatively (H4) Offor v. State (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3207; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1333) 421

 

FAIR HEARING - Election petitions - Documents - Failure to annex - Effect - By Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) paragraphs 4(5)(c)41(8) - Such documents shall not be admitted in evidence (H2) ACN v. Lamido (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 621; (2012) 8 NWLR (PT.1303) 560

 

FAIR HEARING - Exceptions - Courts - Issues - Suo motu raising - When an issue is raised suo motu - Parties should be heard before decision is reached on the issue - Save where some exceptions apply (H7) Gbagbarigha v. Toruemi (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4355; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1350) 289

 

FAIR HEARING - Jurisdiction - Issue of - Time to raise - Issue of jurisdiction is a threshold matter - That it can be raised at anytime - Even for the first time in Supreme Court - Provided parties are heard (H2) Emeka v. Okadigbo (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2611; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1331) 55

 

FAIR HEARING - Meaning - Fair hearing entails complying with - Rules of procedure in court - And giving each litigant - An opportunity of being heard (H5) Gov. Zamfara State v. Gyalange (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1535; (2013) 8 NWLR (PT.1357) 462

 

FAIR HEARING - Orders of court - Non suit - Propriety - Parties ought to be given opportunity of being heard - Before the order was made by trial court - Hence Court of Appeal was right to set aside same (H3) Adusei v. Adebayo (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 205; (2012) 3 NWLR (PT.1288) 534

 

FAIR HEARING - Principles - Basis - 1999 Constitution s. 36(1) - Fair hearing is conducting of trial - According to legal rules formulated - To ensure that justice is done to parties (H2) Military Gov. Lagos State v. Adeyiga (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 839; (2012) 5 NWLR (PT.1293) 291

 

FAMILY LAW - Islam - Gestation period - Determination of - Generally a period of six months less five days after consummation of marriage - Is the minimum period of gestation - And the maximum period is five years (H3) Rabiu v. Amadu (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 417; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1337) 36

 

FAMILY LAW - Legitimacy - Child born outside wedlock is not considered legitimate - And if the illicit relationship is established - Appropriate sanctions are given to parties involved (H2) Rabiu v. Amadu (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 417; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1337) 36

 

FAMILY LAW - Paternity - Confirmation of - Paternity under Sharia is quite important - And it is confirmed by marriage - Or by acknowledgement or evidence (H1) Rabiu v. Amadu (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 417; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1337) 36

 

FORGERY - Actions - Criminal act of cross respondent is mere allegation - And under s. 465 Criminal Code - It must be proved beyond reasonable doubt - That exhibit A was forged (H8) Marine Mgt. Asso. v. N.M.A. (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3863; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1333) 506

 

FRAUD - Actions - Crime - Fraud - Proof - Where allegation of commission of crime is an issue - The same must be proved beyond reasonable doubt (H1) Otukpo v. John (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3667; (2012) 7 NWLR (PT.1299) 357

 

FRAUD - Appeals - Issue - Failure to raise - 3rd respondent who did not cross appeal nor file respondent’s notice - Cannot raise issue of fraud which did not arise from ground of appeal (H2) Jim-jaja v. COP Rivers State (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3611; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1350) 225

 

FRAUD - Election petitions - Allegation of crime - Proof - Court of Appeal rightly held that the paragraphs relating to crimes are vague - Since particulars of fraud were not pleaded (H3) PDP v. INEC (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3693; (2012) 7 NWLR (PT.1300) 538

 

FRAUD - Supreme Court - Judgment - Review - The court does not have jurisdiction to alter its decision - Save inter alia where judgment was obtained by fraud - Or is a nullity (H3) TSA Ind. Ltd. v. FBN (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 4055; (2012) 14 NWLR (PT.1320) 326

 

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS - Constitution - Interpretation - Principle - Liberal approach must be adopted in interpreting constitution - Especially fundamental rights provisions (H4) Lafia L.G. v. Gov. Nasarawa State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4385; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 94

 

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS - Constitution - Limitation period - Effect on right to fair hearing - 1999 Constitution s. 285(7) - Does not deny the right - It provides time frame to exercise same (H3) Amadi v. INEC (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 533; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1345) 595

 

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS - Constitutional law - Discrimination based on ethnicity - Courts must review acts of Govt or its agencies - In protection of fundamental rights of the individual (H5) Lafia L.G. v. Gov. Nasarawa State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4385; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 94

 

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS - Courts - Jurisdiction - Trial court can only proceed to enforce a fundamental right of an applicant guaranteed under Chapter IV of Constitution - If the main relief discloses a breach of such right (H2) Amale v. Sokoto L. G. (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 99; (2012) 5 NWLR (PT.1292) 181

 

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS - Damages - Proof - Once appellant proved violation of his fundamental right by respondent - Damages in form of compensation and even apology should follow (H4) Jim-jaja v. COP Rivers State (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3611; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1350) 225

 

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS - Enforcement - Leave - By O. 1 r. 2(2) Fundamental Rights Rules 1979 - Leave must be obtained - Before applicant can enforce the rights (H13) Lafia L.G. v. Gov. Nasarawa State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4385; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 94

 

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS - Rules of court - Delay - Fundamental Right Enforcement Rules O.2 r.2 - Intendment - The order seeks to cure the delay - In enforcement of fundamental rights (H4) Fidelity Bank Plc v. Monye (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1203; (2012) 10 NWLR (PT.1307) 1

 

GOVERNMENT - 1979 Constitution s. 230(1) - Interpretation - “Any of its agencies” - The phrase is interpreted to cover all organs established by law - Through which Federal government carries out its functions (H5) Agbule v. Warri Refinery (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3435; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1350) 318

 

GOVERNMENT - Courts - Federal High Court - Jurisdiction - 1979 Constitution s. 230(1)(q)(r)(s) - The court has exclusive jurisdiction - In any matter affecting the Federal government or any of its agencies (H3) Agbule v. Warri Refinery (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3435; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1350) 318

 

IDENTIFICATION PARADE - Courts - Evidence - To ascribe value to evidence from such parade - Court must inter alia - Consider circumstances in which eyewitness saw the suspect (H7) Adesina v. State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3713; (2012) 14 NWLR (PT.1321) 429

 

IDENTIFICATION PARADE - Purpose - The parade is needed to show that accused actually committed the offence - Save where PW knows accused (H6) Adesina v. State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3713; (2012) 14 NWLR (PT.1321) 429

 

IDENTIFICATION PARADE - Weight - Where quality of evidence arising therefrom is poor - Accused should be acquitted - Unless other evidence abounds in support (H2) Ikaria v. State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4371

 

INJUNCTIONS - Courts - Federal High court - Declaratory and injunctive reliefs - By 1999 Constitution s. 251(1)(r) - Reliefs claimed are within the court’s jurisdiction - Since the COP being also a party - Is a federal government agency (H6) NURTW v. RTEAN (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 149; (2012) 10 NWLR (PT.1307) 170

 

INJUNCTIONS - Courts - National Industrial court - Jurisdiction - By Trade Dispute Act s. 15 - The jurisdiction of the court does not include - Power to make declarations and to order injunctions (H7) NURTW v. RTEAN (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 149; (2012) 10 NWLR (PT.1307) 170

 

INJUNCTIONS - Land law - Title - Proof - Plaintiff must rely on strength of his case - And not on the weakness of the defence (H6) Atanda v. Iliasu (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3015; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1351) 529

 

INJUNCTIONS - Land law - Trespass - Damages - Award of - Where damages are awarded for trespass - And there is claim for injunction - Court will grant same - To prevent multiplicity of actions (H7) Oriorio v. Osain (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 2001; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1327) 560

 

INJUNCTIONS - Mandatory injunction - Grant of - Where injury done to plaintiff cannot be compensated by damages - Court can invoke its equitable jurisdiction and discretion - To grant the injunction (H10) Military Gov. Lagos State v. Adeyiga (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 839; (2012) 5 NWLR (PT.1293) 291

 

INJUNCTIONS - Mareva - Propriety - The order that was made to last for 15 days from 20/04/2000 - Was discharged by passage of time on 02/08/2007 (H3) R-Benkay Nig. Ltd. v. Cadbury Nig. Ltd. (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1383; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1306) 596

 

INJUNCTIONS - Meaning - Injunction is judicial process operating in personam - By which upon certain principles of equity - A party is to do or refrain from doing a thing (H3) Kubor v. Dickson (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3121; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1345) 534

 

INJUNCTIONS - Perpetual injunction - Purpose - The injunction is used to permanently prevent infringement of rights - And avoid multiplicity of suits (H10) Goldmark Nig. Ltd. v. Ibafon Co. Ltd. (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1251; (2012) 10 NWLR (PT.1308) 291

 

INTERESTS - Banking - Claim for interest - Exhibit E - Not pleaded - Since appellant did not plea the exhibit - It is deemed that same was not intended - To guide transaction between the parties (H7) African Intn’l Bank Ltd. v. Integrated Dimensional System Ltd. (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1635; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 1

 

INTERESTS - Contracts - Commercial transaction - Interest on debt - Is not ordinarily payable - In the absence of express - Or implied term in contract (H10) African Intn’l Bank Ltd. v. Integrated Dimensional System Ltd. (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1635; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 1

 

INTERESTS - Courts - Contracts - Award of interest - Court can award interest as consequential order - Even where same is not claimed in writ of summons (H11) African Intn’l Bank Ltd. v. Integrated Dimensional System Ltd. (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1635; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 1

 

INTERNATIONAL LAW - Judgments - ICJ judgment - Effect - Revenue allocation - Disputed 76 oil wells cannot be attributed to plaintiff - Since it is no longer a littoral State - By virtue of the judgment of ICJ (H2) A-G Cross-River State v. A-G Fed. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2717; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1327) 425

 

ISLAMIC LAW - Evidence - Expert evidence - Meaning - It is the opinion which an expert gives - In relation to some scientific or professional matters (H4) Rabiu v. Amadu (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 417; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1337) 36

 

ISLAMIC LAW - Gestation period - Determination of - Generally a period of six months less five days after consummation of marriage - Is the minimum period of gestation - And the maximum period is five years (H3) Rabiu v. Amadu (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 417; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1337) 36

 

ISLAMIC LAW - Legitimacy - Child born outside wedlock is not considered legitimate - And if the illicit relationship is established - Appropriate sanctions are given to parties involved (H2) Rabiu v. Amadu (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 417; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1337) 36

 

ISLAMIC LAW - Paternity - Confirmation of - Paternity under Sharia is quite important - And it is confirmed by marriage - Or by acknowledgement or evidence (H1) Rabiu v. Amadu (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 417; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1337) 36

 

JUDGMENTS - Actions - Academic suit - Meaning - A suit is academic when it is merely theoretical - And of no practical utilitarian value to plaintiff - Even if judgment is given in his favour (H6) NDP v. INEC (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3901; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1350) 392

 

JUDGMENTS - Actions - Cause of action - Meaning - It refers to entire set of facts that give rise to enforceable claim - Comprising of every fact which if traversed - Plaintiff must prove to entitle him to judgment (H1) Lagos State Bulk Purchase Corp. v. Purification Techn. Ltd. (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3829; (2013) 7 NWLR (PT.1352) 82

 

JUDGMENTS - Actions - Jurisdiction - Court processes - Defect in - As the processes have been voided as being nullities - Decisions arising therefrom are nullities (H11) Alawiye v. Ogunsanya (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 2957; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1348) 570

 

JUDGMENTS - Actions - Necessary party - Failure to join - Effect - Presence of such a party is apt for complete adjudication of the matter - And any judgment made behind the party - Will be to no avail (H1) NURTW v. RTEAN (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 149; (2012) 10 NWLR (PT.1307) 170

 

JUDGMENTS - Actions - Reliefs - Statute of limitation - Use of - Party invoking such statute - Is bound to specify reliefs in previous judgment - Which a latter suit seeks to enforce (H1) Purification Tech. Nig. Ltd. v. Jubril (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 313) 2157; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1331) 109

 

JUDGMENTS - Actions - Res judicata - Application - Since the judgment upon which estoppel per rem judicatam was based is void - The doctrine cannot be applied in present suit (H6) Adeyemi-Bero v. L.S.D.P.C. (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3743; (2013) 8 NWLR (PT.1356) 238

 

JUDGMENTS - Affidavits - Conflicts - Resolution - Where affidavits conflict - But there is documentary evidence in support of one - Court must examine it before coming to fair decision (H7) Lafia L.G. v. Gov. Nasarawa State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4385; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 94

 

JUDGMENTS - Appeal - Leave - To appeal against interlocutory decisions - And on grounds that are not of law - Are to be separately secured vide provisions of the Constitution - Failing which offending grounds will be struck out (H2) Asogwa v. PDP (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4155; (2013) 7 NWLR (PT.1353) 207

 

JUDGMENTS - Appeals - Actions - Undefended suit - Defence to - Federal High Court Rules O.3 rr. 11&12 - Failure to comply - Effect - Appellants are deemed to have no defence (H1) MC Invest. Ltd. v. Core Invest. & Capital Market Ltd. (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 314) 2235; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1313) 1

 

JUDGMENTS - Appeals - Challenge - Respondent’s role - His duty is to defend the appeal - But where he is dissatisfied with parts of judgment - A cross appeal should be filed (H8) NNPC v. Famfa Oil Ltd (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1947; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 148

 

JUDGMENTS - Appeals - Concurrent judgments - Supreme Court will interfere - Where the judgments are perverse - Or has occasioned a miscarriage of justice (H15) Ajayi v. Adebiyi (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1843; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1310) 137

 

JUDGMENTS - Appeals - Court of Appeal - Judgment - Deferment of reasons - Where the court is not sitting in final capacity - It cannot defer reasons for its decision (H5) PDP v. Okorocha (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1155; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1323) 205

 

JUDGMENTS - Appeals - Cross appeal - Purpose - Cross appeal is filed by respondent - Who agrees with judgment - But wants to correct errors therein - Or to set aside a crucial finding (H3) Abiola & Sons Bottling Co. Ltd. v. 7Up Bottling Co. Ltd. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2487; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1322) 184

 

JUDGMENTS - Appeals - Cross appeal - Purpose - Cross appeal is filed by respondent seeking to correct errors in judgment - Or to set aside finding which is fundamental to the case (H9) Lafia L.G. v. Gov. Nasarawa State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4385; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 94

 

JUDGMENTS - Appeals - Cross appeal - Purpose - Respondent defends judgment - But where he seeks to correct errors therein - He files a cross appeal (H12) Emeka v. Okadigbo (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2611; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1331) 55

 

JUDGMENTS - Appeals - Deferment of reasons - By 1999 constitution s. 285(7)(8) - Where the appeals are final - Court of Appeal and Supreme Court may give decisions - And reserve the reasons to later date (H3) Abubakar v. Nasamu (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 479; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1330) 407

 

JUDGMENTS - Appeals - Determination - Basis - Supreme Court determines whether Court of Appeal’s judgment was correct - And not really whether its reasons were right or wrong (H2) Afolabi v. Western Steel Works Ltd. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2503; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1329) 286

 

JUDGMENTS - Appeals - Determination - Duty of appellant - Appellant must place before appellate court - All document that is relevant - For determination of his appeal (H4) Osung v. State (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2425; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1332) 256

 

JUDGMENTS - Appeals - Election petitions - Judgment - Validity of - Decision given by the tribunal on 10/08/11 is valid - Since there is no successful appeal against same (H5) ANPP v. Goni (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 701; (2012) 7 NWLR (PT.1298) 147

 

JUDGMENTS - Appeals - Findings of fact - Binding nature - Where there is no appeal - Against a finding upon which judgment is predicated - The finding remains intact (H1) Amale v. Sokoto L. G. (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 99; (2012) 5 NWLR (PT.1292) 181

 

JUDGMENTS - Appeals - Ground - Competence - Ground must challenge the decision of court - And not what court has not decided in its judgment (H1) Ugwu v. State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 4133; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1344) 172

 

JUDGMENTS - Appeals - Ground - Judgment - Counsel should not wrongfully interpret court’s judgment - Just to build a ground of appeal - As ground not derived from lower court’s judgment is incompetent (H3) Asogwa v. PDP (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4155; (2013) 7 NWLR (PT.1353) 207

 

JUDGMENTS - Appeals - Issue - Not considered - Proof - For appellant to succeed - He must show that - Court failed to consider a particular issue in its judgment (H3) Nwakonobi v. Udeorah (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1555; (2013) 7 NWLR (PT.1354) 499

 

JUDGMENTS - Appeals - Issues - Formulation - Appellate court may formulate issues - That serve interest of justice - But it is not bound to decide on every issue (H4) Abiola & Sons Bottling Co. Ltd. v. 7Up Bottling Co. Ltd. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2487; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1322) 184

 

JUDGMENTS - Appeals - Issues must be framed from grounds of appeal - And not from assumption of facts - Not pronounced upon in judgment (H1) Akindipe v. State (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 313) 2047; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1325) 94

 

JUDGMENTS - Appeals - Judgment - Delivered without jurisdiction - Fate - The ruling of the Court of Appeal in an appeal not before it - Is a nullity since it was given without jurisdiction (H2) Aladinma Medicare Ltd v. Reg. Trustees of Overcomers Christian Mission (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 87; (2012) 5 NWLR (PT.1294) 41

 

JUDGMENTS - Appeals - Leave - Raising of fresh issues - Limitation - Fresh issues must be limited to the case as pleaded by parties - And evidence on record in support of their positions - As well as the judgment thereon (H4) Adeosun v. Gov. of Ekiti State (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 1; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1291) 581

 

JUDGMENTS - Appeals - Mistake - It is not every error in judgment - That determines appeal in favour of appellant - As appeal court decides if judgment is correct - And not whether the reasons thereof are correct (H11) Audu v. A-G Fed (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3321; (2013) 8 NWLR (PT.1355) 175

 

JUDGMENTS - Appeals - Notice of appeal - Filing - Time frame - By s.27(2)(b) Supreme Court Act - Criminal appeal to the court must be filed within 30 days from date Court of Appeal delivered its judgment (H5) Okereke v. James (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2385; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1326) 339

 

JUDGMENTS - Appeals - Parties - Interested party - Qualification - Re Ugadu - For such party to appeal - His interest must be genuine and legally recognizable - In respect of a decision which prejudicially affects him (H1) Nwaogu v. Owuala (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3187

 

JUDGMENTS - Appeals - Respondent’s notice - Purpose - The notice is filed where respondent agrees with judgment - But wants same varied or affirmed on other grounds (H13) Emeka v. Okadigbo (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2611; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1331) 55

 

JUDGMENTS - Appeals - Respondent’s role - He is to defend the judgment that is on appeal - And not to assist appellant (H2) Lafia L.G. v. Gov. Nasarawa State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4385; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 94

 

JUDGMENTS - Appeals - Setting aside - Application - By O. 7 r. 12 Court of Appeal Rules - The court rightly entertained the application - For good cause (H7) Barigha v. PDP (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4221; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1349) 108

 

JUDGMENTS - Chieftaincy matters - Evidence - Contradictions - Effect on appeal - It must be shown that trial court - Failed to advert its mind to the contradictions - Before its judgment can be reversed (H2) Taiwo v. Ogundele (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 2027; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1322) 57

 

JUDGMENTS - Conclusion - Precision - Conclusion of judgment must always be very cogent and unambiguous - Capable of easy digestion and execution (H6) Barigha v. PDP (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4221; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1349) 108

 

JUDGMENTS - Courts - Election petitions - Binding nature - Judge is restricted to case presented by parties - In order to avoid rendering perverse judgment (H6) Aliucha v. Elechi (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1065

 

JUDGMENTS - Courts - Pleadings - Failure to raise triable issue - Court can in appropriate case - Draw conclusions from pleadings - And enter judgment for a party (H3) Unity Bank Plc v. Denclag Ltd. (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1427; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1332) 293

 

JUDGMENTS - Criminal procedure - “Judgment” - Meaning - Judgment refers to conviction and sentence - Pronounced upon finding of guilt (H5) Ogboru v. Uduaghan (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1351; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1311) 357

 

JUDGMENTS - Delivery - Basis - Judgment should be based on facts of case decided - As courts are not allowed to apply ratio of a case - With little regard to facts before them (H11) Emeka v. Okadigbo (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2611; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1331) 55

 

JUDGMENTS - Election petition - Tribunal - Appeals - By 1999 Constitution ss. 246 & 318 - The aspect of the Tribunal’s judgment appellant purports to appeal against is not appealable - Since same was not its decision (H1) ACN v. Nyako (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3267

 

JUDGMENTS - Election petitions - Appeals - Courts - Judgments - Reasons - S.C. and C.A. can give their decisions in final appeals under s. 285(8) 1999 Constitution - And reserve reasons thereof (H4) CPC v. Suntai (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3543

 

JUDGMENTS - Election petitions - Appeals - Governorship Election Tribunal - Judgment - Deferment of reasons - 1999 Constitution s. 285(8) - Supreme Court is solely empowered to defer reasons for its judgment - In appeals arising from the tribunal (H2) Ikenya v. PDP (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1139; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1315) 493

 

JUDGMENTS - Election petitions - Appeals - Judgment - Reasons for - Given outside time - Fate - 1999 Constitution s. 285 (7) - The judgment is a nullity (H4) PDP v. Okorocha (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1155; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1323) 205

 

JUDGMENTS - Election petitions - Appeals - National & State Assembly Elections Tribunal - Judgment - Deferment of reasons - 1999 Constitution s. 285(8) - Court of Appeal can defer reasons for its judgment - In appeals arising from the tribunal (H1) Ikenya v. PDP (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1139; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1315) 493

 

JUDGMENTS - Election petitions - Appeals - Notice of Appeal - Filing - Time limit - By para.1 Practice Directions 2011 - Appeal shall be filed within 14 days from the date of decision appealed against (H1) Audu v. Wada (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3039

 

JUDGMENTS - Election petitions - Courts - Appeals - Final judgment - Meaning - Such judgment disposes of rights of parties - And puts an end to the action (H9) Ogboru v. Uduaghan (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1351; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1311) 357

 

JUDGMENTS - Election petitions - Governorship election tribunal - Court of Appeal - Judgment - Reasons for - 1999 Constitution s. 285(7) - Mandates the court to deliver its judgment with reasons - Within 60 days (H11) Ogboru v. Uduaghan (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1351; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1311) 357

 

JUDGMENTS - Election petitions - Gubernatorial election - Appeal - Judgment - Final court - Since C.A. is not final court by virtue of s.233(2)(e)(iv) 1999 Constitution - The judgment is appellable to S.C (H2) CPC v. Suntai (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3543

 

JUDGMENTS - Election petitions - Hearing - 1999 Constitution s. 285(6) - Petition must be heard and judgment delivered within 180 days - From the filing date - And court cannot extend the period (H1) Ugba v. Suswam (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 314) 2345; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1345) 427

 

JUDGMENTS - Election petitions - Judgment - 1999 Constitution s. 285(6) - Once tribunal gives decision within 180 days and aggrieved party appeals - Its time runs until the 180 days shall be exhausted - And appellate court cannot extend the time (H2) Udenwa v. Uzodinma (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 4093; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1346) 94

 

JUDGMENTS - Estoppel by standing-by - Proof - Party must establish that judgment was given against interest of another - Who knowingly did nothing - To safeguard the interest (H1) Nwakonobi v. Udeorah (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1555; (2013) 7 NWLR (PT.1354) 499

 

JUDGMENTS - Evidence - Appeals - Judgment - Contradictions - Effect - It is only substantial inconsistencies in evidence - That can lead to reversal of judgment (H2) Akindipe v. State (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 313) 2047; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1325) 94

 

JUDGMENTS - Evidence - Contradiction - Effect - Contradiction must relate to material fact - Before it can affect judgment of court (H2) Osung v. State (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2425; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1332) 256

 

JUDGMENTS - Evidence - Evaluation - Appeals - Where trial court fails to properly evaluate evidence - Court of Appeal can evaluate - And come to a correct and fair decision to parties (H1) Afolabi v. Western Steel Works Ltd. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2503; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1329) 286

 

JUDGMENTS - Fair hearing - Audi alteram partem - Meaning - 1999 Constitution s. 36(1) - The maxim denotes fairness and natural justice - As a Judge must hear both parties before judgment (H3) Audu v. A-G Fed (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3321; (2013) 8 NWLR (PT.1355) 175

 

JUDGMENTS - ICJ judgment - Effect - Revenue allocation - Disputed 76 oil wells cannot be attributed to plaintiff - Since it is no longer a littoral State - By virtue of the judgment of ICJ (H2) A-G Cross-River State v. A-G Fed. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2717; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1327) 425

 

JUDGMENTS - Judgment debt - Interest payable - Limitation - Bauchi State High Court Rules O.40 r.7 - Application of interest cannot be - Overtaken by effluxion of time (H2) Unity Bank Plc v. Denclag Ltd. (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1427; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1332) 293

 

JUDGMENTS - Jurisdiction - Absence of - Effect - Once court lacks jurisdiction in a suit - Then the proceedings and judgment arising therefrom - Would amount to nullity (H1) Emeka v. Okadigbo (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2611; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1331) 55

 

JUDGMENTS - Land law - Title - Proof of Possession - Previous judgment - Exhibits 16-18 were rightly used - To sustain claim to ownership of the land (H5) Nwakonobi v. Udeorah (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1555; (2013) 7 NWLR (PT.1354) 499

 

JUDGMENTS - Meaning of - Judgment is court’s final determination of - Rights and obligations of parties in a case - And it includes any order from which appeal lies (H2) Ugba v. Suswam (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 314) 2345; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1345) 427

 

JUDGMENTS - Mistake in - Effect - It is not every mistake that vitiates a judgment - As mistake must be substantial - To warrant intervention of appellate court (H5) Eyiboh v. Abia (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4301; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1325) 51

 

JUDGMENTS - Motions - Pending motion - Failure to hear - Effect - Failure of trial court to hear such motion before judgment - Is not always fatal - As Appeal Court should examine the motion (H10) Emeka v. Okadigbo (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2611; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1331) 55

 

JUDGMENTS - Reasons - Need for - Court must give reasons for its decision - In order not to give room to arbitrariness (H7) Ogboru v. Uduaghan (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1351; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1311) 357

 

JUDGMENTS - Res judicata - Appeals - Judgments - Binding effect - Judgment on appeal can operate as res judicata - Provided it has not been upset (H2) Abiola & Sons Bottling Co. Ltd. v. 7Up Bottling Co. Ltd. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2487; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1322) 184

 

JUDGMENTS - Res judicata - Estoppel - Plea - Conditions precedent - For the plea to be sustained - There must be inter alia judicial decision - And that court that heard the matter - Has jurisdiction over parties and subject matter (H1) Abiola & Sons Bottling Co. Ltd. v. 7Up Bottling Co. Ltd. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2487; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1322) 184

 

JUDGMENTS - Stay of execution - Application for - Basis for grant - Applicant must show exceptional circumstances - As court do not usually deprive litigant of his success in a judgment (H1) Amadi v. Chukwu (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2375; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1347) 301

 

JUDGMENTS - Summary judgment - Meaning - The judgment is granted on a claim or defence - Of which there is no genuine issue of material fact - And upon which the mover can prevail as a matter of law (H6) Bona.V. Textile Ltd. v. Asaba Textile Mill Plc (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3063; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1338) 357

 

JUDGMENTS - Supreme Court - Review - For the Court to depart from its previous decision - There must be real likelihood of injustice - That the decision was given per incuriam - And that the issue of public policy is involved (H3) Adeyemi-Bero v. L.S.D.P.C. (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3743; (2013) 8 NWLR (PT.1356) 238

 

JUDGMENTS - Supreme Court - Appeals - Hearing - Supreme Court hears appeals against judgment of Court of Appeal - And not against judgment of High Court (H15) Emeka v. Okadigbo (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2611; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1331) 55

 

JUDGMENTS - Supreme Court - Review - The court does not have jurisdiction to alter its decision - Save inter alia where judgment was obtained by fraud - Or is a nullity (H3) TSA Ind. Ltd. v. FBN (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 4055; (2012) 14 NWLR (PT.1320) 326

 

JUDGMENTS - Valid judgment - Ingredients - Judgment should set out and review action presented by parties - In relation to applicable laws - As well as gives reasons for conclusions reached (H6) Ogboru v. Uduaghan (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1351; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1311) 357

 

JUDGMENTS - Validity - Actions - Statute barred - Limitation Law of Lagos s. 12(2) - Judgment in suit no. LD/1213/76 can be pleaded and relied upon - Though action brought upon same is statute barred (H3) Purification Tech. Nig. Ltd. v. Jubril (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 313) 2157; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1331) 109

 

JUDGMENTS - Validity - Essential requirements - Facts as pleaded by parties must be set out - As well as issues for determination and resolution thereon - And a final order of court (H1) CPC v. Suntai (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3543

 

JUDGMENTS - Words & phrases - “Decision” - Definition - Decision means determination of court or tribunal - Which includes judgment or recommendation (H3) Ogboru v. Uduaghan (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1351; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1311) 357

 

JUDGMENTS - Words & Phrases - Court - “Judgment” - Definition - Judgment is the official and authentic decision of court - Upon rights of parties in an action (H4) Ogboru v. Uduaghan (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1351; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1311) 357

 

JUDGMENTS - Words & phrases - Decision - Meaning - 1999 Constitution s.318 - Decision means any determination of court - Which includes judgment - Decree - Or Order (H5) CPC v. Suntai (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3543

 

JUDGMENTS - Writ of summons - Claim - Basis - Party predicating his relief on the judgment - Should indicate the basis of his claim in writ (H2) Purification Tech. Nig. Ltd. v. Jubril (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 313) 2157; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1331) 109

 

JUDICIAL NOTICE - Tribunals - Land tribunal - No evidence is required to prove existence or otherwise of the tribunal - As it is a matter court can take judicial notice of (H5) Akere v. Gov. Oyo State (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3471; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1314) 240

 

JUDICIAL OFFICERS - National Judicial Council - Powers - 1999 Constitution para. 21(d) of pt.1 of 3rd Schedule - Council can recommend persons for appointment and removal as judicial officers (H9) Elelu-Habeeb v. A-G Federation (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 743; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1318) 423

 

JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS - Jurisdiction - Absence of - Madukolu v. Nkemdilim - In absence of jurisdiction the court will be acting in futility - No matter how well a proceeding is conducted (H6) Agbule v. Warri Refinery (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3435; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1350) 318

 

JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS - Actions - Land law - Lis pendens - Application - Bua v. Dauda - It must be shown inter alia - That suit on the disputed property - Was pending at the time of sale (H1) Oronti v. Onigbanjo (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1825; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1313) 23

 

JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS - Appeals - Decisions - Correctness of - Katto v. C.B.N - Court of Appeal as an intermediate court - Rightly proceeded with the appeal - Even though it ruled that Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction (H7) Elelu-Habeeb v. A-G Federation (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 743; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1318) 423

 

JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS - Appeals - Ground - Format - Complaint on - Propriety - MILAD Benue State v. Ulegede - Such complaint is mere technicality - Where it is not based on contents of the grounds (H1) Ogboru v. Uduaghan (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1351; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1311) 357

 

JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS - Appeals - Ground of law - Determination - Nwadike v. Ibekwe - Ground is of law when inter alia - If Tribunal took into account - Some wrong criteria in reaching its conclusion (H1) Lovleen Toys Ind. Ltd. v. Komolafe (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3395; (2013) 14 NWLR (PT.1375) 542

 

JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS - Armed robbery - Proof - Ikemson v. State - Prosecution must proof beyond reasonable doubt - That appellant participated in the robbery (H4) Ikaria v. State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4371

 

JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS - Authorities - Distinction - A-G Plateau State v. A-G Nasarawa State - Since facts of the case law is different from that of present action - Holden therein cannot be relied upon as res judicata (H4) A-G Nasarawa State v. A-G Plateau State (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1011; (2012) 10 NWLR (PT.1309) 419

 

JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS - Authorities - Distinction - Ogwuche v. Mba - The case law is not a precedent - To the present case - Since both cases are predicated on different issues (H2) Fidelity Bank Plc v. Monye (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1203; (2012) 10 NWLR (PT.1307) 1

 

JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS - Chieftaincy matters - Rule in Kojo v. Bonsie - Application - The rule is not applicable to present case - That requires strict prove of native law (H1) Taiwo v. Ogundele (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 2027; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1322) 57

 

JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS - Confession - Weight - Test of - Judge must apply the six tests in R v. Sykes - While determining weight to be attached to confession (H5) Oseni v. State (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 953; (2012) 5 NWLR (PT.1293) 351

 

JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS - Court processes - Abuse - Characteristics - Saraki v. Kotoye - Abuse arises in improper use of judicial process by party - To interfere with due administration of justice (H2) TSA Ind. Ltd. v. FBN (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 4055; (2012) 14 NWLR (PT.1320) 326

 

JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS - Court processes - Originating summons - Application - Doherty v. Doherty - The summons is not available for actions - Where the facts are in dispute - And can be used in interpretation of contracts documents Constitution (H6) Elelu-Habeeb v. A-G Federation (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 743; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1318) 423

 

JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS - Courts - Competence - Basis - Madukolu v. Nkemdilim - Court is competent when it is properly constituted - With the subject matter within its jurisdiction - And the case initiated by due process of law (H3) Emeka v. Okadigbo (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2611; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1331) 55

 

JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS - Courts - Competence - Madukolu v. Nkemdilim - Court is competent to entertain a case - When it has unfettered jurisdiction over the subject matter - With a properly constituted judicial membership (H2) Elelu-Habeeb v. A-G Federation (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 743; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1318) 423

 

JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS - Courts - Issues - Determination of - Cookey v. Fombo - Court must consider properly raised issues - And must reflect the result of such an exercise (H3) Aliucha v. Elechi (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1065

 

JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS - Criminal procedure - Discharge of accused - Effect on co-accused - Ebri v State - Where two or more are charged with an offence - With similar evidence adduced against them - Discharge of one must affect the discharge of the others (H8) Okoro v. State (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 337; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1290) 351

 

JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS - Land law - Evidence - Rule in Kojo II v. Bonsie - Application - The rule cannot be applied to present case - Since the traditional evidence was conclusive (H4) Ayorinde v. Sogunro (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1895; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1312) 460

 

JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS - Land law - Title - Proof - Idundun v. Okumagba - Title to land can be proved by traditional evidence - Documents of title - Acts of ownership - Acts of long possession - And possession of adjacent land (H1) Osidele v. Sokunbi (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2857; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1324) 470

 

JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS - Statutes - Interpretation - Role of Judge - FBN v. Mainada - A Judge should be firm and pungent in interpretation of law - But should be short of being a legislator (H1) Adeyemi-Bero v. L.S.D.P.C. (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3743; (2013) 8 NWLR (PT.1356) 238

 

JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS - Statutes - Interpretation - States Creation & Transitional Provisions Act s.7(1) - A-G Ondo State v. A-G Ekiti State - Since the enabling provision is unambiguous - Same should be given its ordinary meaning (H1) A-G Nasarawa State v. A-G Plateau State (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1011; (2012) 10 NWLR (PT.1309) 419

 

JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS - Statutes - Rights - Creation of - Barraclough v. Brown - Where statute creates new right - That is dependent on the statute - Both the right and remedy thereof must be linked (H2) Gov. Zamfara State v. Gyalange (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1535; (2013) 8 NWLR (PT.1357) 462

 

JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS - Supreme Court - Judicial precedent - Binding nature of - The court is bound by its previous decision - Where facts and laws in the earlier case - Are similar to cases being determined (H2) Braithwaite v. Sky Bank Plc (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3087; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1346) 1

 

JURISDICTION - Absence of - Effect - Court must first decide on its jurisdiction - Because if it lacks same - Its proceedings would amount to nullity (H2) Dangana v. Usman (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 577; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1349) 50

 

JURISDICTION - Absence of - Effect - Once court lacks jurisdiction in a suit - Then the proceedings and judgment arising therefrom - Would amount to nullity (H1) Emeka v. Okadigbo (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2611; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1331) 55

 

JURISDICTION - Absence of - Effect - Where court lacks jurisdiction in a case - The proceedings therein remain nullity ab initio (H2) Goldmark Nig. Ltd. v. Ibafon Co. Ltd. (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1251; (2012) 10 NWLR (PT.1308) 291

 

JURISDICTION - Absence of - Madukolu v. Nkemdilim - In absence of jurisdiction the court will be acting in futility - No matter how well a proceeding is conducted (H6) Agbule v. Warri Refinery (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3435; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1350) 318

 

JURISDICTION - Absence of - Without jurisdiction - A court is incapacitated - As any decision it reaches creates no obligation (H5) Okadigbo v. Emeka (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 181; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1311) 237

 

JURISDICTION - Actions - Cause of action - Applicable law is the law in force at the time cause of action arose - And not the law at the time the jurisdiction of court is invoked (H5) Lagos State Bulk Purchase Corp. v. Purification Techn. Ltd. (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3829; (2013) 7 NWLR (PT.1352) 82

 

JURISDICTION - Actions - Commencement - Court processes - Failure to commence action with valid processes - Affects exercise of court’s jurisdiction in the matter (H1) Braithwaite v. Sky Bank Plc (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3087; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1346) 1

 

JURISDICTION - Actions - Courts - Competence - Basis - Court’s competence in a case depends on - The suit being initiated by due process of law - Before a properly constituted panel - With no feature preventing exercise of jurisdiction (H2) Egunjobi v. FRN (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4259; (2013) 3 NWLR (PT.1342) 534

 

JURISDICTION - Actions - Declaratory action - Purpose - Such action is to seek equitable relief - Whereby plaintiff prays court to exercise its jurisdiction - By declaring existing state of affairs in his favour (H3) A-G Cross-River State v. A-G Fed. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2717; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1327) 425

 

JURISDICTION - Actions - Fundamental nature of jurisdiction - Once the issue is raised - Court must not order against defendant - Until the issue is settled (H12) Ajayi v. Adebiyi (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1843; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1310) 137

 

JURISDICTION - Actions - Judgments - Court processes - Defect in - As the processes have been voided as being nullities - Decisions arising therefrom are nullities (H11) Alawiye v. Ogunsanya (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 2957; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1348) 570

 

JURISDICTION - Actions - Locus standi - Absence of - Effect - The suit is incompetent - And court lacks jurisdiction to entertain same - Save to give an order of dismissal (H10) Ajayi v. Adebiyi (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1843; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1310) 137

 

JURISDICTION - Actions - Waiver - Instance of - Waiver of procedural jurisdiction occurs - When a litigant submits to jurisdiction of court - In spite of his misgiving of initiating process (H2) Nagogo v. CPC (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4441; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1339) 448

 

JURISDICTION - Appeals - Court of Appeal - Jurisdiction - Where the court lacks jurisdiction over an appeal - It should nonetheless proceed to hear same on merits - So as to give Supreme Court benefit of its opinion - Thereby avoiding waste of judicial time (H2) Stowe v. Benstowe (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 457; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1306) 450

 

JURISDICTION - Appeals - Court of Appeal - Powers - By s.15 of Court of Appeal Act - The court is empowered to assume jurisdiction - Where trial court erroneously declines jurisdiction (H3) Peretu v. Gariga (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4543; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1348) 415

 

JURISDICTION - Appeals - Courts - Issue - As there is no appeal on issue of jurisdiction - Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to reopen the issue - Already settled by trial court (H4) Akere v. Gov. Oyo State (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3471; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1314) 240

 

JURISDICTION - Appeals - Decisions - Correctness of - Katto v. C.B.N - Court of Appeal as an intermediate court - Rightly proceeded with the appeal - Even though it ruled that Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction (H7) Elelu-Habeeb v. A-G Federation (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 743; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1318) 423

 

JURISDICTION - Appeals - Grounds of law - Since the nature of the grounds are jurisdictional - And raises issue of fair hearing - 1999 Constitution s. 241(1) is applicable - Hence leave is not required (H2) Lovleen Toys Ind. Ltd. v. Komolafe (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3395; (2013) 14 NWLR (PT.1375) 542

 

JURISDICTION - Appeals - Judgment - Delivered without jurisdiction - Fate - The ruling of the Court of Appeal in an appeal not before it - Is a nullity since it was given without jurisdiction (H2) Aladinma Medicare Ltd v. Reg. Trustees of Overcomers Christian Mission (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 87; (2012) 5 NWLR (PT.1294) 41

 

JURISDICTION - Appeals - Motions - Determination - Court of Appeal not being final court - Rightly determined on merit the motion it struck out - In case its decision on same is faulted on appeal (H2) Bala v. Dikko (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3049; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1343) 52

 

JURISDICTION - Appeals - Objection - Issue of jurisdiction is constitutional and a matter of law - Hence appellant needed no leave to raise same (H1) Agbule v. Warri Refinery (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3435; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1350) 318

 

JURISDICTION - Appeals - Striking out - Suo motu striking out - Correctness of - Appellate court has jurisdiction - To summarily dismiss appeal for want of prosecution - Without any application by respondent (H3) Nigerian Navy v. Labinjo (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 313) 2135; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 56

 

JURISDICTION - Appeals - Supreme Court - Fresh issue on jurisdiction - Leave - Leave must be obtained - To raise the issue for the first time - In Supreme Court (H10) Alawiye v. Ogunsanya (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 2957; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1348) 570

 

JURISDICTION - Appeals - Supreme Court - Issue of jurisdiction can be raised any time even before Supreme Court - And court can suo motu raise same - But parties must be heard before decision is taken (H4) Egunjobi v. FRN (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4259; (2013) 3 NWLR (PT.1342) 534

 

JURISDICTION - Banking - Failed banks tribunal - Crime - By s.3(1)(b)(c)(d) of Decree No.18 1994 - The tribunal can try new offences specified under Pt.111 - As well as existing offences under other enactments (H5) Egunjobi v. FRN (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4259; (2013) 3 NWLR (PT.1342) 534

 

JURISDICTION - Challenge to - Court must first consider whether or not it has jurisdiction - As a defect in same - Renders the proceedings a nullity (H14) Ajayi v. Adebiyi (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1843; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1310) 137

 

JURISDICTION - Constitution - Time fixed - Adherence - Such time cannot be extended beyond constitutional provisions - And non compliance robs court of jurisdiction over an action (H4) ANPP v. Goni (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 701; (2012) 7 NWLR (PT.1298) 147

 

JURISDICTION - Courts - Absence of - Proper order to make - Where a court lacks jurisdiction - It should give an order striking out the matter (H7) Dangana v. Usman (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 577; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1349) 50

 

JURISDICTION - Courts - Actions - Commencement procedure - Since originating summons cannot properly initiate the matter - Court can convert the summons and order pleadings (H4) Atago v. Nwuche (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 2995; (2013) 3 NWLR (PT.1341) 337

 

JURISDICTION - Courts - Actions - Jurisdiction - Determination - Existing law - The law in force at time of trial - Based on cause of action - Determines court with jurisdiction (H6) Goldmark Nig. Ltd. v. Ibafon Co. Ltd. (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1251; (2012) 10 NWLR (PT.1308) 291

 

JURISDICTION - Courts - Actions - Need to determine on merit - Court must jealously guard its jurisdiction - To hear and determine a case on the merits (H1) Adepoju v. Yinka (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 37; (2012) 3 NWLR (PT.1288) 567

 

JURISDICTION - Courts - Appeals - Jurisdiction - Determination - Trial or appellate court must first determine - Whether or not it has jurisdiction over matter - Presented to it for adjudication (H2) Akere v. Gov. Oyo State (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3471; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1314) 240

 

JURISDICTION - Courts - Banking matters - 1979 Constitution s. 230(1)(d) - The section does not confer exclusive jurisdiction on Federal High Court (H1) Merill Guaranty Savings & Loan Ltd. v. Worldgate Building Society Ltd. (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1331; (2013) 1 NWLR (PT.1336) 581

 

JURISDICTION - Courts - Chief Magistrate court - Powers - Penal Code s.78 & CPC s.365(1) - It must be shown inter alia that offence for which accused was charged - Is within jurisdiction of the court (H3) Martins v. COP (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3167; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1343) 25

 

JURISDICTION - Courts - Competence - Basis - Court is competent in a suit - When it is properly constituted - The subject matter being within its jurisdiction - And the case is initiated by due process of law (H12) Lafia L.G. v. Gov. Nasarawa State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4385; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 94

 

JURISDICTION - Courts - Competence - Basis - Madukolu v. Nkemdilim - Court is competent when it is properly constituted - With the subject matter within its jurisdiction - And the case initiated by due process of law (H3) Emeka v. Okadigbo (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2611; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1331) 55

 

JURISDICTION - Courts - Competence - Court is competent to entertain a case - When it has unfettered jurisdiction over the subject matter - With a properly constituted judicial membership (H3) Dangana v. Usman (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 577; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1349) 50

 

JURISDICTION - Courts - Competence - Madukolu v. Nkemdilim - Court is competent to entertain a case - When it has unfettered jurisdiction over the subject matter - With a properly constituted judicial membership (H2) Elelu-Habeeb v. A-G Federation (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 743; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1318) 423

 

JURISDICTION - Courts - Competence of - A court is competent to entertain a case - When the subject matter of the action is within its jurisdiction - And the action is initiated by due process of law (H3) NURTW v. RTEAN (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 149; (2012) 10 NWLR (PT.1307) 170

 

JURISDICTION - Courts - Determination of - Basis - Jurisdiction is determined by plaintiff’s statement of claim - And not by statement of defence (H3) Elelu-Habeeb v. A-G Federation (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 743; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1318) 423

 

JURISDICTION - Courts - Determination of - Principles - Jurisdiction inter alia is a matter of substantive law - Which cannot be conferred on court by litigant - Where statute has not vested same (H4) Dangana v. Usman (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 577; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1349) 50

 

JURISDICTION - Courts - Federal High Court - Jurisdiction - 1979 Constitution s. 230(1)(q)(r)(s) - The court has exclusive jurisdiction - In any matter affecting the Federal government or any of its agencies (H3) Agbule v. Warri Refinery (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3435; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1350) 318

 

JURISDICTION - Courts - Fundamental right - Enforcement of - Trial court can only proceed to enforce a fundamental right of an applicant guaranteed under Chapter IV of Constitution - If the main relief discloses a breach of such right (H2) Amale v. Sokoto L. G. (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 99; (2012) 5 NWLR (PT.1292) 181

 

JURISDICTION - Courts - Judges ought to expound - And not expand jurisdiction conferred on their courts (H4) Elelu-Habeeb v. A-G Federation (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 743; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1318) 423

 

JURISDICTION - Courts - Mandatory injunction - Grant of - Where injury done to plaintiff cannot be compensated by damages - Court can invoke its equitable jurisdiction and discretion - To grant the injunction (H10) Military Gov. Lagos State v. Adeyiga (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 839; (2012) 5 NWLR (PT.1293) 291

 

JURISDICTION - Courts - National Industrial court - Jurisdiction - By Trade Dispute Act s. 15 - The jurisdiction of the court does not include - Power to make declarations and to order injunctions (H7) NURTW v. RTEAN (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 149; (2012) 10 NWLR (PT.1307) 170

 

JURISDICTION - Courts - Objection - Touching on powers of court - Need to decide - Court must first have the objection disposed of - Since entertaining a matter when court has no vires - Will be a mere academic exercise (H1) Okadigbo v. Emeka (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 181; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1311) 237

 

JURISDICTION - Courts - Ouster clause - For jurisdiction of court to be ousted - Ambiguity or doubt in statute should not be entertained (H5) Olaleye-ote v. Babalola (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3637; (2012) 6 NWLR (PT.1297) 574

 

JURISDICTION - Courts - Raising suo motu - Propriety - Where there is clear want of jurisdiction in the court - It is the duty of the judge to raise the issue suo motu - If the parties fail to do so (H7) Amale v. Sokoto L. G. (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 99; (2012) 5 NWLR (PT.1292) 181

 

JURISDICTION - Courts - Source of - It is derived from the Constitution and statutes creating a court - Hence court and parties cannot assume jurisdiction by agreement (H1) Dangana v. Usman (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 577; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1349) 50

 

JURISDICTION - Courts - Undefended list - Transfer to general list - Anambra State High Court Rules O. 24 r. 9(5) - At any stage of the proceedings - Court can order the suit to be so transferred (H3) Intercontinental Bank Plc v. Brifina Ltd. (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1927; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1316) 1

 

JURISDICTION - Definition - Jurisdiction is court’s power to decide case or issue a decree - And it is the charge before court - That determines the jurisdiction thereof (H1) Egunjobi v. FRN (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4259; (2013) 3 NWLR (PT.1342) 534

 

JURISDICTION - Definition - Jurisdiction is the limit imposed on power of court - To determine issues between persons - Seeking to avail themselves of its process (H1) Goldmark Nig. Ltd. v. Ibafon Co. Ltd. (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1251; (2012) 10 NWLR (PT.1308) 291

 

JURISDICTION - Determination - Basis - It is plaintiff’s claim as stated in originating processes - That determines jurisdiction of court (H4) Uwazurike v. Nwachukwu (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3249; (2013) 3 NWLR (PT.1342) 503

 

JURISDICTION - Determination - Basis - It is plaintiff’s claim that determines - And vests jurisdiction in court (H2) Ports & Cargo Handlings Services Ltd. v. Migfo Nig. Ltd. (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 314) 2297; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1333) 555

 

JURISDICTION - Determination - Basis - It is plaintiff’s claim that determines jurisdiction - As can be seen in present case - From claims in the originating process (H7) Emeka v. Okadigbo (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2611; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1331) 55

 

JURISDICTION - Determination - Basis - Jurisdiction is determined by plaintiff’s claim - Which should carefully be examined (H4) Gbagbarigha v. Toruemi (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4355; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1350) 289

 

JURISDICTION - Determination - Basis - Jurisdiction of court is determined by plaintiff’s claim - As can be seen from the paragraphs of the statement of claim (H4) Agbule v. Warri Refinery (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3435; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1350) 318

 

JURISDICTION - Determination of - Basis - Court must consider deposed facts in affidavits - Writ of summons and statement of claim (H11) Ajayi v. Adebiyi (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1843; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1310) 137

 

JURISDICTION - Determination of - Basis - It is the claim of plaintiff - That court should examine to determine whether or not it has jurisdiction - To entertain the action (H4) NURTW v. RTEAN (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 149; (2012) 10 NWLR (PT.1307) 170

 

JURISDICTION - Determination of - Basis - Jurisdiction is determined by plaintiff’s claim - As endorsed in the writ of summons - And statement of claim (H3) Goldmark Nig. Ltd. v. Ibafon Co. Ltd. (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1251; (2012) 10 NWLR (PT.1308) 291

 

JURISDICTION - Determination of - Basis - Jurisdiction of court is resolved - By examining the writ of summons - And statement of claim (H7) PDP v. Sylva (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1575; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1316) 85

 

JURISDICTION - Election petitions - Appeals - Court of Appeal - By 1999 Constitution s. 246(3) - It shall be the final court - In respect of appeals arising from National Assembly election petition tribunal (H6) Dangana v. Usman (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 577; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1349) 50

 

JURISDICTION - Election petitions - Court of Appeal - By 1999 Constitution s. 246(3) - Court of Appeal is the final court - In appeal arising from National Assembly Election Petition Tribunal (H3) Okadigbo v. Emeka (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 181; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1311) 237

 

JURISDICTION - Election petitions - Precondition - For valid exercise of jurisdiction - Witness statements are to accompany the petition to be filed (H4) Gundiri v. Nyako (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3341

 

JURISDICTION - Election petitions - Supreme Court - By 1999 constitution s. 233(2)(e)(iv) as amended - Decisions of Court of Appeal on who is validly elected as Governor - Is now appealable (H1) Abubakar v. Nasamu (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 479; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1330) 407

 

JURISDICTION - Election petitions - Tribunal - 1999 Constitution s. 285(6) - Non compliance with - Effect - Jurisdiction of tribunal lapses - And same cannot be conferred by court order (H2) ANPP v. Goni (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 701; (2012) 7 NWLR (PT.1298) 147

 

JURISDICTION - Election petitions -Court of Appeal - By 1999 constitution s. 246(3) - Appeals arising from National and State House of Assembly election petition tribunal - Terminates at Court of Appeal (H2) Abubakar v. Nasamu (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 479; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1330) 407

 

JURISDICTION - Elections - Courts - Pre-election matter - Court can determine whether a political party - In taking any action - Complied with or violated its own constitution (H1) Peretu v. Gariga (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4543; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1348) 415

 

JURISDICTION - Elections - Political party’s primary - Failure to participate - Since appellant did not take part in the valid primary - He cannot validly - Activate jurisdiction of court (H6) Emenike v. PDP (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1717; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1315) 556

 

JURISDICTION - Elections - Pre election matters - Courts - By virtue of Electoral Act s.87(9) - Courts can entertain complaints of aggrieved party - At primary election (H6) Emeka v. Okadigbo (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2611; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1331) 55

 

JURISDICTION - Elections - Pre-election matters - Courts - Jurisdiction - Joinder of electorates - Electorates cannot be rightly joined - In suit involving candidates in primary election (H2) Nwaogu v. Owuala (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3187

 

JURISDICTION - Federal High Court - 1999 Constitution s. 251(1)(q) - The court has jurisdiction over actions - Involving Federal Government or any of its agencies (H5) Elelu-Habeeb v. A-G Federation (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 743; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1318) 423

 

JURISDICTION - Federal High Court - 1999 Constitution s.251 - Confers exclusive jurisdiction to the court - Over items listed therein (H8) PDP v. Sylva (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1575; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1316) 85

 

JURISDICTION - Federal High court - Declaratory and injunctive reliefs - By 1999 Constitution s. 251(1)(r) - Reliefs claimed are within the court’s jurisdiction - Since the COP being also a party - Is a federal government agency (H6) NURTW v. RTEAN (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 149; (2012) 10 NWLR (PT.1307) 170

 

JURISDICTION - Fundamental nature - Once issue of jurisdiction is raised - It must be resolved - Before further step is taken in a matter (H2) Oriorio v. Osain (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 2001; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1327) 560

 

JURISDICTION - Fundamental nature - Once issue of jurisdiction is raised - Court must determine same - Before proceeding with the matter on merit (H3) Uwazurike v. Nwachukwu (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3249; (2013) 3 NWLR (PT.1342) 503

 

JURISDICTION - Fundamental nature - Once issue of jurisdiction is raised - Same must be determined - Since if court proceeds without jurisdiction - The proceedings would amount to a nullity (H10) Lafia L.G. v. Gov. Nasarawa State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4385; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 94

 

JURISDICTION - Fundamental nature - Where court has no jurisdiction - Any action it takes will be a nullity - Notwithstanding that the proceeding was well conducted (H1) Akere v. Gov. Oyo State (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3471; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1314) 240

 

JURISDICTION - Fundamental nature - Where court lacks jurisdiction over a matter - The entire proceedings amount to nullity - No matter how well conducted (H1) Gbagbarigha v. Toruemi (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4355; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1350) 289

 

JURISDICTION - Fundamental nature of - Court cannot deal with a matter without jurisdiction - As absence of same renders proceedings therein a nullity (H3) Alawiye v. Ogunsanya (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 2957; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1348) 570

 

JURISDICTION - Fundamentality of - It is to be determined at earliest opportunity - Because if a court lacks jurisdiction over a case - The proceeding remains a nullity ab initio - No matter how well conducted (H2) NURTW v. RTEAN (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 149; (2012) 10 NWLR (PT.1307) 170

 

JURISDICTION - Fundamentality of - Jurisdiction should be determined when raised - Since if court lacks jurisdiction in a matter - The proceedings thereof remain a nullity ab initio (H3) Egunjobi v. FRN (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4259; (2013) 3 NWLR (PT.1342) 534

 

JURISDICTION - Interpretation - Ouster clause - As Decree 21 of 1996 contains such clause - Effect must be given to the clause - And court is to decline jurisdiction (H4) Adeyemi-Bero v. L.S.D.P.C. (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3743; (2013) 8 NWLR (PT.1356) 238

 

JURISDICTION - Issue of - Time to raise - Issue of jurisdiction is a threshold matter - That it can be raised at anytime - Even for the first time in Supreme Court - Provided parties are heard (H2) Emeka v. Okadigbo (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2611; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1331) 55

 

JURISDICTION - Issue of - Time to raise - Jurisdiction can be raised at any stage of proceedings - Even for first time in Supreme Court (H7) Alawiye v. Ogunsanya (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 2957; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1348) 570

 

JURISDICTION - Issue of - Time to raise - Jurisdiction can be raised at any stage of proceedings - Even on appeal up to Supreme Court (H2) Gbagbarigha v. Toruemi (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4355; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1350) 289

 

JURISDICTION - Issue of - Time to raise - Jurisdiction can be raised at anytime - Even for first time in Supreme Court - And can be raised suo motu by court - Provided counsel are heard (H11) Lafia L.G. v. Gov. Nasarawa State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4385; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 94

 

JURISDICTION - Issue of - When to raise - It can be raised at any stage in trial court or on appeal - And can be raised by any party or suo motu by the court (H6) Amale v. Sokoto L. G. (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 99; (2012) 5 NWLR (PT.1292) 181

 

JURISDICTION - Land law - Customary court - Jurisdiction - The value of land does not have to be stated in Grade A Customary Court - Since jurisdiction of the court is not limited - By value of the disputed land (H2) Olaleye-ote v. Babalola (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3637; (2012) 6 NWLR (PT.1297) 574

 

JURISDICTION - Legislation - Amendment - Effect on right of action - Decree No.107 of 1993 - An existing right is not lost - Where new law transfers jurisdiction of court (H5) Goldmark Nig. Ltd. v. Ibafon Co. Ltd. (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1251; (2012) 10 NWLR (PT.1308) 291

 

JURISDICTION - Manner of raising - Jurisdiction is raised by motion on notice in High Court - And by inclusion in ground of appeal in Court of Appeal and Supreme Court (H3) Gbagbarigha v. Toruemi (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4355; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1350) 289

 

JURISDICTION - Objection - Basis - Objection can be taken on statement of claim - Evidence received - Facts deposed in affidavits - And on writ of summons (H13) Ajayi v. Adebiyi (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1843; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1310) 137

 

JURISDICTION - Objections - Basis - Objections to jurisdiction can inter alia - Be raised on the basis of statement of claim - And evidence received (H4) Goldmark Nig. Ltd. v. Ibafon Co. Ltd. (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1251; (2012) 10 NWLR (PT.1308) 291

 

JURISDICTION - Orders of court - Prejudice - Order made without jurisdiction - It is advisable but not mandatory for court to set such order aside - But it is better ignored where no one is prejudiced by same (H11) Okoro v. State (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 337; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1290) 351

 

JURISDICTION - Politics - Elections - Nomination of candidates - Jurisdiction of court - Court can inquire whether - Nomination complied with Electoral Act - And political party’s constitution (H5) Emenike v. PDP (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1717; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1315) 556

 

JURISDICTION - Politics - Elections - Political parties - Nomination of candidates - Right to nominate candidates at election - Resides with political parties - And court has no jurisdiction over same (H5) PDP v. Sylva (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1575; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1316) 85

 

JURISDICTION - Politics - Pre election matters - Courts - Electoral Act 2010 s.87(9) - Confers jurisdiction on courts - Where political party fails - To comply with its constitution - In primary elections (H6) PDP v. Sylva (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1575; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1316) 85

 

JURISDICTION - Res judicata - Estoppel - Plea - Conditions precedent - For the plea to be sustained - There must be inter alia judicial decision - And that court that heard the matter - Has jurisdiction over parties and subject matter (H1) Abiola & Sons Bottling Co. Ltd. v. 7Up Bottling Co. Ltd. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2487; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1322) 184

 

JURISDICTION - Source - Basis - Jurisdiction is a creation of statutes - And same is neither inherent in appellate court - Nor can it be conferred by court order (H3) ANPP v. Goni (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 701; (2012) 7 NWLR (PT.1298) 147

 

JURISDICTION - Sources - Basis - Jurisdiction is granted by statute or Constitution - Hence no court can confer same on itself (H4) Ugba v. Suswam (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 314) 2345; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1345) 427

 

JURISDICTION - Statutes - Federal High Court - Jurisdiction - Admiralty Jurisdiction Act s. 1(3) - Jurisdiction of the court cannot be expanded - By virtue of the clear provision of the Act (H4) Ports & Cargo Handlings Services Ltd. v. Migfo Nig. Ltd. (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 314) 2297; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1333) 555

 

JURISDICTION - Suo motu raising - Correctness of - Court has duty to raise issue - Regarding whether or not it has jurisdiction - To entertain a matter (H1) Emenike v. PDP (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1717; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1315) 556

 

JURISDICTION - Supreme Court - Appeals - Amendment of record - Supreme Court Act s.22 - The court has power to amend record - Where it is satisfied that there are accidental slips and omissions (H9) NNPC v. Famfa Oil Ltd (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1947; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 148

 

JURISDICTION - Supreme Court - Appeals - Determination - The court has no jurisdiction to sit on appeal from Chief Magistrate court - But sits on appeal from Court of Appeal (H1) Martins v. COP (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3167; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1343) 25

 

JURISDICTION - Supreme Court - Elections - S.22 of Supreme Court Act - The section cannot be invoked - Since courts have no power - To question nomination of candidates for election (H9) PDP v. Sylva (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1575; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1316) 85

 

JURISDICTION - Supreme Court - Equity jurisdiction - Applicability - The court will consider the motive and intention of the parties - So as to give effect to what was proved but was not awarded in law - Because it was not specifically claimed (H4) Adusei v. Adebayo (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 205; (2012) 3 NWLR (PT.1288) 534

 

JURISDICTION - Supreme Court - Judgment - Review - The court does not have jurisdiction to alter its decision - Save inter alia where judgment was obtained by fraud - Or is a nullity (H3) TSA Ind. Ltd. v. FBN (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 4055; (2012) 14 NWLR (PT.1320) 326

 

JURISDICTION - Supreme Court - Original jurisdiction - Parties - 1999 Constitution s. 232(1) - The court sits on disputes bordering on extent of legal right - Between Federal and State(s) Government - Or between States Government (H3) A-G Rivers State v. A-G Bayelsa State (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2519; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1340) 123

 

JURISDICTION - Supreme Court Act s. 22 - The court can evaluate evidence - But has no jurisdiction to correct mistakes made by counsel (H9) Aliucha v. Elechi (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1065

 

JUSTICE - Actions - Commencement procedure - Competence - Form of commencement does not make an action incompetent - As what is important is the justice of the case (H3) Atago v. Nwuche (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 2995; (2013) 3 NWLR (PT.1341) 337

 

JUSTICE - Appeals - Concurrent findings - Arowolo v. Ifabiyi - Supreme Court does not interfere - Except there is miscarriage of justice - Or violation of principles of law or procedure (H3) Peterside v. Fubara (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3969; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1349) 156

 

JUSTICE - Appeals - Concurrent findings - Supreme Court does not interfere - Save where the findings are perverse - Or there was a miscarriage of justice (H8) Pacers Multi-Dynamics Ltd v. The M.V. Dancing Sister (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 385; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1289) 169

 

JUSTICE - Appeals - Concurrent findings - Supreme Court does not interfere - Save where there is substantial error - Such as miscarriage of justice (H10) Aliucha v. Elechi (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1065

 

JUSTICE - Appeals - Concurrent findings - Supreme Court does not interfere - Save where the findings are perverse - Or there was a miscarriage of justice (H5) Ugwanyi v. FRN (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1407; (2012) 8 NWLR (PT.1302) 384

 

JUSTICE - Appeals - Concurrent findings - Supreme Court will not interfere - Since the findings are not perverse - And there was no miscarriage of justice (H7) Ayorinde v. Sogunro (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1895; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1312) 460

 

JUSTICE - Appeals - Concurrent findings - Supreme Court will not interfere - Since the findings did not cause a miscarriage of justice (H1) Rabiu v. Adebajo (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 314) 2329; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1322) 125

 

JUSTICE - Appeals - Concurrent judgments - Supreme Court will interfere - Where the judgments are perverse - Or has occasioned a miscarriage of justice (H15) Ajayi v. Adebiyi (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1843; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1310) 137

 

JUSTICE - Appeals - Enlargement of time - Discretion - Basis - Doing substantial justice to the parties - Must be of paramount interest to court (H4) Olatubosun v. Texaco Nig. Plc (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1985; (2012) 14 NWLR (PT.1319) 200

 

JUSTICE - Appeals - Enlargement of time - Exercise of discretion - Interference - Appellate courts do not interfere - Save where discretion was based on wrong principle of law - Or it occasioned miscarriage of justice (H2) Olatubosun v. Texaco Nig. Plc (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1985; (2012) 14 NWLR (PT.1319) 200

 

JUSTICE - Appeals - Issues - Formulation - Appellate court may formulate issues - That serve interest of justice - But it is not bound to decide on every issue (H4) Abiola & Sons Bottling Co. Ltd. v. 7Up Bottling Co. Ltd. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2487; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1322) 184

 

JUSTICE - Appeals - Record of appeal - Judicial notice of - Judges are permitted to glean through the records - In order to do substantial justice in appeal (H5) Military Gov. Lagos State v. Adeyiga (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 839; (2012) 5 NWLR (PT.1293) 291

 

JUSTICE - Court processes - Abuse - Characteristics - Abuse features in improper use of judicial process by party - To interfere with due administration of justice (H1) R-Benkay Nig. Ltd. v. Cadbury Nig. Ltd. (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1383; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1306) 596

 

JUSTICE - Court processes - Abuse - Characteristics - Saraki v. Kotoye - Abuse arises in improper use of judicial process by party - To interfere with due administration of justice (H2) TSA Ind. Ltd. v. FBN (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 4055; (2012) 14 NWLR (PT.1320) 326

 

JUSTICE - Courts - Issues - Formulation - Correctness of - Court has discretion to re-arrange issues by parties - To meet the justice of the case (H3) Plateau State Health Serv. Mgt Board v. Goshwe (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3233; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1338) 383

 

JUSTICE - Courts - Statutory adherence - Court should ensure that it is bound by statutory provisions - In order to promote justice (H6) NNPC v. Famfa Oil Ltd (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1947; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 148

 

JUSTICE - Fair hearing - Principles - Basis - 1999 Constitution s. 36(1) - Fair hearing is conducting of trial - According to legal rules formulated - To ensure that justice is done to parties (H2) Military Gov. Lagos State v. Adeyiga (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 839; (2012) 5 NWLR (PT.1293) 291

 

JUSTICE - Miscarriage of - Appeals - Issues - Failure to consider - Fair hearing - Litigant can only complain about the failure - Where same is material - And has occasioned miscarriage of justice (H9) African Intn’l Bank Ltd. v. Integrated Dimensional System Ltd. (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1635; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 1

 

JUSTICE - Miscarriage of justice - Meaning - Miscarriage depends on facts of each case - And it occurs where justice - Is not according to law (H9) Emeka v. Okadigbo (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2611; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1331) 55

 

JUSTICE - Technicalities - Statutes - Interpretation - Legal Practitioners Act s.2(1) & 24 - Applying substantive provisions of the law - Does not imply technical justice (H5) FBN Ltd. v. Jawa Intn’l Ltd. (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1749

 

LAND LAW - Acquisition - Notice of - Manner of service - Notice must be personally served - On the occupier of land (H9) Goldmark Nig. Ltd. v. Ibafon Co. Ltd. (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1251; (2012) 10 NWLR (PT.1308) 291

 

LAND LAW - Actions - Limitation - Lagos State Limitation Law s.16 (2) - Action for recovery of land - Cannot be validly instituted after 12 years - From the date cause of action accrued (H1) Ajayi v. Adebiyi (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1843; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1310) 137

 

LAND LAW - Actions - Limitation - Land law - Continuing trespass - The action is not statute barred - Since the trespass continued - Until when the action was instituted (H3) Oriorio v. Osain (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 2001; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1327) 560

 

LAND LAW - Actions - Lis pendens - Application - Bua v. Dauda - It must be shown inter alia - That suit on the disputed property - Was pending at the time of sale (H1) Oronti v. Onigbanjo (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1825; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1313) 23

 

LAND LAW - Actions - Locus standi - Notice of acquisition - Right to seek for nullification of the notice - Does not reside in person who is not owner or occupier of the land (H8) Goldmark Nig. Ltd. v. Ibafon Co. Ltd. (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1251; (2012) 10 NWLR (PT.1308) 291

 

LAND LAW - Actions - Nature - Determination of - It is appellant’s claim that determines the nature and competence of a suit - Thus appellant’s claim is for declaration of title - And not breach of fair hearing (H4) Amale v. Sokoto L. G. (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 99; (2012) 5 NWLR (PT.1292) 181

 

LAND LAW - Actions - Proof - Onus - Proof is on preponderance of evidence - And onus is on party who will fail - If no evidence is adduced on either side (H6) Ayorinde v. Sogunro (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1895; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1312) 460

 

LAND LAW - Actions - Public land acquisition - Proper party - The State government must be made a party - In suits bordering on acquisition - And service of notice thereof (H4) Ajayi v. Adebiyi (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1843; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1310) 137

 

LAND LAW - Appeals - Actions - Need for consistency - Respondents must be consistent in their case - Since Appellate court cannot go - Outside issues settled by trial court (H4) Oriorio v. Osain (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 2001; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1327) 560

 

LAND LAW - Appeals - Trespass - Concurrent findings - Supreme Court does not interfere - Save the findings are perverse - Or not supported by credible evidence (H6) Oriorio v. Osain (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 2001; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1327) 560

 

LAND LAW - Auction sale - Ordered by court - Effect - It is presumed that such judicial act is valid - Where there is no fraud - And security given to purchaser of such property - Is a statutory one (H3) Osidele v. Sokunbi (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2857; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1324) 470

 

LAND LAW - Boundaries - Determination - Boundaries can be fixed by proved acts of prospective owners - By statutes - And by legal presumption (H5) A-G Rivers State v. A-G Bayelsa State (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2519; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1340) 123

 

LAND LAW - Certificate of Occupancy - Relevance - The certificate is a prima facie evidence of title or possession - But is not conclusive proof of title to land (H4) Otukpo v. John (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3667; (2012) 7 NWLR (PT.1299) 357

 

LAND LAW - Courts - Title - Grant - Appellant cannot be granted title - Without a proper hearing and determination of the suit - By the court (H3) Oronti v. Onigbanjo (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1825; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1313) 23

 

LAND LAW - Customary court - Jurisdiction - The value of land does not have to be stated in Grade A Customary Court - Since jurisdiction of the court is not limited - By value of the disputed land (H2) Olaleye-ote v. Babalola (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3637; (2012) 6 NWLR (PT.1297) 574

 

LAND LAW - Customary land - Land Use Act - Application - Land Use Act confers jurisdiction on the customary court over the land - And it is the applicable law by virtue of s.41 thereof (H1) Olaleye-ote v. Babalola (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3637; (2012) 6 NWLR (PT.1297) 574

 

LAND LAW - Deed of Assignment - Validity - Since plaintiff failed to show - That the military governor approved the assignment - The same cannot be valid (H1) Ohochukwu v. A-G Rivers State (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 885; (2012) 6 NWLR (PT.1295) 53

 

LAND LAW - Disputed land - Lis pendens - Application - Outcome of pending suit is irrelevant - Since a purchaser who buys property in litigation - Does so at his own risk (H2) Oronti v. Onigbanjo (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1825; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1313) 23

 

LAND LAW - Evidence - Rule in Kojo II v. Bonsie - Application - The rule cannot be applied to present case - Since the traditional evidence was conclusive (H4) Ayorinde v. Sogunro (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1895; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1312) 460

 

LAND LAW - Identity of land - Difference in names - Effect - Ascribing different names to land by parties - Is immaterial for proving identity (H4) Atanda v. Iliasu (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3015; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1351) 529

 

LAND LAW - Identity of land - Oral evidence - Such evidence is sufficient proof thereof - Which dispenses the need to tender site plan - Especially where court has visited the locus in quo (H5) Atanda v. Iliasu (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3015; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1351) 529

 

LAND LAW - Identity of land - Proof - Exception to - Claimant is to prove identity of land - Only where same has been put in issue in pleadings of parties (H2) Atanda v. Iliasu (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3015; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1351) 529

 

LAND LAW - Identity of land - Proof - Party who seeks title to land - Must prove identity of the land - In respect of which he seeks remedy (H3) Iseogbekun v. Adelakun (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3573; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1337) 14

 

LAND LAW - Identity of land - Proof - Plaintiff must prove the description and boundaries of land - To which he lays claim (H1) Atanda v. Iliasu (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3015; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1351) 529

 

LAND LAW - Identity of land - Purpose - This is to ascertain the property in litigation - So as to avoid granting of land - To a party who is not entitled to same (H2) Iseogbekun v. Adelakun (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3573; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1337) 14

 

LAND LAW - Lis pendens - Purpose - The doctrine postulates that sale conducted when a matter is in litigation - Is void ab initio - And no title can be passed to purchaser (H7) Osidele v. Sokunbi (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2857; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1324) 470

 

LAND LAW - Possession - Equitable interest - The interest is created for - Buyer who is in possession of the land - And same can only be defeated by purchaser for value without notice (H7) Goldmark Nig. Ltd. v. Ibafon Co. Ltd. (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1251; (2012) 10 NWLR (PT.1308) 291

 

LAND LAW - Possession - Proof - As plaintiffs established possession of the disputed property - They are entitled to order of possession against respondents - Who have not proved better title (H7) Iseogbekun v. Adelakun (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3573; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1337) 14

 

LAND LAW - Private land - Acquisition - Interference by court - Court will intervene - Where government acquires private land - Contrary to laid down procedures (H13) Goldmark Nig. Ltd. v. Ibafon Co. Ltd. (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1251; (2012) 10 NWLR (PT.1308) 291

 

LAND LAW - Property Law - Surrender - Effect - By agreeing to assign to someone else - Plaintiff has surrendered the property to Rivers State government (H2) Ohochukwu v. A-G Rivers State (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 885; (2012) 6 NWLR (PT.1295) 53

 

LAND LAW - Public land - Acquisition - Basis - Acquisition of such land - Must be for bona fide public purpose (H12) Goldmark Nig. Ltd. v. Ibafon Co. Ltd. (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1251; (2012) 10 NWLR (PT.1308) 291

 

LAND LAW - Public land - Acquisition - Cause of action - Computation - Public Land Acquisition Law of Lagos State - Right of action accrues from date - The acquisition is published in gazette (H3) Ajayi v. Adebiyi (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1843; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1310) 137

 

LAND LAW - Right of occupancy - Revocation of - Propriety - Respondents can legally revoke the grant made to appellant - By virtue of Land Use Act ss. 28(1)(2)(b) (6) and (7) (H3) Amale v. Sokoto L. G. (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 99; (2012) 5 NWLR (PT.1292) 181

 

LAND LAW - Sale - Lis pendens - Effect - Vendor may lack capacity to effect legal transfer of title - While purchaser stands the risk of purchasing nothing from vendor (H8) Osidele v. Sokunbi (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2857; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1324) 470

 

LAND LAW - Survey plan - Deed of Assignment - Attachment - Propriety - Although the attachment is condemnable - Same cannot affect validity of the Deed (H6) Phillips v. Eba Odan Commercial & Industrial Co. Ltd. (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1611; (2013) 1 NWLR (PT.1336) 618

 

LAND LAW - Title - Certificate of Occupancy - Proof - Mere possession of the certificate is not conclusive evidence - As it must be shown that there was no holder of a better title (H8) Atanda v. Iliasu (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3015; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1351) 529

 

LAND LAW - Title - Failure to prove - Counter-claim of 4th-6th defendants cannot be granted - Since they failed to adduce credible evidence - In proof of their title to the land (H6) Iseogbekun v. Adelakun (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3573; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1337) 14

 

LAND LAW - Title - Injunction - Proof - Plaintiff must rely on strength of his case - And not on the weakness of the defence (H6) Atanda v. Iliasu (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3015; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1351) 529

 

LAND LAW - Title - Means of proof - Title can be proved by traditional evidence - Documents of title - Acts of possession - Acts of ownership - And proof of possession of adjacent or connected land (H2) Otukpo v. John (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3667; (2012) 7 NWLR (PT.1299) 357

 

LAND LAW - Title - Possession - Effect - Where defendant is in possession - Plaintiff must prove a better title than that of the former (H9) Atanda v. Iliasu (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3015; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1351) 529

 

LAND LAW - Title - Possession - Proof - Possession when proved is a title against the whole world - Where no one has proved better title (H9) Iseogbekun v. Adelakun (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3573; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1337) 14

 

LAND LAW - Title - Proof - Basis - Pleadings and evidence adduced by plaintiff - Determine whether he has proved his case or not (H1) Mkpinang v. Ndem (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4425; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1344) 302

 

LAND LAW - Title - Proof - Conflicting claims - Where parties derived titles from different sources - The source with better title gives superior root of title (H2) Osidele v. Sokunbi (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2857; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1324) 470

 

LAND LAW - Title - Proof - Idundun v. Okumagba - Title to land can be proved by traditional evidence - Documents of title - Acts of ownership - Acts of long possession - And possession of adjacent land (H1) Osidele v. Sokunbi (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2857; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1324) 470

 

LAND LAW - Title - Proof - Means - Plaintiff may adopt any of the ways of proving ownership - And his claim should be dismissed - Where he fails to prove title as pleaded (H2) Mkpinang v. Ndem (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4425; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1344) 302

 

LAND LAW - Title - Proof - Onus is on plaintiff - As defendant is never called upon to defend the claim of plaintiff - Until plaintiff establishes a prima facie case (H5) Osidele v. Sokunbi (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2857; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1324) 470

 

LAND LAW - Title - Proof - Party needs to succeed on strength of his case - And not depend on weakness of opponent (H7) Ohochukwu v. A-G Rivers State (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 885; (2012) 6 NWLR (PT.1295) 53

 

LAND LAW - Title - Proof - Plaintiff must rely on strength of his case - To establish acts of ownership - And not on weakness of defence (H3) Ayorinde v. Sogunro (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1895; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1312) 460

 

LAND LAW - Title - Proof - Plaintiff must succeed on strength of his case - And not on weakness of defence - But plaintiff can take advantage - Where case of defence supports his case (H3) Otukpo v. John (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3667; (2012) 7 NWLR (PT.1299) 357

 

LAND LAW - Title - Proof of Possession - Previous judgment - Exhibits 16-18 were rightly used - To sustain claim to ownership of the land (H5) Nwakonobi v. Udeorah (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1555; (2013) 7 NWLR (PT.1354) 499

 

LAND LAW - Title - Traditional history - Proof - Party who claims title vide such history - Must establish how his ancestor acquired the land (H4) Iseogbekun v. Adelakun (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3573; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1337) 14

 

LAND LAW - Trespass - Continuing trespass - Effect on title - The continuing acts of trespass by appellants - Cannot be converted to title (H3) Obueke v. Nnamchi (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1801; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1314) 327

 

LAND LAW - Trespass - Continuing trespass - Statute of Limitation - Applicability - The plea of limitation does not constitute defence - To continuing acts of trespass (H2) Obueke v. Nnamchi (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1801; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1314) 327

 

LAND LAW - Trespass - Damages - Award of - Where damages are awarded for trespass - And there is claim for injunction - Court will grant same - To prevent multiplicity of actions (H7) Oriorio v. Osain (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 2001; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1327) 560

 

LAND LAW - Trespass to land is actionable - At the suit of person in possession of the land (H6) Military Gov. Lagos State v. Adeyiga (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 839; (2012) 5 NWLR (PT.1293) 291

 

LAND USE ACT - Land law - Customary land - Land Use Act - Application - Land Use Act confers jurisdiction on the customary court over the land - And it is the applicable law by virtue of s.41 thereof (H1) Olaleye-ote v. Babalola (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3637; (2012) 6 NWLR (PT.1297) 574

 

LAND USE ACT - Right of occupancy - Revocation of - Propriety - Respondents can legally revoke the grant made to appellant - By virtue of Land Use Act ss. 28(1)(2)(b) (6) and (7) (H3) Amale v. Sokoto L. G. (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 99; (2012) 5 NWLR (PT.1292) 181

 

LAND USE ACT - Title - Certificate of Occupancy - Proof - Mere possession of the certificate is not conclusive evidence - As it must be shown that there was no holder of a better title (H8) Atanda v. Iliasu (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3015; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1351) 529

 

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS - Actions - Consistency - Need for - Parties as well as counsel must be consistent in the presentation of their case - Both at trial and appellate courts (H6) Pacers Multi-Dynamics Ltd v. The M.V. Dancing Sister (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 385; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1289) 169

 

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS - Actions - Court Processes - Legal practitioners - Signature - Since the processes were not signed by person cognizable as legal practitioner - The action should be struck out (H6) Alawiye v. Ogunsanya (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 2957; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1348) 570

 

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS - Appeals - Brief - Filing - Mistake of counsel - Effect - Party ought not to be made to suffer - Because of delay of his counsel in filing brief (H8) Alawiye v. Ogunsanya (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 2957; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1348) 570

 

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS - Appeals - Fair hearing - Breach - Adjournments - Counsel that treated a procedure as regular before trial court - Cannot be heard to object to same on appeal (H4) Military Gov. Lagos State v. Adeyiga (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 839; (2012) 5 NWLR (PT.1293) 291

 

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS - Appeals - Ground - Judgment - Counsel should not wrongfully interpret court’s judgment - Just to build a ground of appeal - As ground not derived from lower court’s judgment is incompetent (H3) Asogwa v. PDP (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4155; (2013) 7 NWLR (PT.1353) 207

 

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS - Appeals - Record of appeal - Presumption of regularity - Record prepared by counsel is presumed correct - More so where counsel that prepared it did not challenged same (H8) Bassey v. State (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1495; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1314) 209

 

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS - Case law - Citation - Counsel must cite case with clarity - Providing inter alia name of the law report - Or a certified true copy - Where case is unreported (H1) Chidoka v. First City Finance Co. Ltd. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2585; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1346) 144

 

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS - Courts - Appeals - It is wrong for court to dismiss an appeal - Without giving audience to counsel in the matter (H1) General Electric Company v. Akande (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1237; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1327) 593

 

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS - Courts - Attendance - Where hearing notice has been served - And counsel fails to attend due to illness - Court must be notified of same (H3) Gov. Zamfara State v. Gyalange (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1535; (2013) 8 NWLR (PT.1357) 462

 

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS - Courts - Error - Effect on litigant - Party should not be punished because of error - Committed by judge counsel or court officials (H1) Fidelity Bank Plc v. Monye (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1203; (2012) 10 NWLR (PT.1307) 1

 

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS - Courts - Issues - Raising suo motu - Propriety - It is wrong for court to raise a point suo motu - And resolve a case on that basis - Without inviting the parties or their counsel to address it on the point (H5) Amale v. Sokoto L. G. (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 99; (2012) 5 NWLR (PT.1292) 181

 

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS - Criminal procedure - Non provision of - When to raise objection - Where accused is represented by counsel - Objection must be taken at the trial not on appeal (H3) Okoro v. State (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 337; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1290) 351

 

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS - Evidence - Weight - Legal practitioners - Submission - Effect - Counsel’s submission no matter how brilliant - Cannot take the place of legal proof (H8) Aliucha v. Elechi (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1065

 

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS - Fair hearing - Breach - Adjournment - Counsel who fails to utilize opportunity to be heard - Cannot complain of breach of same (H4) Gov. Zamfara State v. Gyalange (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1535; (2013) 8 NWLR (PT.1357) 462

 

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS - Jurisdiction - Issue of - Time to raise - Jurisdiction can be raised at anytime - Even for first time in Supreme Court - And can be raised suo motu by court - Provided counsel are heard (H11) Lafia L.G. v. Gov. Nasarawa State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4385; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 94

 

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS - Law firm - Signing of process - Propriety - Registration of law firm under CAMA s.573(1) - Does not entitle the firm to validly sign process (H4) FBN Ltd. v. Jawa Intn’l Ltd. (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1749

 

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS - Locus standi - Actions - Appellant’s engagement in active legal practice without more - Does not confer on him any cause of action - Or locus standi to institute the action (H4) Uwazuruonye v. Gov. Imo State (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3415; (2013) 8 NWLR (PT.1355) 28

 

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS - Motions - Failure to sign - In absence of credible evidence of signing by a legal practitioner - Court of Appeal rightly held that the motion was incompetent (H1) Bala v. Dikko (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3049; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1343) 52

 

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS - Negligence - Conduct of case - Counsel is master of his case - As he may decide not to call witness - Or cross-examine witness of the other party - But may be sued for professional negligence (H2) Chidoka v. First City Finance Co. Ltd. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2585; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1346) 144

 

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS - Statutes - Interpretation - Literal rule - Legal Practitioners Act s. 2(1) & 24 - The section simply ensures - That only qualified legal practitioners - Sign court processes (H1) FBN Ltd. v. Jawa Intn’l Ltd. (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1749

 

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS - Submissions - Effect - Submissions of counsel however beautiful - Cannot take the place of evidence - As such addresses must be a reminder to court of evidence proffered (H3) Chiokwe v. State (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3517; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1347) 205

 

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS - Supreme Court Act s. 22 - The court can evaluate evidence - But has no jurisdiction to correct mistakes made by counsel (H9) Aliucha v. Elechi (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1065

 

LEGISLATION - Amendment - Effect on right of action - Decree No.107 of 1993 - An existing right is not lost - Where new law transfers jurisdiction of court (H5) Goldmark Nig. Ltd. v. Ibafon Co. Ltd. (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1251; (2012) 10 NWLR (PT.1308) 291

 

LEGISLATION - Constitution - Interpretation - Principles - Where words used in constitutional provisions are unambiguous - Same must be given their ordinary meaning - In order not to defeat the intention of the lawmakers (H4) Abubakar v. Nasamu (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 479; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1330) 407

 

LEGISLATION - Courts - Interpretation - Courts applies the law as it is - And it is left for legislature to amend any hardship in the law (H5) Ugba v. Suswam (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 314) 2345; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1345) 427

 

LEGISLATION - Existing law - Meaning - Existing law is one that is not repealed - And has been adopted by National Assembly - With modifications - To bring same in conformity with Constitution (H1) Timothy v. FRN (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 313) 2191; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1344) 213

 

LEGISLATION - Interpretation - Local Govt. Council - Tenure - Imo State Local Govt. Admin. Law s.23(1)(2) - Three years term is reserved for the council - From date the chairman takes oath of office (H1) Ehirim v. IMSIEC (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1521

 

LEGISLATION - Statutes - Interpretation - Role of Judge - FBN v. Mainada - A Judge should be firm and pungent in interpretation of law - But should be short of being a legislator (H1) Adeyemi-Bero v. L.S.D.P.C. (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3743; (2013) 8 NWLR (PT.1356) 238

 

LEGISLATURE - Constitution - Interpretation - Constitution is interpreted to reveal the intention of legislature - Hence the sections are never to be read in isolation (H3) Lafia L.G. v. Gov. Nasarawa State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4385; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 94

 

LEGISLATURE - Constitution - Interpretation - Literal rule - Court must confine itself to the ordinary meaning of words used - Save it is at variance with legislature’s intention (H5) Dangana v. Usman (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 577; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1349) 50

 

LEGISLATURE - Constitution - Interpretation - Objective - It is to discover the intention of the legislature - Which is usually deduced from the language used (H4) Marwa v. Nyako (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 231; (2012) 6 NWLR (PT.1296) 199

 

LEGISLATURE - Statutes - Interpretation - Principles - Ordinary meaning must be given to the words used - So as to bring out intention of the legislature (H4) NNPC v. Famfa Oil Ltd (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1947; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 148

 

LEGISLATURE - Statutes - Interpretation - Purpose - Intention of legislature is paramount in interpretation - And where words used are unambiguous - They must be given their plain meaning (H5) Gbagbarigha v. Toruemi (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4355; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1350) 289

 

LEGISLATURE - Statutes - Interpretation - Role of Judge - In statutory interpretation - Judge should not flout the constitutional duty of legislature - To make laws (H2) FBN Ltd. v. Jawa Intn’l Ltd. (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1749

 

LOCUS IN QUO - Land law - Identity of land - Oral evidence - Such evidence is sufficient proof thereof - Which dispenses the need to tender site plan - Especially where court has visited the locus in quo (H5) Atanda v. Iliasu (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3015; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1351) 529

 

LOCUS STANDI - Actions - Legal practitioner - Appellant’s engagement in active legal practice without more - Does not confer on him any cause of action - Or locus standi to institute the action (H4) Uwazuruonye v. Gov. Imo State (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3415; (2013) 8 NWLR (PT.1355) 28

 

LOCUS STANDI - Actions - Limitation - Preliminary objection - Purpose - Objection is to show court that action is statute barred - And that plaintiff has no locus standi - Hence court must address the issue first (H7) Ajayi v. Adebiyi (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1843; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1310) 137

 

LOCUS STANDI - Actions - Locus standi - Absence of - Effect - The suit is incompetent - And court lacks jurisdiction to entertain same - Save to give an order of dismissal (H10) Ajayi v. Adebiyi (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1843; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1310) 137

 

LOCUS STANDI - Actions - Locus standi - Meaning - Locus standi is legal right of party - To institute an action in court - Without any inhibition (H8) Ajayi v. Adebiyi (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1843; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1310) 137

 

LOCUS STANDI - Lack of - Proper order to make - Is to strike out the suit - Hence Court of Appeal was right in its decision (H10) Pacers Multi-Dynamics Ltd v. The M.V. Dancing Sister (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 385; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1289) 169

 

LOCUS STANDI - Meaning of - This is legal capacity of party - To institute action in court - And where party has no locus standi - Court will have no jurisdiction to hear any claim (H5) Uwazuruonye v. Gov. Imo State (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3415; (2013) 8 NWLR (PT.1355) 28

 

LOCUS STANDI - Proof - Duty on plaintiff - Statement of claim must disclose sufficient legal interest - And how such interest arose in the subject matter of the action (H4) Pacers Multi-Dynamics Ltd v. The M.V. Dancing Sister (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 385; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1289) 169

 

LOCUS STANDI - Test - How determined - The action must be justifiable - And there must be a dispute between the parties (H5) Pacers Multi-Dynamics Ltd v. The M.V. Dancing Sister (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 385; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1289) 169

 

MANSLAUGHTER - Conviction - Since appellant’s action was not intentional - He should be convicted for manslaughter (H3) Chukwu v. State (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3101; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1343) 1

 

MONEY LENDING - Evidence - Admitted facts - Briefs of appeal - Since appellants expressly agreed that - Respondent was not a money lender - Respondent has nothing to prove (H6) Chidoka v. First City Finance Co. Ltd. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2585; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1346) 144

 

MORTGAGES - Debts - Recovery - Liability of parties - Where principal debtor and surety are jointly sued - Both are liable solely or jointly with others - But when severally sued - Each party is liable as principal debtor (H8) African Intn’l Bank Ltd. v. Integrated Dimensional System Ltd. (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1635; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 1

 

MOTIONS - Actions - Undefended list - Ex parte hearing - Court can hear application for such action ex parte - And can enter the suit in the list - Where it is satisfied that there is no defence to plaintiff’s claim (H2) Bona.V. Textile Ltd. v. Asaba Textile Mill Plc (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3063; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1338) 357

 

MOTIONS - Appeals - Application for enlargement of time - Reason for delay - Applicant’s duty - Applicant must establish good reasons - To justify grant of the application (H1) Olatubosun v. Texaco Nig. Plc (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1985; (2012) 14 NWLR (PT.1319) 200

 

MOTIONS - Appeals - Extension of time - Application - Reason for - Since the supporting affidavit did not disclose cogent reason for delay - The application cannot be granted (H2) Audu v. Wada (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3039

 

MOTIONS - Appeals - Grounds - Preliminary objections - When relevant - Objections are filed against hearing of appeal - But where there are grounds to sustain appeal - Motion on notice should be filed (H2) NNPC v. Famfa Oil Ltd (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1947; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 148

 

MOTIONS - Appeals - Notice of appeal - Failure to file - Effect - By O.8 r.18 Court of Appeal Rules - Respondent may by motion on notice - Move the court to dismiss the appeal (H1) Nigerian Navy v. Labinjo (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 313) 2135; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 56

 

MOTIONS - Appeals - Objection can be taken at anytime during pendency of appeal before judgment - But party who failed to object on time - Is deemed to have accepted the state of thing as it is (H5) Barigha v. PDP (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4221; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1349) 108

 

MOTIONS - Legal practitioner - Failure to sign - In absence of credible evidence of signing by a legal practitioner - Court of Appeal rightly held that the motion was incompetent (H1) Bala v. Dikko (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3049; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1343) 52

 

MOTIONS - Objections - Appeals - Preliminary objection - Purpose - The objection seeks to terminate hearing of appeal - But where same did not end appeal - Motion on notice should be filed (H3) Okereke v. James (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2385; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1326) 339

 

MOTIONS - Orders of court - Interim order - Duration - Such order exists pending determination of suit or motion on notice - And its expiration does not affect the purpose thereof (H4) Kubor v. Dickson (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3121; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1345) 534

 

MOTIONS - Pending motion - Failure to hear - Effect - Failure of trial court to hear such motion before judgment - Is not always fatal - As Appeal Court should examine the motion (H10) Emeka v. Okadigbo (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2611; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1331) 55

 

MOTIONS - Stay of execution - Application - Affidavit in support - Validity - Stay will not be granted - Since the affidavit did not disclose any special circumstance (H3) Amadi v. Chukwu (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2375; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1347) 301

 

MOTIONS - Stay of execution - Application for - Basis for grant - Applicant must show exceptional circumstances - As court do not usually deprive litigant of his success in a judgment (H1) Amadi v. Chukwu (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2375; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1347) 301

 

MOTIONS - Striking out - Effect - Applicant is not limited to number of time to file application - As an application that is merely struck out - Can be properly re-filed (H1) TSA Ind. Ltd. v. FBN (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 4055; (2012) 14 NWLR (PT.1320) 326

 

MURDER - Acquittal - Discharge and acquittal of 2nd & 3rd accused - Are correct because the evidence - Adduced against them and appellant are not similar (H9) Okoro v. State (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 337; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1290) 351

 

MURDER - Actus reus - Test - It is presumed that a man intends the natural consequence of his acts - And the applicable test is objective one - As opposed to subjective test (H3) Njoku v. State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4519; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1339) 548

 

MURDER - Cause of death - Proof of - Medical report - Relevance of - Cause of death can generally be determined from medical report - However medical evidence is not essential in all cases (H7) Bright v. State (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 123; (2012) 8 NWLR (PT.1302) 297

 

MURDER - Circumstantial evidence - Conviction is justified where the circumstances are cogent - And directly points to accused - As the person that killed deceased (H13) Okoro v. State (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 337; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1290) 351

 

MURDER - Doctrine of last seen - Application - The principle is invoked where there is no explanation - As to the cause of death of deceased last seen with accused (H5) Njoku v. State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4519; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1339) 548

 

MURDER - Doctrine of last seen - Presumption - It is presumed that person last seen with deceased - Bears full responsibility - For the death (H4) Madu v. State (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 313) 2087; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1324) 405

 

MURDER - Evidence - Dying declaration - Admissibility - The statement is admissible where cause of death is in issue - And it must be made by a deceased - Who believed he was in danger of approaching death (H5) Okoro v. State (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 337; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1290) 351

 

MURDER - Failure to prove - Effect - Accused is discharged and acquitted - Since prosecution has not proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt - As required by Evidence Act s. 138 (H1) State v. Okpala (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 437; (2012) 3 NWLR (PT.1287) 388

 

MURDER - Ingredients - Proof - By s. 316 Criminal Code - Prosecution must prove intent to kill - Or do some grievous harm to the person killed - Or to some other person (H2) Njoku v. State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4519; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1339) 548

 

MURDER - Ingredients - Proof - Prosecution must inter alia prove death of deceased - And that it was voluntary act or omission of accused that caused the death (H3) Igri v. State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3799

 

MURDER - Ingredients - Proof - Prosecution must prove - That there was death of a human being - Which was caused by the intentional act of the accused (H6) Bright v. State (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 123; (2012) 8 NWLR (PT.1302) 297

 

MURDER - Ingredients - Proof - Prosecution must prove that deceased died - And the death was caused - By intentional act of accused (H3) Madu v. State (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 313) 2087; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1324) 405

 

MURDER - Ingredients - Proof - Prosecution must prove that deceased died - As a result of act or omission of accused - Which was intentional (H1) Ilodigwe v. State (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2789; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1331) 1

 

MURDER - Plea of guilty - Procedure to adopt - CPA s. 215 - Judge must record a plea of not guilty on behalf of accused - And evidence is led on same (H6) Timothy v. FRN (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 313) 2191; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1344) 213

 

MURDER - Proof - Circumstantial evidence - By s. 139 Evidence Act - Court can accept proof of death by such evidence - Since possibility of not having eyewitness account in criminal cases is not rare (H4) Chiokwe v. State (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3517; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1347) 205

 

MURDER - Proof - Doctrine of last seen - Onus is on the person last seen with deceased - To offer minimum explanation - As to cause of the death (H11) Haruna v. A-G Federation (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1309; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1306) 419

 

MURDER - Proof - Duty on prosecution - Prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt - By adducing relevant evidence - And not by calling many witnesses (H8) Bright v. State (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 123; (2012) 8 NWLR (PT.1302) 297

 

MURDER - Proof - Ingredients - Prosecution must prove that deceased died - And that death occurred as a result of injury - Caused by the act of accused person (H10) Okoro v. State (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 337; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1290) 351

 

MURDER - Proof - Ingredients - Prosecution must prove that deceased died - And that the death was caused by act of accused - Which was intentional (H2) Chukwu v. State (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3101; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1343) 1

 

MURDER - Proof - Number of witness - Prosecution is not bound to call any number of witnesses - As single credible witness - Can prove a crime even in murder charge (H6) Akindipe v. State (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 313) 2047; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1325) 94

 

MURDER - Proof - Prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt - Not only that it was the act of appellant that resulted in death of the deceased - But also that death occurred in circumstances intended in CC s. 316 (H7) Okoro v. State (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 337; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1290) 351

 

MURDER - Search warrant - There is no need for the warrant - Since appellant took PW7 to the scene of the crime (H2) Chiokwe v. State (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3517; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1347) 205

 

NATURAL RESOURCES - Oil - Judgments - ICJ judgment - Effect - Revenue allocation - Disputed 76 oil wells cannot be attributed to plaintiff - Since it is no longer a littoral State - By virtue of the judgment of ICJ (H2) A-G Cross-River State v. A-G Fed. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2717; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1327) 425

 

NATURAL RESOURCES - Oil - Revenue allocation - Entitlement to - By s. 1(1) of Onshore/Offshore Dichotomy Abolition Act 2004 - State can claim natural resources - Located within 200 meters water depth isobath - Contiguous to the State (H1) A-G Cross-River State v. A-G Fed. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2717; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1327) 425

 

NEGLIGENCE - Carriage of goods by sea - Contract - Negligence - Right of action - Where damage to goods occurred during discharge operation - The owner can sue stevedores and their principals (H9) Pacers Multi-Dynamics Ltd v. The M.V. Dancing Sister (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 385; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1289) 169

 

NEGLIGENCE - Torts - Res ipsa loquitur - Meaning - Res speaks where inference from facts shows that - What happened is reasonably attributed to some act of negligence - On the part of defendant (H3) Nig. Ports Plc. v. Beecham Pharm. Ltd (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4155; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1333) 454

 

OBJECTION - Criminal procedure - Non provision of - When to raise objection - Where accused is represented by counsel - Objection must be taken at the trial not on appeal (H3) Okoro v. State (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 337; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1290) 351

 

OBJECTIONS - Actions - Limitation - Preliminary objection - Purpose - Objection is to show court that action is statute barred - And that plaintiff has no locus standi - Hence court must address the issue first (H7) Ajayi v. Adebiyi (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1843; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1310) 137

 

OBJECTIONS - Appeals - Brief - Preliminary objection - The objection raised in a brief cannot be deemed argued along with the brief - As respondent is required to specifically seek and obtain leave - To move its objection (H1) NDP v. INEC (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3901; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1350) 392

 

OBJECTIONS - Appeals - Cross-appeal - Purpose - Respondent who is dissatisfied with finding of court - Is not to raise preliminary objection - But to file a cross-appeal (H1) Kubor v. Dickson (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3121; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1345) 534

 

OBJECTIONS - Appeals - Fair hearing - Breach - Adjournments - Counsel that treated a procedure as regular before trial court - Cannot be heard to object to same on appeal (H4) Military Gov. Lagos State v. Adeyiga (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 839; (2012) 5 NWLR (PT.1293) 291

 

OBJECTIONS - Appeals - Grounds - Preliminary objection - Competence - The objection is invalid - Since the grounds stated the issues in contention - Between the parties (H1) Unity Bank Plc v. Denclag Ltd. (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1427; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1332) 293

 

OBJECTIONS - Appeals - Grounds - Preliminary objections - When relevant - Objections are filed against hearing of appeal - But where there are grounds to sustain appeal - Motion on notice should be filed (H2) NNPC v. Famfa Oil Ltd (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1947; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 148

 

OBJECTIONS - Appeals - Hearing - Preliminary objection to - Success of - Will bring the litigation to an end - If dismissed - The Appeal will be determined on merit (H1) Asogwa v. PDP (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4155; (2013) 7 NWLR (PT.1353) 207

 

OBJECTIONS - Appeals - Jurisdiction - Issue of jurisdiction is constitutional and a matter of law - Hence appellant needed no leave to raise same (H1) Agbule v. Warri Refinery (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3435; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1350) 318

 

OBJECTIONS - Appeals - Motion - Objection can be taken at anytime during pendency of appeal before judgment - But party who failed to object on time - Is deemed to have accepted the state of thing as it is (H5) Barigha v. PDP (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4221; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1349) 108

 

OBJECTIONS - Appeals - Preliminary objection - Arguments - Incorporated in briefs - Objective - Such step removes the need to file separate notice of preliminary objection (H1) Aliucha v. Elechi (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1065

 

OBJECTIONS - Appeals - Preliminary objection - Incorporated in brief - Propriety - The procedure is an accepted practice - As same obviates need to file separate notice of objection (H1) Okereke v. James (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2385; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1326) 339

 

OBJECTIONS - Appeals - Preliminary objection - Leave - Failure to apply - Where objection is filed in briefs - Leave must be sought orally - To argue same in court - Otherwise it is deemed abandoned (H2) Aliucha v. Elechi (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1065

 

OBJECTIONS - Appeals - Preliminary objection - Purpose - The aim is to bring appeal to an end - Having been discovered to be incompetent - And court is expected to deal with the objection once it is raised (H1) Udenwa v. Uzodinma (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 4093; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1346) 94

 

OBJECTIONS - Appeals - Preliminary objection - Purpose - The objection seeks to terminate hearing of appeal - But where same did not end appeal - Motion on notice should be filed (H3) Okereke v. James (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2385; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1326) 339

 

OBJECTIONS - Appeals - Preliminary objection - Purpose - The objection is against hearing of appeal - Not against competence of brief of party - As it contends that appeal is fundamentally defective (H1) Lafia L.G. v. Gov. Nasarawa State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4385; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 94

 

OBJECTIONS - Appeals - Preliminary objections - Filing - Supreme Court Rules O. 2 r. 9(1)(2) - Failure to comply - Effect - The objection will be struck out (H1) Oriorio v. Osain (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 2001; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1327) 560

 

OBJECTIONS - Charges - Language used - Objection to - Failure to raise - Effect - Accused is deemed to have understood the language - And has no cause to complain (H2) Madu v. State (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 313) 2087; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1324) 405

 

OBJECTIONS - Charges - Objection - When to raise - The time to object is immediately the charge was read to accused - As any objection on appeal is waste of time (H2) Timothy v. FRN (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 313) 2191; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1344) 213

 

OBJECTIONS - Criminal procedure - Charges - Objections to - When to raise - Appropriate time is at the point of reading - And before the plea (H4) Okewu v. FRN (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 923; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1305) 327

 

OBJECTIONS - Criminal procedure - Charges - Plea - Validity of - Where accused raises no objection prior to his plea - The presumption is that the plea is valid (H5) Okewu v. FRN (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 923; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1305) 327

 

OBJECTIONS - Criminal procedure - Charges - Validity of - Where accused pleads to a charge without objection - The presumption is that he understands the charges preferred (H2) Okewu v. FRN (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 923; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1305) 327

 

OBJECTIONS - Election petitions - Appeals - Findings of over voting - Court of Appeal was right in its findings - And upholding the objection raised by 4th respondent (H5) Doma v. INEC (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1095; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1317) 297

 

OBJECTIONS - Election petitions - Hearing - By para. 12(5) Electoral Act 2010 - Respondent with an objection must file his reply with the objection - So as to avoid undue delay of hearing of the matter (H2) PDP v. INEC (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3693; (2012) 7 NWLR (PT.1300) 538

 

OBJECTIONS - Evidence - Confession - Voluntariness of - Appellant’s statements are credible evidence - Having been admitted without any objection (H2) Ajibade v. State (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 2939; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1349) 25

 

OBJECTIONS - Jurisdiction - Basis - Objections to jurisdiction can inter alia - Be raised on the basis of statement of claim - And evidence received (H4) Goldmark Nig. Ltd. v. Ibafon Co. Ltd. (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1251; (2012) 10 NWLR (PT.1308) 291

 

OBJECTIONS - Jurisdiction - Basis for objection - Objection can be taken on statement of claim - Evidence received - Facts deposed in affidavits - And on writ of summons (H13) Ajayi v. Adebiyi (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1843; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1310) 137

 

OBJECTIONS - Preliminary objection - Basis - Since such objection deals with law - No affidavit is necessary - But when facts are in issue - Affidavit would be necessary (H2) Okereke v. James (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2385; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1326) 339

 

OBJECTIONS - Preliminary objection - Failure to move - Effect - The objection is deemed abandoned - And should be struck out (H1) Nig. Laboratory Corp. v. Pacific Merchant Bank (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 314) 2249; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1324) 505

 

OBJECTIONS - Robbery - Confession - Failure to retract - Where accused did not object to admission of his confession in evidence - There would be no need for extraneous evidence (H4) Bassey v. State (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1495; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1314) 209

 

OBJECTIONS - Touching on powers of court - Need to decide - Court must first have the objection disposed of - Since entertaining a matter when court has no vires - Will be a mere academic exercise (H1) Okadigbo v. Emeka (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 181; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1311) 237

 

ORDERS OF COURT - Actions - Jurisdiction - Fundamental nature - Once the issue is raised - Court must not order against defendant - Until the issue is settled (H12) Ajayi v. Adebiyi (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1843; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1310) 137

 

ORDERS OF COURT - Actions - Locus standi - Absence of - Effect - The suit is incompetent - And court lacks jurisdiction to entertain same - Save to give an order of dismissal (H10) Ajayi v. Adebiyi (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1843; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1310) 137

 

ORDERS OF COURT - Actions - Reliefs - Alternative claim - Award of - Court will make order in respect of the claim - Where main claim fails (H11) Goldmark Nig. Ltd. v. Ibafon Co. Ltd. (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1251; (2012) 10 NWLR (PT.1308) 291

 

ORDERS OF COURT - Appeals - Briefs - Failure to file - Dismissal order - Court of Appeal Rules O.6 r.10 - Dismissal based on such failure is final -And the court cannot give order of re-listing (H1) Gov. Zamfara State v. Gyalange (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1535; (2013) 8 NWLR (PT.1357) 462

 

ORDERS OF COURT - Appeals - Evidence - Retrial order - Correctness of - Since the evidence borders on credibility of witnesses - Court of Appeal rightly gave the order (H3) Mkpinang v. Ndem (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4425; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1344) 302

 

ORDERS OF COURT - Appeals - Retrial - When to order - Where High Court and Court of Appeal were partly wrong and right - Retrial is necessary - But where the latter corrects errors of the former - Retrial is unnecessary (H3) Afolabi v. Western Steel Works Ltd. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2503; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1329) 286

 

ORDERS OF COURT - Appeals - Right of appeal - Actions - Undefended list - 1999 Constitution s. 241(2)(a) - No right of appeal exists against order of court - Transferring suit from the list to general cause list (H7) Bona.V. Textile Ltd. v. Asaba Textile Mill Plc (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3063; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1338) 357

 

ORDERS OF COURT - Court processes - Abuse - Proper order - Where court comes to conclusion that its process is abused - Appropriate order is that of dismissal (H4) TSA Ind. Ltd. v. FBN (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 4055; (2012) 14 NWLR (PT.1320) 326

 

ORDERS OF COURT - Courts - Jurisdiction - Absence of - Proper order to make - Where a court lacks jurisdiction - It should give an order striking out the matter (H7) Dangana v. Usman (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 577; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1349) 50

 

ORDERS OF COURT - Criminal procedure - Appeals - Murder - Finding of not guilty - Proper order to make - By Criminal Procedure Act s. 246 - Court of Appeal was duty bound - To discharge and acquit the accused (H3) State v. Okpala (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 437; (2012) 3 NWLR (PT.1287) 388

 

ORDERS OF COURT - Election petitions - Retrial order - Correctness of - Appellate court is competent to order retrial - Where appeal succeeds within prescribed time (H3) Ugba v. Suswam (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 314) 2345; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1345) 427

 

ORDERS OF COURT - Election petitions - Tribunal - Jurisdiction - 1999 Constitution s. 285(6) - Non compliance with - Effect - Jurisdiction of tribunal lapses - And same cannot be conferred by court order (H2) ANPP v. Goni (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 701; (2012) 7 NWLR (PT.1298) 147

 

ORDERS OF COURT - Injunctions - Mareva Injunction - Propriety - The order that was made to last for 15 days from 20/04/2000 - Was discharged by passage of time on 02/08/2007 (H3) R-Benkay Nig. Ltd. v. Cadbury Nig. Ltd. (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1383; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1306) 596

 

ORDERS OF COURT - Interim order - Duration - Such order exists pending determination of suit or motion on notice - And its expiration does not affect the purpose thereof (H4) Kubor v. Dickson (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3121; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1345) 534

 

ORDERS OF COURT - Jurisdiction is a creation of statutes - And same is neither inherent in appellate court - Nor can it be conferred by court order (H3) ANPP v. Goni (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 701; (2012) 7 NWLR (PT.1298) 147

 

ORDERS OF COURT - Non suit - Propriety - Parties ought to be given opportunity of being heard - Before the order was made by trial court - Hence Court of Appeal was right to set aside same (H3) Adusei v. Adebayo (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 205; (2012) 3 NWLR (PT.1288) 534

 

ORDERS OF COURT - Nullification - Effect - Once an action or order is nullified by a court - Then the same is deemed void ab initio (H2) Marwa v. Nyako (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 231; (2012) 6 NWLR (PT.1296) 199

 

ORDERS OF COURT - Prejudice - Order made without jurisdiction - It is advisable but not mandatory for court to set such order aside - But it is better ignored where no one is prejudiced by same (H11) Okoro v. State (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 337; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1290) 351

 

ORDERS OF COURT - Supreme Court - Powers - Modification - By s.22 S.C. Act - The court is empowered to modify orders - Given by Court of Appeal (H8) Iseogbekun v. Adelakun (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3573; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1337) 14

 

ORDERS OF COURTS - Actions - Locus standi - Lack of - Proper order to make - Is to strike out the suit - Hence Court of Appeal was right in its decision (H10) Pacers Multi-Dynamics Ltd v. The M.V. Dancing Sister (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 385; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1289) 169

 

ORIGINATING SUMMONS - Appeals - Ground - Election - Originating summons - Where reliefs sought cannot be dealt with under that summons - The ground on fair hearing will be struck out (H7) Asogwa v. PDP (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4155; (2013) 7 NWLR (PT.1353) 207

 

ORIGINATING SUMMONS - Applicability of - Appeal - Concurrent findings that the issues cannot be resolved by affidavits evidence - Were not shown to be perverse (H8) Asogwa v. PDP (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4155; (2013) 7 NWLR (PT.1353) 207

 

PARTIES - Actions - Appeals - Need for consistency - A party must be consistent in its case - And an appeal is regarded as a continuation of the original action - Rather than an inception of a new suit (H2) Okadigbo v. Emeka (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 181; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1311) 237

 

PARTIES - Actions - Appeals - Right of appeal - 1999 Constitution s. 233(5) - The right is reserved to party - Aggrieved at decision in a proceeding (H1) Elelu-Habeeb v. A-G Federation (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 743; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1318) 423

 

PARTIES - Actions - Consistency - Need for - Parties as well as counsel must be consistent in the presentation of their case - Both at trial and appellate courts (H6) Pacers Multi-Dynamics Ltd v. The M.V. Dancing Sister (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 385; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1289) 169

 

PARTIES - Actions - Doctrine of severance - Civil & criminal allegations - Where civil allegations are severable from criminal allegation - A party can succeed on his civil allegation - If proved (H9) Gundiri v. Nyako (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3341

 

PARTIES - Actions - Land law - Public land acquisition - Proper party - The State government must be made a party - In suits bordering on acquisition - And service of notice thereof (H4) Ajayi v. Adebiyi (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1843; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1310) 137

 

PARTIES - Actions - Locus standi - Determination - Principles & Tests - Party must show that his rights have been infringed - And the action must be justiciable - As well as an existence of dispute (H9) Ajayi v. Adebiyi (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1843; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1310) 137

 

PARTIES - Actions - Locus standi - Meaning - Locus standi is legal right of party - To institute an action in court - Without any inhibition (H8) Ajayi v. Adebiyi (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1843; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1310) 137

 

PARTIES - Actions - Locus standi - Precondition - To have locus standi to sue - Party must show sufficient interest in the suit - Such that he will suffer injury from the litigation - If not joined (H6) Uwazuruonye v. Gov. Imo State (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3415; (2013) 8 NWLR (PT.1355) 28

 

PARTIES - Actions - Necessary party - Failure to join - Effect - Presence of such a party is apt for complete adjudication of the matter - And any judgment made behind the party - Will be to no avail (H1) NURTW v. RTEAN (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 149; (2012) 10 NWLR (PT.1307) 170

 

PARTIES - Actions - Pleadings - Binding nature of - Party must state his complaints and remedy in statement of claim - Because any matter outside same - Goes to no issue (H8) Ohochukwu v. A-G Rivers State (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 885; (2012) 6 NWLR (PT.1295) 53

 

PARTIES - Actions - Undefended list - Fair hearing - Parties are taken to have been heard - By virtue of affidavits filed - Which are considered by court before deciding to adopt a procedure (H5) Bona.V. Textile Ltd. v. Asaba Textile Mill Plc (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3063; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1338) 357

 

PARTIES - Actions - Undefended list - Transfer to general list - Procedure - With order transferring suit to general list - Parties are expected to file their pleadings (H8) Bona.V. Textile Ltd. v. Asaba Textile Mill Plc (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3063; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1338) 357

 

PARTIES - Appeals - Actions - Consistency - Without obtaining amendment from court - A party has to be consistent in his case - From lower to appellate court (H5) Asogwa v. PDP (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4155; (2013) 7 NWLR (PT.1353) 207

 

PARTIES - Appeals - Brief - Filing - Mistake of counsel - Effect - Party ought not to be made to suffer - Because of delay of his counsel in filing brief (H8) Alawiye v. Ogunsanya (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 2957; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1348) 570

 

PARTIES - Appeals - Court - Issues - Formulation - When issues formulated by parties are not easily discernible - Appellate court may reformulate same - And such must be in conformity with grounds of appeal (H1) Peterside v. Fubara (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3969; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1349) 156

 

PARTIES - Appeals - Courts - Findings - Binding nature of - Holding by court which is not appealed against - Is binding on party against whom it was made (H2) Uwazurike v. Nwachukwu (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3249; (2013) 3 NWLR (PT.1342) 503

 

PARTIES - Appeals - Enlargement of time - Discretion - Basis - Doing substantial justice to the parties - Must be of paramount interest to court (H4) Olatubosun v. Texaco Nig. Plc (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1985; (2012) 14 NWLR (PT.1319) 200

 

PARTIES - Appeals - Fresh issue - Leave - Where new issue is to be introduced and argued afresh - Party introducing it has duty to apply and obtain leave to do so from court (H7) Lagos State Bulk Purchase Corp. v. Purification Techn. Ltd. (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3829; (2013) 7 NWLR (PT.1352) 82

 

PARTIES - Appeals - Grounds - Preliminary objection - Competence - The objection is invalid - Since the grounds stated the issues in contention - Between the parties (H1) Unity Bank Plc v. Denclag Ltd. (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1427; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1332) 293

 

PARTIES - Appeals - Interested party - Qualification - Re Ugadu - For such party to appeal - His interest must be genuine and legally recognizable - In respect of a decision which prejudicially affects him (H1) Nwaogu v. Owuala (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3187

 

PARTIES - Appeals - Issues - Bordering on judgment in rem - Competence - The issues are premature - As the real question is propriety or otherwise of - Joining 1st respondent as interested party (H3) Waziri v. Gumel (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1473; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1304) 185

 

PARTIES - Appeals - Issues - Formulation by court - Correctness of - Where issues are proliferated by parties - Court can reformulate same - For clarity sake (H6) African Intn’l Bank Ltd. v. Integrated Dimensional System Ltd. (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1635; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 1

 

PARTIES - Appeals - Issues - Meaning of - An issue is a point in dispute between parties - Which may be question of law or fact - Or combination of both (H5) African Intn’l Bank Ltd. v. Integrated Dimensional System Ltd. (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1635; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 1

 

PARTIES - Appeals - Leave - Raising of fresh issues - Limitation - Fresh issues must be limited to the case as pleaded by parties - And evidence on record in support of their positions - As well as the judgment thereon (H4) Adeosun v. Gov. of Ekiti State (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 1; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1291) 581

 

PARTIES - Appeals - Preliminary objection - Purpose - The objection is against hearing of appeal - Not against competence of brief of party - As it contends that appeal is fundamentally defective (H1) Lafia L.G. v. Gov. Nasarawa State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4385; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 94

 

PARTIES - Appeals - Record of appeal - Binding nature - The record is presumed to be correct - Once no complaint is made against it - And appellate court as well as litigants are bound by the contents therein (H7) Audu v. A-G Fed (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3321; (2013) 8 NWLR (PT.1355) 175

 

PARTIES - Appeals - Right of appeal - 1999 Constitution ss. 241(1) & 242(1) - Under the provisions - Aggrieved party can appeal as of right - Or with leave of court (H3) Nig. Laboratory Corp. v. Pacific Merchant Bank (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 314) 2249; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1324) 505

 

PARTIES - Banking - Actions - Claim for interest - Exhibit E - Not pleaded - Since appellant did not plea the exhibit - It is deemed that same was not intended - To guide transaction between the parties (H7) African Intn’l Bank Ltd. v. Integrated Dimensional System Ltd. (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1635; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 1

 

PARTIES - Bills of lading - Contract - Notify party - Right of action - He cannot sue because he is not a party to the contract - But merely a person to be notified of the arrival of the goods (H3) Pacers Multi-Dynamics Ltd v. The M.V. Dancing Sister (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 385; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1289) 169

 

PARTIES - Bills of lading - Parties to - It is a contract for carriage of goods by sea - Between ship-owner and consignor on one part - And consignee on the other - Which allows only parties therein to sue on it (H2) Pacers Multi-Dynamics Ltd v. The M.V. Dancing Sister (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 385; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1289) 169

 

PARTIES - Charterparties - Contract - Exemption clause - Binding nature - Clause 11 & 14 exempts 2nd respondent from liability - And court as well as the parties are bound by same (H11) Pacers Multi-Dynamics Ltd v. The M.V. Dancing Sister (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 385; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1289) 169

 

PARTIES - Chieftaincy matters - Customary law - Registered declaration - Effect - It constitutes statement of the applicable customs - And court and parties are bound by same - Save where the declaration is fundamentally defective (H1) Adeosun v. Gov. of Ekiti State (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 1; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1291) 581

 

PARTIES - Constitutional law - High Court - Referral to appeal court - By 1999 Constitution s. 295(2) - Reference can be made by Judge suo motu - Or by one or both parties - And it is not mandatory that parties are heard (H2) Audu v. A-G Fed (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3321; (2013) 8 NWLR (PT.1355) 175

 

PARTIES - Contracts - Consideration - Definition - Consideration is impelling influence - Which induces a contracting party - To enter into contract (H5) BFI Group Corp. v. Bureau of Public Enterpr. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2553; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1332) 209

 

PARTIES - Contracts - Determination of - The test is to ask whether an offer has been made by one party - And accepted by the other (H3) Akinyemi v. Odu’a Inv. Co. Ltd (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 55; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1329) 209

 

PARTIES - Contracts - Discharge - By breach - Meaning - This occurs where party acted contrary to terms by non performance - Or performing contrary to terms - Or by wrongful repudiation (H3) Ahmed v. CBN (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 277; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1339) 524

 

PARTIES - Contracts - Frustration - Determination - Frustration occurs whenever court recognizes that - Without default of either party - Contractual obligation has become incapable of being performed (H5) A-G Cross-River State v. A-G Fed. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2717; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1327) 425

 

PARTIES - Contracts - Frustration - Effect - Contract which is discharged by frustration - Is brought to an end automatically by operation of law - Irrespective of wishes of parties (H6) A-G Cross-River State v. A-G Fed. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2717; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1327) 425

 

PARTIES - Contracts - Terms - Binding nature - Court must treat as sacrosanct - Terms of agreement freely entered into by parties (H4) BFI Group Corp. v. Bureau of Public Enterpr. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2553; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1332) 209

 

PARTIES - Court processes - Abuse - Characteristics - Abuse features in improper use of judicial process by party - To interfere with due administration of justice (H1) R-Benkay Nig. Ltd. v. Cadbury Nig. Ltd. (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1383; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1306) 596

 

PARTIES - Court processes - Abuse - Characteristics - Saraki v. Kotoye - Abuse arises in improper use of judicial process by party - To interfere with due administration of justice (H2) TSA Ind. Ltd. v. FBN (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 4055; (2012) 14 NWLR (PT.1320) 326

 

PARTIES - Court processes - Appeals - Application as interested party - 1st respondent’s application does not constitute abuse of process - And Court of Appeal was right in granting same (H1) Waziri v. Gumel (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1473; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1304) 185

 

PARTIES - Courts - Appeals - Application as interested party - Exercise of discretion - Since Court of Appeal complied with 1999 Constitution s. 243(a)(b) in granting the application - Supreme Court will not interfere (H2) Waziri v. Gumel (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1473; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1304) 185

 

PARTIES - Courts - Appeals - Issues - Determination - Court must consider all issues that have been joined by parties - And raised before it for determination (H2) Marine Mgt. Asso. v. N.M.A. (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3863; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1333) 506

 

PARTIES - Courts - Election petitions - Documents - Binding nature - Judge is restricted to case presented by parties - In order to avoid rendering perverse judgment (H6) Aliucha v. Elechi (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1065

 

PARTIES - Courts - Error - Effect on litigant - Party should not be punished because of error - Committed by judge counsel or court officials (H1) Fidelity Bank Plc v. Monye (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1203; (2012) 10 NWLR (PT.1307) 1

 

PARTIES - Courts - Failure to raise triable issue - Court can in appropriate case - Draw conclusions from pleadings - And enter judgment for a party (H3) Unity Bank Plc v. Denclag Ltd. (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1427; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1332) 293

 

PARTIES - Courts - Issue - Suo motu raising - Where court fails to invite parties to react to such issue - Before basing its judgment thereon - Such act is breach of right to fair hearing - And it renders the judgment a nullity (H1) Uwazuruonye v. Gov. Imo State (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3415; (2013) 8 NWLR (PT.1355) 28

 

PARTIES - Courts - Issues - Binding nature of - Court is bound to consider - Issues properly placed before it - As it does not fish out issues for parties (H5) Chidoka v. First City Finance Co. Ltd. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2585; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1346) 144

 

PARTIES - Courts - Issues - Determination - Court is to adjudicate between parties - In relation to their competing legal interest - And never to engage in mere academic discourse (H7) PHCN v. Offoelo (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 4001; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1344) 380

 

PARTIES - Courts - Issues - Formulation - Correctness of - Court has discretion to re-arrange issues by parties - To meet the justice of the case (H3) Plateau State Health Serv. Mgt Board v. Goshwe (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3233; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1338) 383

 

PARTIES - Courts - Issues - Raising suo motu - Propriety - It is wrong for court to raise a point suo motu - And resolve a case on that basis - Without inviting the parties or their counsel to address it on the point (H5) Amale v. Sokoto L. G. (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 99; (2012) 5 NWLR (PT.1292) 181

 

PARTIES - Courts - Issues - Suo motu raising - Propriety - Court may raise issues - Provided that parties are given opportunity - Of being heard on the issues so raised (H6) PDP v. Okorocha (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1155; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1323) 205

 

PARTIES - Courts - Issues - Suo motu raising - When an issue is raised suo motu - Parties should be heard before decision is reached on the issue - Save where some exceptions apply (H7) Gbagbarigha v. Toruemi (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4355; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1350) 289

 

PARTIES - Courts - Jurisdiction - Raising suo motu - Propriety - Where there is clear want of jurisdiction in the court - It is the duty of the judge to raise the issue suo motu - If the parties fail to do so (H7) Amale v. Sokoto L. G. (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 99; (2012) 5 NWLR (PT.1292) 181

 

PARTIES - Courts - Processes - Abuse - Need to avoid - Case ought to be determined within reasonable time - As no court would allow party - To abuse it (H3) Chidoka v. First City Finance Co. Ltd. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2585; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1346) 144

 

PARTIES - Courts - Processes - Compliance with laws - Court is to ensure that process filed by parties - Comply with provisions of applicable laws (H7) PDP v. Okorocha (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1155; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1323) 205

 

PARTIES - Courts - Records of proceedings - Binding nature - Court and parties are bound by records of proceedings - Which were conducted in court (H3) Offor v. State (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3207; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1333) 421

 

PARTIES - Courts - Stay of execution - Grant - Parties - Court exercises its discretion judicially and judiciously - Where applicant has presented necessary materials - For grant of stay (H1) Alawiye v. Ogunsanya (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 2957; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1348) 570

 

PARTIES - Criminal procedure - Evidential burden of proof - Alibi - Burden of adducing evidence on an issue - Can be placed on either side - And where same is not discharged - The issue will be resolved against the party (H3) Ikaria v. State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4371

 

PARTIES - Damages - Special damages - Purpose - Particulars of such damages are given - In order to allow the other party know the case against it - So as to eliminate any element of surprise (H4) Marine Mgt. Asso. v. N.M.A. (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3863; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1333) 506

 

PARTIES - Documents - Election petitions - Need to relate - Party must link document relied upon - To specific area of his petition (H5) Aliucha v. Elechi (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1065

 

PARTIES - Documents - Recitals in - Effect - Where accurate recitals and descriptions of facts and parties - Are made in document of more than 20 years - The same shall be taken as sufficient evidence of truth of such facts and matters (H4) Osidele v. Sokunbi (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2857; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1324) 470

 

PARTIES - Documents - Validity - Invitation to determine - Is proper if the validity of the document is put in issue - In the pleadings of parties before the court (H5) Adeosun v. Gov. of Ekiti State (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 1; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1291) 581

 

PARTIES - Election petitions - Courts - Appeals - Final judgment - Meaning - Such judgment disposes of rights of parties - And puts an end to the action (H9) Ogboru v. Uduaghan (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1351; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1311) 357

 

PARTIES - Election petitions - Documents - Oral evidence - Appellants must adduce oral evidence - Linking the documents to his case - As court is not supposed to do a party’s case (H6) CPC v. Suntai (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3543

 

PARTIES - Election petitions - Judgment - 1999 Constitution s. 285(6) - Once tribunal gives decision within 180 days and aggrieved party appeals - Its time runs until the 180 days shall be exhausted - And appellate court cannot extend the time (H2) Udenwa v. Uzodinma (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 4093; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1346) 94

 

PARTIES - Elections - Actions - Inconsistency - Need to avoid - A party should be consistent - In stating as well as in proving its case (H8) Emenike v. PDP (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1717; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1315) 556

 

PARTIES - Elections - Actions - Joinder of party - Condition - Party wishing to be joined in existing action - Must have direct or legal interest in same (H3) Bala v. Dikko (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3049; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1343) 52

 

PARTIES - Elections - Election time table - Cancellation - There is no law requiring INEC to furnish parties with reasons - Why a time table could not be used for an election (H4) NDP v. INEC (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3901; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1350) 392

 

PARTIES - Elections - Pre election matters - Jurisdiction - By virtue of Electoral Act s.87(9) - Courts can entertain complaints of aggrieved party - At primary election (H6) Emeka v. Okadigbo (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2611; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1331) 55

 

PARTIES - Elections - Pre-election matters - Proper parties - By s.87(1)(9) Electoral Act 2012 - The parties are political party - Candidates at the election - And Independent National Electoral Commission (H3) Nwaogu v. Owuala (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3187

 

PARTIES - Estoppel - Application - Since parties and subject matter in earlier suit - Are not different from those of present suit - Appellant is properly stopped from pursuing the appeal (H3) Mezu v. Co-operative & Commerce Bank Plc (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2831; (2013) 3 NWLR (PT.1340) 188

 

PARTIES - Estoppel by conduct - Contract - Party who by conduct induces another to enter into legal relationship with him - Will not be permitted to act inconsistently with same (H6) BFI Group Corp. v. Bureau of Public Enterpr. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2553; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1332) 209

 

PARTIES - Estoppel by conduct - Principle - Evidence Act s.151 - Party who falsely induced another to act in a certain way - Is estopped from taking advantage of that other person (H3) A-G Nasarawa State v. A-G Plateau State (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1011; (2012) 10 NWLR (PT.1309) 419

 

PARTIES - Estoppel by silence - Meaning - It arises when a party is under a duty to speak - But fails to do so (H9) Tukur v. Uba (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2651; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1343) 90

 

PARTIES - Estoppel by standing-by - Proof - Party must establish that judgment was given against interest of another - Who knowingly did nothing - To safeguard the interest (H1) Nwakonobi v. Udeorah (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1555; (2013) 7 NWLR (PT.1354) 499

 

PARTIES - Evidence - Courts - Indian Hemp - Report Certificate - Service of - Evidence Act s.43 - Where the certificate is not served on adverse party ten days before usage in court - Adjournment may be granted (H3) Ugwanyi v. FRN (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1407; (2012) 8 NWLR (PT.1302) 384

 

PARTIES - Evidence - Defence - Evidence obtained from defence witness - Where it is in line with facts pleaded by plaintiff - It forms part of plaintiff’s evidence - And can be relied upon in proof of facts in dispute between the parties (H2) Adeosun v. Gov. of Ekiti State (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 1; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1291) 581

 

PARTIES - Evidence - Evaluation - Appeals - Where trial court fails to properly evaluate evidence - Court of Appeal can evaluate - And come to a correct and fair decision to parties (H1) Afolabi v. Western Steel Works Ltd. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2503; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1329) 286

 

PARTIES - Evidence - Proof - Onus - Evidence Act s. 135 - Plaintiff must prove his case - After which burden shifts to defendant (H6) Ohochukwu v. A-G Rivers State (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 885; (2012) 6 NWLR (PT.1295) 53

 

PARTIES - Evidence - Relevance - Adduced evidence - The available evidence show that the school is jointly owned by the parties - In spite of respondent being appointed the proprietor (H2) Adusei v. Adebayo (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 205; (2012) 3 NWLR (PT.1288) 534

 

PARTIES - Fair hearing - Audi alteram partem - Meaning - 1999 Constitution s. 36(1) - The maxim denotes fairness and natural justice - As a Judge must hear both parties before judgment (H3) Audu v. A-G Fed (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3321; (2013) 8 NWLR (PT.1355) 175

 

PARTIES - Fair hearing - Audi alteram partem - Meaning - The maxim denotes fairness - As a judge should allow both parties to be heard - Before resolving issue at stake (H8) Emeka v. Okadigbo (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2611; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1331) 55

 

PARTIES - Fair hearing - Breach - Allegation of - Party who fails to utilize opportunity given to present his case - Cannot be heard to complain of denial of right to fair hearing (H1) Ajibade v. State (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 2939; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1349) 25

 

PARTIES - Fair hearing - Breach - Complaint of - Where opportunities were given to party to present his case - But he failed to utilize same - Then he cannot complain of denial of fair hearing (H4) Chidoka v. First City Finance Co. Ltd. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2585; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1346) 144

 

PARTIES - Fair hearing - Court - Reference - Ex parte application for - As a Judge does not give an opinion - Or considers civil rights of parties in making reference - Denial of fair hearing does not arise (H2) Audu v. A-G Fed (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3321; (2013) 8 NWLR (PT.1355) 175

 

PARTIES - Fair hearing - Principles - Basis - 1999 Constitution s. 36(1) - Fair hearing is conducting of trial - According to legal rules formulated - To ensure that justice is done to parties (H2) Military Gov. Lagos State v. Adeyiga (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 839; (2012) 5 NWLR (PT.1293) 291

 

PARTIES - Injunction - Meaning - Injunction is judicial process operating in personam - By which upon certain principles of equity - A party is to do or refrain from doing a thing (H3) Kubor v. Dickson (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3121; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1345) 534

 

PARTIES - Islamic law - Legitimacy - Child born outside wedlock is not considered legitimate - And if the illicit relationship is established - Appropriate sanctions are given to parties involved (H2) Rabiu v. Amadu (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 417; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1337) 36

 

PARTIES - Joinder of party - Purpose - Joinder of party in suit is to make that person - Bound by the result of the suit and question to be settled (H6) Lagos State Bulk Purchase Corp. v. Purification Techn. Ltd. (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3829; (2013) 7 NWLR (PT.1352) 82

 

PARTIES - Judgments - Actions - Reliefs - Statute of limitation - Use of - Party invoking such statute - Is bound to specify reliefs in previous judgment - Which a latter suit seeks to enforce (H1) Purification Tech. Nig. Ltd. v. Jubril (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 313) 2157; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1331) 109

 

PARTIES - Judgments - Meaning of - Judgment is court’s final determination of - Rights and obligations of parties in a case - And it includes any order from which appeal lies (H2) Ugba v. Suswam (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 314) 2345; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1345) 427

 

PARTIES - Judgments - Valid judgment - Ingredients - Judgment should set out and review action presented by parties - In relation to applicable laws - As well as gives reasons for conclusions reached (H6) Ogboru v. Uduaghan (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1351; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1311) 357

 

PARTIES - Judgments - Validity - Essential requirements - Facts as pleaded by parties must be set out - As well as issues for determination and resolution thereon - And a final order of court (H1) CPC v. Suntai (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3543

 

PARTIES - Jurisdiction - Appeals - Supreme Court - Issue of jurisdiction can be raised any time even before Supreme Court - And court can suo motu raise same - But parties must be heard before decision is taken (H4) Egunjobi v. FRN (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4259; (2013) 3 NWLR (PT.1342) 534

 

PARTIES - Jurisdiction - Issue of - Time to raise - Issue of jurisdiction is a threshold matter - That it can be raised at anytime - Even for the first time in Supreme Court - Provided parties are heard (H2) Emeka v. Okadigbo (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2611; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1331) 55

 

PARTIES - Jurisdiction - Issue of - When to raise - It can be raised at any stage in trial court or on appeal - And can be raised by any party or suo motu by the court (H6) Amale v. Sokoto L. G. (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 99; (2012) 5 NWLR (PT.1292) 181

 

PARTIES - Jurisdiction - Source of - It is derived from the Constitution and statutes creating a court - Hence court and parties cannot assume jurisdiction by agreement (H1) Dangana v. Usman (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 577; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1349) 50

 

PARTIES - Land law - Actions - Proof - Onus - Proof is on preponderance of evidence - And onus is on party who will fail - If no evidence is adduced on either side (H6) Ayorinde v. Sogunro (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1895; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1312) 460

 

PARTIES - Land law - Identity of land - Difference in names - Effect - Ascribing different names to land by parties - Is immaterial for proving identity (H4) Atanda v. Iliasu (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3015; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1351) 529

 

PARTIES - Land law - Identity of land - Proof - Exception to - Claimant is to prove identity of land - Only where same has been put in issue in pleadings of parties (H2) Atanda v. Iliasu (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3015; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1351) 529

 

PARTIES - Land law - Identity of land - Proof - Party who seeks title to land - Must prove identity of the land - In respect of which he seeks remedy (H3) Iseogbekun v. Adelakun (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3573; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1337) 14

 

PARTIES - Land law - Identity of land - Purpose - This is to ascertain the property in litigation - So as to avoid granting of land - To a party who is not entitled to same (H2) Iseogbekun v. Adelakun (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3573; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1337) 14

 

PARTIES - Land law - Title - Proof - Conflicting claims - Where parties derived titles from different sources - The source with better title gives superior root of title (H2) Osidele v. Sokunbi (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2857; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1324) 470

 

PARTIES - Land law - Title - Proof - Party needs to succeed on strength of his case - And not depend on weakness of opponent (H7) Ohochukwu v. A-G Rivers State (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 885; (2012) 6 NWLR (PT.1295) 53

 

PARTIES - Land law - Title - Traditional history - Proof - Party who claims title vide such history - Must establish how his ancestor acquired the land (H4) Iseogbekun v. Adelakun (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3573; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1337) 14

 

PARTIES - Legal practitioners - Negligence - Conduct of case - Counsel is master of his case - As he may decide not to call witness - Or cross-examine witness of the other party - But may be sued for professional negligence (H2) Chidoka v. First City Finance Co. Ltd. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2585; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1346) 144

 

PARTIES - Locus standi - Test - How determined - The action must be justifiable - And there must be a dispute between the parties (H5) Pacers Multi-Dynamics Ltd v. The M.V. Dancing Sister (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 385; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1289) 169

 

PARTIES - Mortgages - Debts - Recovery - Liability of parties - Where principal debtor and surety are jointly sued - Both are liable solely or jointly with others - But when severally sued - Each party is liable as principal debtor (H8) African Intn’l Bank Ltd. v. Integrated Dimensional System Ltd. (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1635; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 1

 

PARTIES - Orders of court - Non suit - Propriety - Parties ought to be given opportunity of being heard - Before the order was made by trial court - Hence Court of Appeal was right to set aside same (H3) Adusei v. Adebayo (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 205; (2012) 3 NWLR (PT.1288) 534

 

PARTIES - Petroleum law - Exhibit EE2 - Validity of - The exhibit is invalid - Since the parties cannot by consent - Alter provisions of the Petroleum Act (H7) NNPC v. Famfa Oil Ltd (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1947; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 148

 

PARTIES - Pleadings - Binding nature - Issues for trial are joined in pleadings - And parties as well as court - Are bound by pleadings (H2) Kubor v. Dickson (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3121; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1345) 534

 

PARTIES - Pleadings ­- Binding nature - Parties are bound by their pleadings - Facts not pleaded go to no issue - And are bound to be discountenanced and expunged from records (H7) Oruwari v. Osler (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3941; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1348) 535

 

PARTIES - Pleadings - Binding nature of - Courts are bound by pleadings before them - And should confine themselves - To the case presented by parties (H4) Ohochukwu v. A-G Rivers State (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 885; (2012) 6 NWLR (PT.1295) 53

 

PARTIES - Res judicata - Estoppel - Plea - Conditions precedent - For the plea to be sustained - There must be inter alia judicial decision - And that court that heard the matter - Has jurisdiction over parties and subject matter (H1) Abiola & Sons Bottling Co. Ltd. v. 7Up Bottling Co. Ltd. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2487; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1322) 184

 

PARTIES - Rules of court - Binding nature - The rules are for compliance of court and parties - Since they regulate matters in court - As well as help parties in prosecution of cases (H2) MC Invest. Ltd. v. Core Invest. & Capital Market Ltd. (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 314) 2235; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1313) 1

 

PARTIES - Statutes - Performance of duty - Regulated by statute - Where two methods or procedures for doing a thing are provided - A party can choose any of the methods so provided (H1) PDP v. INEC (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3693; (2012) 7 NWLR (PT.1300) 538

 

PARTIES - Statutes - Public Officers (Protection) Act - Purpose of - Is to protect officer from detraction - Exception to the plea - Include continuance of damage - And acting outside statutory duty (H4) A-G Rivers State v. A-G Bayelsa State (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2519; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1340) 123

 

PARTIES - Supreme Court - Equity jurisdiction - Applicability - The court will consider the motive and intention of the parties - So as to give effect to what was proved but was not awarded in law - Because it was not specifically claimed (H4) Adusei v. Adebayo (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 205; (2012) 3 NWLR (PT.1288) 534

 

PARTIES - Supreme Court - Original jurisdiction - Parties - 1999 Constitution s. 232(1) - The court sits on disputes bordering on extent of legal right - Between Federal and State(s) Government - Or between States Government (H3) A-G Rivers State v. A-G Bayelsa State (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2519; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1340) 123

 

PARTIES - Words & Phrases - Court - “Judgment” - Definition - Judgment is the official and authentic decision of court - Upon rights of parties in an action (H4) Ogboru v. Uduaghan (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1351; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1311) 357

 

PARTIES - Writ of summons - Previous judgment - Claim - Basis - Party predicating his relief on the judgment - Should indicate the basis of his claim in writ (H2) Purification Tech. Nig. Ltd. v. Jubril (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 313) 2157; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1331) 109

 

PETROLEUM LAW - Conflict of laws - Oil & Gas - Petroleum Act vis-à-vis Back-in-Right Regulation - Oil mining lease - Acquisition of - Procedure - Method provided by Petroleum Act - Should be strictly followed (H5) NNPC v. Famfa Oil Ltd (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1947; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 148

 

PETROLEUM LAW - Exhibit EE2 - Validity of - The exhibit is invalid - Since the parties cannot by consent - Alter provisions of the Petroleum Act (H7) NNPC v. Famfa Oil Ltd (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1947; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 148

 

PLEADINGS - Actions - Undefended list - Transfer to general list - Procedure - With order transferring suit to general list - Parties are expected to file their pleadings (H8) Bona.V. Textile Ltd. v. Asaba Textile Mill Plc (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3063; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1338) 357

 

PLEADINGS - Appeals - Leave - Raising of fresh issues - Limitation - Fresh issues must be limited to the case as pleaded by parties - And evidence on record in support of their positions - As well as the judgment thereon (H4) Adeosun v. Gov. of Ekiti State (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 1; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1291) 581

 

PLEADINGS - Averments - Denial - Defendant must expressly deny plaintiff’s material averment in statement of claim - Otherwise he will be taken as having admitted same (H6) Oruwari v. Osler (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3941; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1348) 535

 

PLEADINGS - Banking - Claim for interest - Exhibit E - Not pleaded - Since appellant did not plea the exhibit - It is deemed that same was not intended - To guide transaction between the parties (H7) African Intn’l Bank Ltd. v. Integrated Dimensional System Ltd. (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1635; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 1

 

PLEADINGS - Binding nature - Issues for trial are joined in pleadings - And parties as well as court - Are bound by pleadings (H2) Kubor v. Dickson (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3121; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1345) 534

 

PLEADINGS - Binding nature - Parties are bound by their pleadings - Facts not pleaded go to no issue - And are bound to be discountenanced and expunged from records (H7) Oruwari v. Osler (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3941; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1348) 535

 

PLEADINGS - Binding nature of - Cases are decided on issues as joined in the pleadings - The purpose being to avoid surprise at the trial (H3) Adeosun v. Gov. of Ekiti State (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 1; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1291) 581

 

PLEADINGS - Binding nature of - Courts are bound by pleadings before them - And should confine themselves - To the case presented by parties (H4) Ohochukwu v. A-G Rivers State (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 885; (2012) 6 NWLR (PT.1295) 53

 

PLEADINGS - Binding nature of - Party must state his complaints and remedy in statement of claim - Because any matter outside same - Goes to no issue (H8) Ohochukwu v. A-G Rivers State (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 885; (2012) 6 NWLR (PT.1295) 53

 

PLEADINGS - Chieftaincy matters - Appeals - Actions - Proof - Plaintiff must rely on strength of his case - And not on weakness of defence (H1) Akande v. Adisa (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1681; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1324) 538

 

PLEADINGS - Content - Basis - Pleadings are required to contain facts - That assist court in just determination of a case (H5) Ohochukwu v. A-G Rivers State (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 885; (2012) 6 NWLR (PT.1295) 53

 

PLEADINGS - Courts - Failure to raise triable issue - Court can in appropriate case - Draw conclusions from pleadings - And enter judgment for a party (H3) Unity Bank Plc v. Denclag Ltd. (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1427; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1332) 293

 

PLEADINGS - Courts - Jurisdiction - Actions - Commencement procedure - Since originating summons cannot properly initiate the matter - Court can convert the summons and order pleadings (H4) Atago v. Nwuche (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 2995; (2013) 3 NWLR (PT.1341) 337

 

PLEADINGS - Courts - Reliefs - Grant of - Court may not grant unpleaded relief - But may do so to meet the circumstances of a case - More so where there are evidence to rely on (H4) Obueke v. Nnamchi (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1801; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1314) 327

 

PLEADINGS - Damages - Special damages - Particulars of appellants’ loss were pleaded - By reference to report prepared by Ajibola Ogunsola (H3) Marine Mgt. Asso. v. N.M.A. (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3863; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1333) 506

 

PLEADINGS - Damages - Special damages - Proof - Appellant has the burden - To strictly plead the professional fees - As stated in paragraph 20 of supporting affidavit (H2) Intercontinental Bank Plc v. Brifina Ltd. (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1927; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1316) 1

 

PLEADINGS - Damages - Special damages - Purpose - Particulars of such damages are given - In order to allow the other party know the case against it - So as to eliminate any element of surprise (H4) Marine Mgt. Asso. v. N.M.A. (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3863; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1333) 506

 

PLEADINGS - Documents - Validity - Invitation to determine - Is proper if the validity of the document is put in issue - In the pleadings of parties before the court (H5) Adeosun v. Gov. of Ekiti State (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 1; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1291) 581

 

PLEADINGS - Election petitions - Allegation of crime - Proof - Court of Appeal rightly held that the paragraphs relating to crimes are vague - Since particulars of fraud were not pleaded (H3) PDP v. INEC (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3693; (2012) 7 NWLR (PT.1300) 538

 

PLEADINGS - Election petitions - Civil & criminal allegations - Proof - Where such facts pleaded are intertwined - Petitioner succeeds only if - The averments are proved beyond reasonable doubt (H5) ACN v. Nyako (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3267

 

PLEADINGS - Election petitions - Format - Vague paragraphs - Fate - Court of Appeal rightly described averments in paragraphs 18 and 19 as imprecise - And incapable of supporting allegation of non compliance (H9) ACN v. Lamido (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 621; (2012) 8 NWLR (PT.1303) 560

 

PLEADINGS - Estoppel - Plea - Manner of - Estoppel need not be pleaded in a particular manner - So long as the facts show - That estoppel was clearly raised (H2) Mezu v. Co-operative & Commerce Bank Plc (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2831; (2013) 3 NWLR (PT.1340) 188

 

PLEADINGS - Evidence - Admissibility - Exhibits P3 & P4 - Not pleaded - Fate - Court of Appeal was right in expunging the exhibits - Since same were not pleaded (H2) Phillips v. Eba Odan Commercial & Industrial Co. Ltd. (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1611; (2013) 1 NWLR (PT.1336) 618

 

PLEADINGS - Evidence - Averment - Not supported by evidence - Fate - Such averment is deemed abandoned - And is not to be relied upon (H2) Akande v. Adisa (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1681; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1324) 538

 

PLEADINGS - Evidence - Defence - Evidence obtained from defence witness - Where it is in line with facts pleaded by plaintiff - It forms part of plaintiff’s evidence - And can be relied upon in proof of facts in dispute between the parties (H2) Adeosun v. Gov. of Ekiti State (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 1; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1291) 581

 

PLEADINGS - Evidence - Previous proceedings - Evidence of - Admissibility - Evidence Act s.34(1) - Where issues are the same - Court will admit such evidence - But facts must be pleaded (H1) Ayorinde v. Sogunro (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1895; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1312) 460

 

PLEADINGS - Judgments - Validity - Actions - Statute barred - Limitation Law of Lagos s. 12(2) - Judgment in suit no. LD/1213/76 can be pleaded and relied upon - Though action brought upon same is statute barred (H3) Purification Tech. Nig. Ltd. v. Jubril (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 313) 2157; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1331) 109

 

PLEADINGS - Judgments - Validity - Essential requirements - Facts as pleaded by parties must be set out - As well as issues for determination and resolution thereon - And a final order of court (H1) CPC v. Suntai (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3543

 

PLEADINGS - Land law - Identity of land - Proof - Exception to - Claimant is to prove identity of land - Only where same has been put in issue in pleadings of parties (H2) Atanda v. Iliasu (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3015; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1351) 529

 

PLEADINGS - Land law - Title - Proof - Basis - Pleadings and evidence adduced by plaintiff - Determine whether he has proved his case or not (H1) Mkpinang v. Ndem (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4425; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1344) 302

 

PLEADINGS - Land law - Title - Proof - Means - Plaintiff may adopt any of the ways of proving ownership - And his claim should be dismissed - Where he fails to prove title as pleaded (H2) Mkpinang v. Ndem (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4425; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1344) 302

 

PLEADINGS - Locus standi - Proof - Duty on plaintiff - Statement of claim must disclose sufficient legal interest - And how such interest arose in the subject matter of the action (H4) Pacers Multi-Dynamics Ltd v. The M.V. Dancing Sister (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 385; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1289) 169

 

PLEADINGS - Statement of claim - Relevance - It supersedes writ of summons - As such any relief claimed in the writ but not claimed in the statement of claim - Is deemed abandoned (H1) Stowe v. Benstowe (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 457; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1306) 450

 

PLEADINGS - Statement of defence - Fresh issues of fact - Need to reply - Plaintiff must reply to the new issues - Otherwise same will be deemed admitted (H5) Phillips v. Eba Odan Commercial & Industrial Co. Ltd. (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1611; (2013) 1 NWLR (PT.1336) 618

 

PLEADINGS - Statement of defence - Reply to - Absence of - Effect - Allegation in statement of claim are deemed denied - Or joinder of issues is implied (H4) Phillips v. Eba Odan Commercial & Industrial Co. Ltd. (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1611; (2013) 1 NWLR (PT.1336) 618

 

PLEADINGS - Statutes - Limitation - Public Officers Protection Law - Pleadings - Defendant must specifically plead the defence at trial court - Otherwise he cannot rely on same on appeal (H6) Ajayi v. Adebiyi (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1843; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1310) 137

 

POLICE - Courts - Federal High court - Declaratory and injunctive reliefs - By 1999 Constitution s. 251(1)(r) - Reliefs claimed are within the court’s jurisdiction - Since the COP being also a party - Is a federal government agency (H6) NURTW v. RTEAN (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 149; (2012) 10 NWLR (PT.1307) 170

 

POLITICS - Constitution - Interpretation - 1999 constitution s. 180 - Intendment - The provision intends that a governor of a State - Shall only have a tenure of four years from the date he took the oaths of office (H5) Marwa v. Nyako (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 231; (2012) 6 NWLR (PT.1296) 199

 

POLITICS - Constitution - Time fixed - Adherence - Such time cannot be extended beyond constitutional provisions - Hence tenure of governors cannot be calculated from dates of their second oaths - As that will lead to extension (H9) Marwa v. Nyako (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 231; (2012) 6 NWLR (PT.1296) 199

 

POLITICS - Election petitions - Party primaries & main election - INEC as electoral umpire - Must ensure compliance with Electoral Act - And guidelines of the party - As to maintain sanctity in electoral process (H6) Asogwa v. PDP (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4155; (2013) 7 NWLR (PT.1353) 207

 

POLITICS - Elections - Courts - Jurisdiction - Pre-election matter - Court can determine whether a political party - In taking any action - Complied with or violated its own constitution (H1) Peretu v. Gariga (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4543; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1348) 415

 

POLITICS - Elections - Gubernatorial - Commencement of tenure - By 1999 constitution s. 180(2) - Four year tenure of the Governors started the date they took their 1st oaths of office - After a duly conducted election (H1) Marwa v. Nyako (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 231; (2012) 6 NWLR (PT.1296) 199

 

POLITICS - Elections - Nomination - Political party - Is the proper body - To know who among aspirants - Is cleared for elections - And court does not question a party’s candidate - Where constitutionally nominated (H7) Tukur v. Uba (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2651; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1343) 90

 

POLITICS - Elections - Nomination - Proof - Evidence of nomination lies in declaration of winner of primary election - As well as forwarding of the winner’s names to INEC (H5) Kubor v. Dickson (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3121; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1345) 534

 

POLITICS - Elections - Nomination of candidates - Jurisdiction of court - Court can inquire whether - Nomination complied with Electoral Act - And political party’s constitution (H5) Emenike v. PDP (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1717; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1315) 556

 

POLITICS - Elections - Political parties - Nomination of candidates - Right to nominate candidates at election - Resides with political parties - And court has no jurisdiction over same (H5) PDP v. Sylva (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1575; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1316) 85

 

POLITICS - Elections - Political parties - Nomination of candidates - Right of political party to nominate candidate - Cannot be questioned in court (H4) Emenike v. PDP (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1717; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1315) 556

 

POLITICS - Elections - Political parties - Substitution of candidates - Basis - By ss.33 & 35 of Electoral Act 2010 - Candidate can only be replaced - If he dies or withdraws (H3) PDP v. Sylva (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1575; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1316) 85

 

POLITICS - Elections - Political party’s constitution - Binding nature - Appellant is bound by Exhibit 7 - And cannot circumvent same to his own benefit (H7) Emenike v. PDP (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1717; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1315) 556

 

POLITICS - Elections - Pre election matters - Electoral Act 2010 ss.33 & 35 - Applicability - The sections are irrelevant - Since INEC cancelled April 2011 election - Fixed for Bayelsa State (H4) PDP v. Sylva (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1575; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1316) 85

 

POLITICS - Pre election matters - Courts - Jurisdiction - Electoral Act 2010 s.87(9) - Confers jurisdiction on courts - Where political party fails - To comply with its constitution - In primary elections (H6) PDP v. Sylva (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1575; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1316) 85

 

POLITICS - Term of office - Appeals - Reliefs claimed - Propriety of refusal - Appellants no longer have enforceable rights - As their tenure of office had ceased to exist on 24th May 2010 (H2) Adepoju v. Yinka (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 37; (2012) 3 NWLR (PT.1288) 567

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Actions - Commencement - Court processes - Failure to commence action with valid processes - Affects exercise of court’s jurisdiction in the matter (H1) Braithwaite v. Sky Bank Plc (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3087; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1346) 1

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Actions - Undefended list - Commencement - Application for writ of summons for claim for liquidated money demand - Is accompanied by affidavit - Setting out grounds for the claim (H1) Bona.V. Textile Ltd. v. Asaba Textile Mill Plc (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3063; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1338) 357

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Actions - Undefended list - Defence - Defendant who wishes to defend the action - Must disclose his intention to registrar - With affidavit disclosing defence on merit (H3) Bona.V. Textile Ltd. v. Asaba Textile Mill Plc (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3063; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1338) 357

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Actions - Undefended list - Leave to defend - Where leave is granted by court - The action is automatically removed from the list - To general cause list (H4) Bona.V. Textile Ltd. v. Asaba Textile Mill Plc (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3063; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1338) 357

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Actions - Undefended list - Transfer to general list - Procedure - With order transferring suit to general list - Parties are expected to file their pleadings (H8) Bona.V. Textile Ltd. v. Asaba Textile Mill Plc (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3063; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1338) 357

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Appeals - Fresh issue - Raised without leave - Fate - Since leave was not obtained to raise new issue of trust property - The issue shall be deemed incompetent (H6) Osidele v. Sokunbi (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2857; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1324) 470

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Appeals - Ground - Originating summons - Where reliefs sought cannot be dealt with under that summons - The ground on fair hearing will be struck out (H7) Asogwa v. PDP (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4155; (2013) 7 NWLR (PT.1353) 207

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Appeals - Grounds - Preliminary objections - When relevant - Objections are filed against hearing of appeal - But where there are grounds to sustain appeal - Motion on notice should be filed (H2) NNPC v. Famfa Oil Ltd (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1947; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 148

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Appeals - Notice of appeal - Amendment - Notice can be amended at any stage of the proceedings in court - With leave of court predicated upon special circumstances (H5) Alawiye v. Ogunsanya (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 2957; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1348) 570

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Appeals - Notices of appeal - Multiple filing - Appellant can file more than one notice within time - But he must choose which of them - He intends to rely upon (H1) Tukur v. Uba (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2651; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1343) 90

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Cause of action - Applicable law - Is the law in force at the time of pendency of a suit - And not the procedural law in force when a cause of action arose (H3) Olaleye-ote v. Babalola (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3637; (2012) 6 NWLR (PT.1297) 574

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Court processes - Abuse - Characteristics - Abuse entails departure through improper use - Or perversion of court processes - After having been filed either in same court - Or various courts (H1) Barigha v. PDP (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4221; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1349) 108

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Courts - Jurisdiction - Actions - Commencement procedure - Since originating summons cannot properly initiate the matter - Court can convert the summons and order pleadings (H4) Atago v. Nwuche (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 2995; (2013) 3 NWLR (PT.1341) 337

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Crime - Appeals - Notice of appeal - Filing - Time frame - By s.27(2)(b) Supreme Court Act - Criminal appeal to the court must be filed within 30 days from date Court of Appeal delivered its judgment (H5) Okereke v. James (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2385; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1326) 339

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Customary court - Procedure in superior courts are not strictly followed - As it is the substance of the matter - That is of importance in customary court (H6) Gbagbarigha v. Toruemi (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4355; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1350) 289

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Customary courts - Proceedings - The proceedings therein should be examined - As rules of superior court of record are not strictly followed in such courts (H4) Okereke v. James (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2385; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1326) 339

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Elections - Actions - Joinder of party - Condition - Party wishing to be joined in existing action - Must have direct or legal interest in same (H3) Bala v. Dikko (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3049; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1343) 52

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Evidence - Examination of witnesses - Meaning - Evidence in chief testifies plaintiff’s case - Cross examination tests credibility of stated testimony - While re-examination restores credibility to the testimony (H2) Ayorinde v. Sogunro (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1895; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1312) 460

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Fair hearing - Breach - Adjournments - Where opportunity to present case was granted - But appellants failed to utilize it - They cannot be heard to complain of denial of fair hearing (H3) Military Gov. Lagos State v. Adeyiga (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 839; (2012) 5 NWLR (PT.1293) 291

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Fair hearing - Principles - Basis - 1999 Constitution s. 36(1) - Fair hearing is conducting of trial - According to legal rules formulated - To ensure that justice is done to parties (H2) Military Gov. Lagos State v. Adeyiga (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 839; (2012) 5 NWLR (PT.1293) 291

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Joinder of party - Purpose - Joinder of party in suit is to make that person - Bound by the result of the suit and question to be settled (H6) Lagos State Bulk Purchase Corp. v. Purification Techn. Ltd. (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3829; (2013) 7 NWLR (PT.1352) 82

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Jurisdiction - Fundamental nature - Where court lacks jurisdiction over a matter - The entire proceedings amount to nullity - No matter how well conducted (H1) Gbagbarigha v. Toruemi (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4355; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1350) 289

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Jurisdiction - Fundamental nature of - Court cannot deal with a matter without jurisdiction - As absence of same renders proceedings therein a nullity (H3) Alawiye v. Ogunsanya (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 2957; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1348) 570

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Originating summons - Applicability of - Appeal - Concurrent findings that the issues cannot be resolved by affidavits evidence - Were not shown to be perverse (H8) Asogwa v. PDP (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4155; (2013) 7 NWLR (PT.1353) 207

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Pleadings - Binding nature of - Cases are decided on issues as joined in the pleadings - The purpose being to avoid surprise at the trial (H3) Adeosun v. Gov. of Ekiti State (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 1; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1291) 581

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Preliminary objection - Basis - Since such objection deals with law - No affidavit is necessary - But when facts are in issue - Affidavit would be necessary (H2) Okereke v. James (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2385; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1326) 339

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Rules of Court - Purpose - Rules of court stands as handmaid - In guiding courts in the conduct of its business (H5) Fidelity Bank Plc v. Monye (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1203; (2012) 10 NWLR (PT.1307) 1

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Technicalities - By O. 26 r. 5 FHC Rules - Failure to comply with the rules - Is irregularity which would not nullify proceedings or judgment (H5) Marine Mgt. Asso. v. N.M.A. (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3863; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1333) 506

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Undefended list - Determination - Court must consider notice of intention to defend - And examine if plaintiff has established prima facie claim - In the affidavit (H1) Intercontinental Bank Plc v. Brifina Ltd. (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1927; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1316) 1

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Undefended list - Transfer to general list - Basis - Where a judge is satisfied that there is triable issue - The suit must be transferred to general list (H4) Intercontinental Bank Plc v. Brifina Ltd. (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1927; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1316) 1

 

PRACTICE & PROCEEDINGS - Evidence - Previous proceedings - Evidence of - Admissibility - Evidence Act s.34(1) - Where issues are the same - Court will admit such evidence - But facts must be pleaded (H1) Ayorinde v. Sogunro (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1895; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1312) 460

 

PROPERTY LAW - Appeals - Fresh issue - Raised without leave - Fate - Since leave was not obtained to raise new issue of trust property - The issue shall be deemed incompetent (H6) Osidele v. Sokunbi (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2857; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1324) 470

 

PROPERTY LAW - Auction sale - Ordered by court - Effect - It is presumed that such judicial act is valid - Where there is no fraud - And security given to purchaser of such property - Is a statutory one (H3) Osidele v. Sokunbi (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2857; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1324) 470

 

PROPERTY LAW - Deed of Assignment - Validity - Since plaintiff failed to show - That the military governor approved the assignment - The same cannot be valid (H1) Ohochukwu v. A-G Rivers State (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 885; (2012) 6 NWLR (PT.1295) 53

 

PROPERTY LAW - Property - Ownership - Proof - Evidence Act s.146 - Possession of disputed property - Is good title against anyone who cannot prove better title (H5) Afolabi v. Western Steel Works Ltd. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2503; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1329) 286

 

PROPERTY LAW - Property right - Decrees 54 & 21 - Validity of - As Decree 54 vested property rights in appellant - Removal of those rights were valid under Decree 21 - Which vested the rights in respondents (H5) Adeyemi-Bero v. L.S.D.P.C. (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3743; (2013) 8 NWLR (PT.1356) 238

 

PROPERTY LAW - Successor - Meaning - Successor is one who takes the place that another has left - And sustains the like part or character (H3) Lagos State Bulk Purchase Corp. v. Purification Techn. Ltd. (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3829; (2013) 7 NWLR (PT.1352) 82

 

PROPERTY LAW - Surrender - Effect - By agreeing to assign to someone else - Plaintiff has surrendered the property to Rivers State government (H2) Ohochukwu v. A-G Rivers State (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 885; (2012) 6 NWLR (PT.1295) 53

PROPERTY LAW - Transfer - Meaning in relation to the Edict in issue - It is assignment or conveyance of all assets and liabilities - That may vest in transferee as the transferor had therein (H2) Lagos State Bulk Purchase Corp. v. Purification Techn. Ltd. (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3829; (2013) 7 NWLR (PT.1352) 82

 

RAPE - Corroboration - Evidence - Relevancy of - Corroboration must be material to the charge - And must be completely credible evidence (H2) Ezigbo v. State (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 314) 2219; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1326) 318

 

RAPE - Ingredients - Proof - Penal Code s.283 - Prosecution must inter alia prove - That there was penetration - And that the act was done in - Circumstances envisaged under s.282(1) thereof (H1) Ezigbo v. State (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 314) 2219; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1326) 318

 

RES JUDICATA - Appeals - Judgments - Binding effect - Judgment on appeal can operate as res judicata - Provided it has not been upset (H2) Abiola & Sons Bottling Co. Ltd. v. 7Up Bottling Co. Ltd. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2487; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1322) 184

 

RES JUDICATA - Estoppel - Plea - Conditions precedent - For the plea to be sustained - There must be inter alia judicial decision - And that court that heard the matter - Has jurisdiction over parties and subject matter (H1) Abiola & Sons Bottling Co. Ltd. v. 7Up Bottling Co. Ltd. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2487; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1322) 184

 

RES JUDICATA - Estoppel by standing-by - Res judicata - Distinction - Whereas res judicata is a matter of record - Estoppel by standing-by is an equitable doctrine - Which is a question of fact (H2) Nwakonobi v. Udeorah (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1555; (2013) 7 NWLR (PT.1354) 499

 

RES JUDICATA - Judgments - Actions - Application - Since the judgment upon which estoppel per rem judicatam was based is void - The doctrine cannot be applied in present suit (H6) Adeyemi-Bero v. L.S.D.P.C. (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3743; (2013) 8 NWLR (PT.1356) 238

 

RES JUDICATA - Judicial precedents - Authorities - Distinction - A-G Plateau State v. A-G Nasarawa State - Since facts of the case law is different from that of present action - Holden therein cannot be relied upon as res judicata (H4) A-G Nasarawa State v. A-G Plateau State (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1011; (2012) 10 NWLR (PT.1309) 419

 

RULES OF COURT - Appeals - Briefs - Failure to file - Dismissal order - Court of Appeal Rules O.6 r.10 - Dismissal based on such failure is final -And the court cannot give order of re-listing (H1) Gov. Zamfara State v. Gyalange (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1535; (2013) 8 NWLR (PT.1357) 462

 

RULES OF COURT - Appeals - Enlargement of time - Discretion - Rules of court - Need to obey - Court must obey its rules - To justify exercise of discretion (H3) Olatubosun v. Texaco Nig. Plc (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1985; (2012) 14 NWLR (PT.1319) 200

 

RULES OF COURT - Appeals - Ground - Speculative & abandoned ground - That is vague or general - Contravenes O. 8 r. 2(4) Supreme Court Rules (H4) Asogwa v. PDP (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4155; (2013) 7 NWLR (PT.1353) 207

 

RULES OF COURT - Appeals - Grounds - Vague particular (i) - Striking out of - Court of Appeal Rules O.6 r.3 - The court was right to suo motu strike out the particular (H1) Doma v. INEC (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1095; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1317) 297

 

RULES OF COURT - Appeals - Judgment - Setting aside - Application - By O. 7 r. 12 Court of Appeal Rules - The court rightly entertained the application - For good cause (H7) Barigha v. PDP (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4221; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1349) 108

 

RULES OF COURT - Appeals - Notice of appeal - Failure to file - Effect - By O.8 r.18 Court of Appeal Rules - Respondent may by motion on notice - Move the court to dismiss the appeal (H1) Nigerian Navy v. Labinjo (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 313) 2135; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 56

 

RULES OF COURT - Appeals - Notices of appeal - Multiple filing - Justification - Appellant can file multiple notices of appeal - More so when rules of court do not prohibit same (H2) Ogboru v. Uduaghan (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1351; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1311) 357

 

RULES OF COURT - Appeals - Preliminary objections - Filing - Supreme Court Rules O. 2 r. 9(1)(2) - Failure to comply - Effect - The objection will be struck out (H1) Oriorio v. Osain (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 2001; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1327) 560

 

RULES OF COURT - Binding nature - The rules are for compliance of court and parties - Since they regulate matters in court - As well as help parties in prosecution of cases (H2) MC Invest. Ltd. v. Core Invest. & Capital Market Ltd. (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 314) 2235; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1313) 1

 

RULES OF COURT - Conflict of laws - Statutes & Rules of Court - Legal Practitioners Act - Where there is conflict - Provisions of the Act supersedes the rules (H3) FBN Ltd. v. Jawa Intn’l Ltd. (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1749

 

RULES OF COURT - Customary courts - Proceedings - The proceedings therein should be examined - As rules of superior court of record are not strictly followed in such courts (H4) Okereke v. James (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2385; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1326) 339

 

RULES OF COURT - Delay - Fundamental Right Enforcement Rules O.2 r.2 - Intendment - The order seeks to cure the delay - In enforcement of fundamental rights (H4) Fidelity Bank Plc v. Monye (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1203; (2012) 10 NWLR (PT.1307) 1

 

RULES OF COURT - Fundamental rights - Enforcement - Leave - By O. 1 r. 2(2) Fundamental Rights Rules 1979 - Leave must be obtained - Before applicant can enforce the rights (H13) Lafia L.G. v. Gov. Nasarawa State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4385; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 94

 

RULES OF COURT - Interpretation - “May” - Court of Appeal Rules O.8 r.18 - The word generally means permissive action - But may exceptionally connote mandatory action (H2) Nigerian Navy v. Labinjo (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 313) 2135; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 56

 

RULES OF COURT - Judgment - Debt - Interest payable - Limitation - Bauchi State High Court Rules O.40 r.7 - Application of interest cannot be - Overtaken by effluxion of time (H2) Unity Bank Plc v. Denclag Ltd. (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1427; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1332) 293

 

RULES OF COURT - Purpose - Rules of court stands as handmaid - In guiding courts in the conduct of its business (H5) Fidelity Bank Plc v. Monye (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1203; (2012) 10 NWLR (PT.1307) 1

 

RULES OF COURT - Statutes - Interpretation - High Court Rules of Lagos State O. 48 r. 5(1) - The word “or” denotes an alternative and not similarity (H1) Military Gov. Lagos State v. Adeyiga (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 839; (2012) 5 NWLR (PT.1293) 291

 

RULES OF COURT - Technicalities - By O. 26 r. 5 FHC Rules - Failure to comply with the rules - Is irregularity which would not nullify proceedings or judgment (H5) Marine Mgt. Asso. v. N.M.A. (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3863; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1333) 506

 

RULES OF COURTS - Courts - Jurisdiction - Undefended list - Transfer to general list - Anambra State High Court Rules O. 24 r. 9(5) - At any stage of the proceedings - Court can order the suit to be so transferred (H3) Intercontinental Bank Plc v. Brifina Ltd. (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1927; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1316) 1

 

STATUTES - Constitution - Limitation period - Effect on right to fair hearing - 1999 Constitution s. 285(7) - Does not deny the right - It provides time frame to exercise same (H3) Amadi v. INEC (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 533; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1345) 595

 

STATUTES - Actions - Amendment vide s. 1 of the Edict made while litigation is on - Would have no legal effect on that matter - As it would be subjudice (H4) Lagos State Bulk Purchase Corp. v. Purification Techn. Ltd. (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3829; (2013) 7 NWLR (PT.1352) 82

 

STATUTES - Actions - Appeals - Parties - Right of appeal - 1999 Constitution s. 233(5) - The right is reserved to party - Aggrieved at decision in a proceeding (H1) Elelu-Habeeb v. A-G Federation (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 743; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1318) 423

 

STATUTES - Actions - Commencement - Correctness of - Since Exhibit E was obtained on 16/9/94 - Action initiated on 24/3/95 was commenced within 12 months - Prescribed under s.72(1) Nigeria Ports Act (H2) Nig. Ports Plc. v. Beecham Pharm. Ltd (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4155; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1333) 454

 

STATUTES - Actions - Limitation - Determination - Basis - It is determined from when cause of action accrued - And date of commencement of suit - As well as period of limitation in statute (H2) Ajayi v. Adebiyi (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1843; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1310) 137

 

STATUTES - Actions - Limitation - Public Officers (Protection) Act - Effect - Where statute prescribes a period for institution of action - Any action instituted after the period - Is totally barred (H1) A-G Rivers State v. A-G Bayelsa State (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2519; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1340) 123

 

STATUTES - Appeals - Election petitions - Failure to hear within time - Effect - By 1999 Constitution s. 285(7) - Non compliance with the provision - Renders the appeal a nullity (H2) Amadi v. INEC (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 533; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1345) 595

 

STATUTES - Appeals - Notice of appeal - Filing - Time frame - By s.27(2)(b) Supreme Court Act - Criminal appeal to the court must be filed within 30 days from date Court of Appeal delivered its judgment (H5) Okereke v. James (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2385; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1326) 339

 

STATUTES - Appeals - Right of appeal - Actions - Undefended list - 1999 Constitution s. 241(2)(a) - No right of appeal exists against order of court - Transferring suit from the list to general cause list (H7) Bona.V. Textile Ltd. v. Asaba Textile Mill Plc (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3063; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1338) 357

 

STATUTES - Conflict of laws - Oil & Gas - Petroleum Act vis-à-vis Back-in-Right Regulation - Oil mining lease - Acquisition of - Procedure - Method provided by Petroleum Act - Should be strictly followed (H5) NNPC v. Famfa Oil Ltd (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1947; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 148

 

STATUTES - Conflict of laws - Statutes & Rules of Court - Legal Practitioners Act - Where there is conflict - Provisions of the Act supersedes the rules (H3) FBN Ltd. v. Jawa Intn’l Ltd. (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1749

 

STATUTES - Constitution - Courts - Jurisdiction - Banking matters - 1979 Constitution s. 230(1)(d) - The section does not confer exclusive jurisdiction on Federal High Court (H1) Merill Guaranty Savings & Loan Ltd. v. Worldgate Building Society Ltd. (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1331; (2013) 1 NWLR (PT.1336) 581

 

STATUTES - Constitution - Interpretation - Election petitions - 1999 Constitution s. 285(6) - Since the provisions are unambiguous - Supreme Court cannot extend the period provided therein (H1) Akpanudoedehe v. Akpabio (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 314) 2211; (2013) 7 NWLR (PT.1354) 485

 

STATUTES - Constitution - Interpretation - Words used must be given their ordinary meaning - Where they are unambiguous (H8) Elelu-Habeeb v. A-G Federation (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 743; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1318) 423

 

STATUTES - Contract - Statutory employment - Since exhibit A is found to be made pursuant to the NEPA Act - Appointment of staff therein must attract statutory flavour (H2) PHCN v. Offoelo (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 4001; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1344) 380

 

STATUTES - Contract - Statutory employment - Status - Mere creation of employer by statute - Does not elevate its employment to statutory flavour - As employee’s appointment must be linked with the statute (H5) PHCN v. Offoelo (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 4001; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1344) 380

 

STATUTES - Contracts - Bailment - Liability - Appellant has no protection under s.72(1) Nigeria Ports Act - Since contract of bailment for reward - Is not a duty imposed by statute on appellant (H4) Nig. Ports Plc. v. Beecham Pharm. Ltd (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4155; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1333) 454

 

STATUTES - Court Martial - Membership - Armed Forces Act s. 129(a) - Interpretation - Words used in the section - Suggest that Judge Advocate is not member of General Court Martial (H1) Nigerian Army v. Dodo (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 313) 2067; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1331) 151

 

STATUTES - Court processes - Originating summons - Application - Doherty v. Doherty - The summons is not available for actions - Where the facts are in dispute - And can be used in interpretation of contracts documents Constitution (H6) Elelu-Habeeb v. A-G Federation (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 743; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1318) 423

 

STATUTES - Courts - Appeals - Application as interested party - Exercise of discretion - Since Court of Appeal complied with 1999 Constitution s. 243(a)(b) in granting the application - Supreme Court will not interfere (H2) Waziri v. Gumel (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1473; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1304) 185

 

STATUTES - Courts - Chief Magistrate court - Powers - Penal Code s.78 & CPC s.365(1) - It must be shown inter alia that offence for which accused was charged - Is within jurisdiction of the court (H3) Martins v. COP (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3167; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1343) 25

 

STATUTES - Courts - Jurisdiction - Determination of - Principles - Jurisdiction inter alia is a matter of substantive law - Which cannot be conferred on court by litigant - Where statute has not vested same (H4) Dangana v. Usman (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 577; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1349) 50

 

STATUTES - Courts - Jurisdiction - Ouster clause - For jurisdiction of court to be ousted - Ambiguity or doubt in statute should not be entertained (H5) Olaleye-ote v. Babalola (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3637; (2012) 6 NWLR (PT.1297) 574

 

STATUTES - Courts - National Industrial court - Jurisdiction - By Trade Dispute Act s. 15 - The jurisdiction of the court does not include - Power to make declarations and to order injunctions (H7) NURTW v. RTEAN (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 149; (2012) 10 NWLR (PT.1307) 170

 

STATUTES - Courts - Statutory adherence - Court should ensure that it is bound by statutory provisions - In order to promote justice (H6) NNPC v. Famfa Oil Ltd (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1947; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 148

 

STATUTES - Criminal procedure - Drug - Definition of - NDLEA Act s. 10 (h) - Drug is natural or synthetic substance - That alters ones perception (H6) Okewu v. FRN (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 923; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1305) 327

 

STATUTES - Criminal procedure - Mens rea - Narcotic drug - Possession of - Proof - NDLEA Act s. 10(h) - Unlawful possession is mens rea for establishing the offence (H1) Okewu v. FRN (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 923; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1305) 327

 

STATUTES - Election petitions - Appeals - Governorship Election Tribunal - Judgment - Deferment of reasons - 1999 Constitution s. 285(8) - Supreme Court is solely empowered to defer reasons for its judgment - In appeals arising from the tribunal (H2) Ikenya v. PDP (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1139; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1315) 493

 

STATUTES - Election petitions - Appeals - National & State Assembly Elections Tribunal - Judgment - Deferment of reasons - 1999 Constitution s. 285(8) - Court of Appeal can defer reasons for its judgment - In appeals arising from the tribunal (H1) Ikenya v. PDP (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1139; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1315) 493

 

STATUTES - Election petitions - Fair hearing - Documents - Failure to annex - Effect - By Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) paragraphs 4(5)(c)41(8) - Such documents shall not be admitted in evidence (H2) ACN v. Lamido (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 621; (2012) 8 NWLR (PT.1303) 560

 

STATUTES - Election petitions - Judgment - Reasons for - Given outside time - Fate - 1999 Constitution s. 285 (7) - The judgment is a nullity (H4) PDP v. Okorocha (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1155; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1323) 205

 

STATUTES - Election petitions - Non compliance - Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) para. 4(5) (c) - Effect - Findings of the courts are in order - Since appellant failed to fully comply with the provisions (H3) ACN v. Lamido (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 621; (2012) 8 NWLR (PT.1303) 560

 

STATUTES - Election petitions - Objection - Hearing - By para. 12(5) Electoral Act 2010 - Respondent with an objection must file his reply with the objection - So as to avoid undue delay of hearing of the matter (H2) PDP v. INEC (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3693; (2012) 7 NWLR (PT.1300) 538

 

STATUTES - Election petitions - Rehearing - 1999 Constitution s.285(7) - Since 60 days provided in the Constitution has elapsed - Relief of rehearing cannot be granted (H3) Ikenya v. PDP (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1139; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1315) 493

 

STATUTES - Elections - Pre-election matters - Proper parties - By s.87(1)(9) Electoral Act 2012 - The parties are political party - Candidates at the election - And Independent National Electoral Commission (H3) Nwaogu v. Owuala (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3187

 

STATUTES - Evidence - Confession - Admissibility - Under Evidence Act s. 27(2) - It is admissible against the maker if it is voluntarily made - And cannot be held inadmissible merely because the accused denies having made it (H1) Bright v. State (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 123; (2012) 8 NWLR (PT.1302) 297

 

STATUTES - Fair hearing - Principles - Basis - 1999 Constitution s. 36(1) - Fair hearing is conducting of trial - According to legal rules formulated - To ensure that justice is done to parties (H2) Military Gov. Lagos State v. Adeyiga (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 839; (2012) 5 NWLR (PT.1293) 291

 

STATUTES - Federal High Court - Jurisdiction - Admiralty Jurisdiction Act s. 1(3) - Jurisdiction of the court cannot be expanded - By virtue of the clear provision of the Act (H4) Ports & Cargo Handlings Services Ltd. v. Migfo Nig. Ltd. (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 314) 2297; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1333) 555

 

STATUTES - Interpretation - “Includes” - Meaning - When used in statute - The word can enlarge the scope of subject matter it qualifies - Only to an extent permitted by law (H3) Ports & Cargo Handlings Services Ltd. v. Migfo Nig. Ltd. (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 314) 2297; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1333) 555

 

STATUTES - Interpretation - “May” - Court of Appeal Rules O.8 r.18 - The word generally means permissive action - But may exceptionally connote mandatory action (H2) Nigerian Navy v. Labinjo (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 313) 2135; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 56

 

STATUTES - Interpretation - “Must” “Shall”- The words are not always interpreted as mandatory - As they can mean “may” - Where the context so admits (H3) Fidelity Bank Plc v. Monye (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1203; (2012) 10 NWLR (PT.1307) 1

 

STATUTES - Interpretation - 1999 constitution s. 180 - Intendment - The provision intends that a governor of a State - Shall only have a tenure of four years from the date he took the oaths of office (H5) Marwa v. Nyako (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 231; (2012) 6 NWLR (PT.1296) 199

 

STATUTES - Interpretation - 1999 Constitution s. 285(6) - Principle - Court must give effect to ordinary meaning of the words used therein (H1) ANPP v. Goni (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 701; (2012) 7 NWLR (PT.1298) 147

 

STATUTES - Interpretation - Constitution - Principles - Where words used in constitutional provisions are unambiguous - Same must be given their ordinary meaning - In order not to defeat the intention of the lawmakers (H4) Abubakar v. Nasamu (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 479; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1330) 407

 

STATUTES - Interpretation - High Court Rules of Lagos State O. 48 r. 5(1) - The word “or” denotes an alternative and not similarity (H1) Military Gov. Lagos State v. Adeyiga (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 839; (2012) 5 NWLR (PT.1293) 291

 

STATUTES - Interpretation - Literal rule - Legal Practitioners Act s. 2(1) & 24 - The section simply ensures - That only qualified legal practitioners - Sign court processes (H1) FBN Ltd. v. Jawa Intn’l Ltd. (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1749

 

STATUTES - Interpretation - Literal rule - Where words of enactments are clear and unambiguous - Courts must give such words their ordinary meaning (H2) Martins v. COP (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3167; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1343) 25

 

STATUTES - Interpretation - Principle - Court can supply an omission in a law - To ensure reasonableness therein (H6) Olaleye-ote v. Babalola (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3637; (2012) 6 NWLR (PT.1297) 574

 

STATUTES - Interpretation - Principles - Court should adopt broad and liberal approach - In interpretation of statutes (H9) NURTW v. RTEAN (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 149; (2012) 10 NWLR (PT.1307) 170

 

STATUTES - Interpretation - Principles - Ordinary meaning must be given to the words used - So as to bring out intention of the legislature (H4) NNPC v. Famfa Oil Ltd (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1947; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 148

 

STATUTES - Interpretation - Purpose - Intention of legislature is paramount in interpretation - And where words used are unambiguous - They must be given their plain meaning (H5) Gbagbarigha v. Toruemi (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4355; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1350) 289

 

STATUTES - Interpretation - Role of Judge - FBN v. Mainada - A Judge should be firm and pungent in interpretation of law - But should be short of being a legislator (H1) Adeyemi-Bero v. L.S.D.P.C. (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3743; (2013) 8 NWLR (PT.1356) 238

 

STATUTES - Interpretation - Role of Judge - In statutory interpretation - Judge should not flout the constitutional duty of legislature - To make laws (H2) FBN Ltd. v. Jawa Intn’l Ltd. (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1749

 

STATUTES - Interpretation - States Creation & Transitional Provisions Act s.7(1) - A-G Ondo State v. A-G Ekiti State - Since the enabling provision is unambiguous - Same should be given its ordinary meaning (H1) A-G Nasarawa State v. A-G Plateau State (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1011; (2012) 10 NWLR (PT.1309) 419

 

STATUTES - Interpretation - Technicalities - Legal Practitioners Act s.2(1) & 24 - Applying substantive provisions of the law - Does not imply technical justice (H5) FBN Ltd. v. Jawa Intn’l Ltd. (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1749

 

STATUTES - Interpretation of Constitution - Objective - It is to discover the intention of the legislature - Which is usually deduced from the language used (H4) Marwa v. Nyako (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 231; (2012) 6 NWLR (PT.1296) 199

 

STATUTES - Judgments - Actions - Reliefs - Statute of limitation - Use of - Party invoking such statute - Is bound to specify reliefs in previous judgment - Which a latter suit seeks to enforce (H1) Purification Tech. Nig. Ltd. v. Jubril (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 313) 2157; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1331) 109

 

STATUTES - Judgments - Validity - Actions - Statute barred - Limitation Law of Lagos s. 12(2) - Judgment in suit no. LD/1213/76 can be pleaded and relied upon - Though action brought upon same is statute barred (H3) Purification Tech. Nig. Ltd. v. Jubril (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 313) 2157; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1331) 109

 

STATUTES - Jurisdiction - Failed banks tribunal - Crime - By s.3(1)(b)(c)(d) of Decree No.18 1994 - The tribunal can try new offences specified under Pt.111 - As well as existing offences under other enactments (H5) Egunjobi v. FRN (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4259; (2013) 3 NWLR (PT.1342) 534

 

STATUTES - Jurisdiction - Interpretation - Ouster clause - As Decree 21 of 1996 contains such clause - Effect must be given to the clause - And court is to decline jurisdiction (H4) Adeyemi-Bero v. L.S.D.P.C. (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3743; (2013) 8 NWLR (PT.1356) 238

 

STATUTES - Jurisdiction - Source - Basis - Jurisdiction is a creation of statutes - And same is neither inherent in appellate court - Nor can it be conferred by court order (H3) ANPP v. Goni (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 701; (2012) 7 NWLR (PT.1298) 147

 

STATUTES - Jurisdiction - Source of - It is derived from the Constitution and statutes creating a court - Hence court and parties cannot assume jurisdiction by agreement (H1) Dangana v. Usman (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 577; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1349) 50

 

STATUTES - Jurisdiction - Sources - Basis - Jurisdiction is granted by statute or Constitution - Hence no court can confer same on itself (H4) Ugba v. Suswam (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 314) 2345; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1345) 427

 

STATUTES - Land law - Actions - Limitation - Lagos State Limitation Law s.16 (2) - Action for recovery of land - Cannot be validly instituted after 12 years - From the date cause of action accrued (H1) Ajayi v. Adebiyi (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1843; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1310) 137

 

STATUTES - Land law - Boundaries - Determination - Boundaries can be fixed by proved acts of prospective owners - By statutes - And by legal presumption (H5) A-G Rivers State v. A-G Bayelsa State (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2519; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1340) 123

 

STATUTES - Land law - Right of occupancy - Revocation of - Propriety - Respondents can legally revoke the grant made to appellant - By virtue of Land Use Act ss. 28(1)(2)(b) (6) and (7) (H3) Amale v. Sokoto L. G. (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 99; (2012) 5 NWLR (PT.1292) 181

 

STATUTES - Legal practitioners - Law firm - Signing of process - Propriety - Registration of law firm under CAMA s.573(1) - Does not entitle the firm to validly sign process (H4) FBN Ltd. v. Jawa Intn’l Ltd. (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1749

 

STATUTES - Legislation - Interpretation - Local Govt. Council - Tenure - Imo State Local Govt. Admin. Law s.23(1)(2) - Three years term is reserved for the council - From date the chairman takes oath of office (H1) Ehirim v. IMSIEC (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1521

 

STATUTES - Limitation - Public Officers Protection Act s. 2(a) - Action against public officer must be brought - Within 3 months of act or default - Otherwise the cause of action is statute-barred (H2) Sulgrave v. FGN (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4565; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1329) 309

 

STATUTES - Limitation - Public Officers Protection Law - Pleadings - Defendant must specifically plead the defence at trial court - Otherwise he cannot rely on same on appeal (H6) Ajayi v. Adebiyi (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1843; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1310) 137

 

STATUTES - Limitation law - Purpose - The law protects defendant from the injustice of facing stale claim - Where proof and defence would be almost impossible (H14) Lafia L.G. v. Gov. Nasarawa State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4385; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 94

 

STATUTES - Murder - Proof - Circumstantial evidence - By s. 139 Evidence Act - Court can accept proof of death by such evidence - Since possibility of not having eyewitness account in criminal cases is not rare (H4) Chiokwe v. State (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3517; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1347) 205

 

STATUTES - NEPA Act - Application - S. 4 para. 9 of the Act empowered NEPA to make exhibit A - And any lawful action taken by NEPA in relation to its staff must be related to the Act (H1) PHCN v. Offoelo (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 4001; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1344) 380

 

STATUTES - Performance of duty - Regulated by statute - Where two methods or procedures for doing a thing are provided - A party can choose any of the methods so provided (H1) PDP v. INEC (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3693; (2012) 7 NWLR (PT.1300) 538

 

STATUTES - Petroleum law - Exhibit EE2 - Validity of - The exhibit is invalid - Since the parties cannot by consent - Alter provisions of the Petroleum Act (H7) NNPC v. Famfa Oil Ltd (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1947; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 148

 

STATUTES - Politics - Elections - Political parties - Substitution of candidates - Basis - By ss.33 & 35 of Electoral Act 2010 - Candidate can only be replaced - If he dies or withdraws (H3) PDP v. Sylva (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1575; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1316) 85

 

STATUTES - Politics - Elections - Pre election matters - Electoral Act 2010 ss.33 & 35 - Applicability - The sections are irrelevant - Since INEC cancelled April 2011 election - Fixed for Bayelsa State (H4) PDP v. Sylva (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1575; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1316) 85

 

STATUTES - Politics - Pre election matters - Courts - Electoral Act 2010 s.87(9) - Confers jurisdiction on courts - Where political party fails - To comply with its constitution - In primary elections (H6) PDP v. Sylva (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1575; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1316) 85

 

STATUTES - Property law - Property right - Decrees 54 & 21 - Validity of - As Decree 54 vested property rights in appellant - Removal of those rights were valid under Decree 21 - Which vested the rights in respondents (H5) Adeyemi-Bero v. L.S.D.P.C. (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3743; (2013) 8 NWLR (PT.1356) 238

 

STATUTES - Public Officers (Protection) Act - Application - Conditions precedent - For the Act to avail a person - Action must be against public officer - And the act done must be in pursuance of public duty (H2) A-G Rivers State v. A-G Bayelsa State (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2519; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1340) 123

 

STATUTES - Public Officers (Protection) Act - Purpose of - Is to protect officer from detraction - Exception to the plea - Include continuance of damage - And acting outside statutory duty (H4) A-G Rivers State v. A-G Bayelsa State (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2519; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1340) 123

 

STATUTES - Public Officers Protection Act s. 2(a) - Defence - The defence is available where a person is public officer - And the act was done in execution of his duty (H3) Sulgrave v. FGN (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4565; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1329) 309; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1329) 309

 

STATUTES - Revenue allocation - Entitlement to - By s. 1(1) of Onshore/Offshore Dichotomy Abolition Act 2004 - State can claim natural resources - Located within 200 meters water depth isobath - Contiguous to the State (H1) A-G Cross-River State v. A-G Fed. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2717; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1327) 425

 

STATUTES - Rights - Creation of - Barraclough v. Brown - Where statute creates new right - That is dependent on the statute - Both the right and remedy thereof must be linked (H2) Gov. Zamfara State v. Gyalange (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1535; (2013) 8 NWLR (PT.1357) 462

 

STATUTES - Supreme Court - Elections - Jurisdiction - S.22 of Supreme Court Act - The section cannot be invoked - Since courts have no power - To question nomination of candidates for election (H9) PDP v. Sylva (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1575; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1316) 85

 

STATUTES - Supreme Court - Powers - S.C. Act s.22 - The court is empowered to deal with any case before it on appeal - Including power to act as trial court (H9) Alawiye v. Ogunsanya (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 2957; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1348) 570

 

STATUTES - Supreme Court - Powers - Supreme Court Act s. 22 - The court can evaluate evidence - But has no jurisdiction to correct mistakes made by counsel (H9) Aliucha v. Elechi (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1065

 

STATUTES - Trade dispute - Manner of initiating - By 1976 Trade Dispute Act s. 10 - All matters within the competence of the court - Must be referred to the court by the Minister of Labour (H8) NURTW v. RTEAN (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 149; (2012) 10 NWLR (PT.1307) 170

 

STATUTES - Trespass - Continuing trespass - Statute of Limitation - Applicability - The plea of limitation does not constitute defence - To continuing acts of trespass (H2) Obueke v. Nnamchi (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1801; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1314) 327

 

STATUTES - Words & phrases - “Or” - Interpretation - As used in 1st schedule of Customary Court Law 1986 - “Or” means “and” not disjunctive (H4) Olaleye-ote v. Babalola (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3637; (2012) 6 NWLR (PT.1297) 574

 

STATUTES - Words & praises - “Shall” and “within” - Meaning - The words mean that the applicable provision - Is mandatory as it admits of no discretion (H5) Abubakar v. Nasamu (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 479; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1330) 407

 

STAY OF EXECUTION - Appeals - Grant of stay - Justification - Court is justified to grant stay - Where notice of appeal has disclosed substantial arguable grounds (H4) Alawiye v. Ogunsanya (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 2957; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1348) 570

 

STAY OF EXECUTION - Application - Affidavit in support - Validity - Stay will not be granted - Since the affidavit did not disclose any special circumstance (H3) Amadi v. Chukwu (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2375; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1347) 301

 

STAY OF EXECUTION - Application for - Basis for grant - Applicant must show exceptional circumstances - As court do not usually deprive litigant of his success in a judgment (H1) Amadi v. Chukwu (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2375; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1347) 301

 

STAY OF EXECUTION - Courts - Stay of execution - Grant - Court has discretion to grant or refuse stay - And the discretion must be exercised judicially and judiciously (H2) Amadi v. Chukwu (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2375; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1347) 301

 

STAY OF EXECUTION - Grant - Purpose of - Stay is granted to maintain status quo ante - So as to preserve the res from being destroyed - Pending the determination of an appeal (H2) Alawiye v. Ogunsanya (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 2957; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1348) 570

 

SUMMARY JUDGMENTS - Meaning - The judgment is granted on a claim or defence - Of which there is no genuine issue of material fact - And upon which the mover can prevail as a matter of law (H6) Bona.V. Textile Ltd. v. Asaba Textile Mill Plc (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3063; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1338) 357

 

SUPREME COURT - Appeals - Amendment of record - Supreme Court Act s.22 - The court has power to amend record - Where it is satisfied that there are accidental slips and omissions (H9) NNPC v. Famfa Oil Ltd (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1947; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 148

 

SUPREME COURT - Appeals - Application as interested party - Exercise of discretion - Since Court of Appeal complied with 1999 Constitution s. 243(a)(b) in granting the application - Supreme Court will not interfere (H2) Waziri v. Gumel (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1473; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1304) 185

 

SUPREME COURT - Appeals - Concurrent decision - Supreme Court does not interfere - Unless it is shown to be perverse - Or contrary to known law (H3) Akande v. Adisa (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1681; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1324) 538

 

SUPREME COURT - Appeals - Concurrent finding - Supreme Court does not interfere - Save where the decision is perverse (H7) Okewu v. FRN (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 923; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1305) 327

 

SUPREME COURT - Appeals - Concurrent findings - Arowolo v. Ifabiyi - Supreme Court does not interfere - Except there is miscarriage of justice - Or violation of principles of law or procedure (H3) Peterside v. Fubara (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3969; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1349) 156

 

SUPREME COURT - Appeals - Concurrent findings - Supreme Court does not interfere - Save where the findings are perverse - Or there was a miscarriage of justice (H8) Pacers Multi-Dynamics Ltd v. The M.V. Dancing Sister (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 385; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1289) 169

 

SUPREME COURT - Appeals - Concurrent findings - Supreme Court does not interfere - Save where the findings are perverse (H12) Military Gov. Lagos State v. Adeyiga (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 839; (2012) 5 NWLR (PT.1293) 291

 

SUPREME COURT - Appeals - Concurrent findings - Supreme Court does not interfere - Save where there is substantial error - Such as miscarriage of justice (H10) Aliucha v. Elechi (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1065

 

SUPREME COURT - Appeals - Concurrent findings - Supreme Court does not interfere - Save where findings are perverse (H1) Haruna v. A-G Federation (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1309; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1306) 419

 

SUPREME COURT - Appeals - Concurrent findings - Supreme Court does not interfere - Save where the findings are perverse - Or there was a miscarriage of justice (H5) Ugwanyi v. FRN (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1407; (2012) 8 NWLR (PT.1302) 384

 

SUPREME COURT - Appeals - Concurrent findings - Supreme Court does not interfere - Except where the findings are perverse (H3) Ezigbo v. State (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 314) 2219; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1326) 318

 

SUPREME COURT - Appeals - Concurrent findings - Supreme Court will not disturb the findings - That evidence of appellant’s handwriting expert is not reliable (H3) Phillips v. Eba Odan Commercial & Industrial Co. Ltd. (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1611; (2013) 1 NWLR (PT.1336) 618

 

SUPREME COURT - Appeals - Concurrent findings - Supreme Court will not interfere - Since the findings are not perverse - And there was no miscarriage of justice (H7) Ayorinde v. Sogunro (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1895; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1312) 460

 

SUPREME COURT - Appeals - Concurrent findings - Supreme Court will not interfere - Since the findings did not cause a miscarriage of justice (H1) Rabiu v. Adebajo (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 314) 2329; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1322) 125

 

SUPREME COURT - Appeals - Court of Appeal - Jurisdiction - Where the court lacks jurisdiction over an appeal - It should nonetheless proceed to hear same on merits - So as to give Supreme Court benefit of its opinion - Thereby avoiding waste of judicial time (H2) Stowe v. Benstowe (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 457; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1306) 450

 

SUPREME COURT - Appeals - Determination - The court has no jurisdiction to sit on appeal from Chief Magistrate court - But sits on appeal from Court of Appeal (H1) Martins v. COP (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3167; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1343) 25

 

SUPREME COURT - Appeals - Election petitions - Presidential & Governorship elections - Final court - Supreme Court is the final court of appeal - In respect of the elections (H3) PDP v. Okorocha (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1155; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1323) 205

 

SUPREME COURT - Appeals - Evidence - Evaluation - Interference - If Supreme Court finds dereliction of duty in evaluation - It can interfere to do what lower court should have done (H6) Nagogo v. CPC (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4441; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1339) 448

 

SUPREME COURT - Appeals - Evidence - Evaluation - Where Court of Appeal makes finding - Based on evidence adduced in trial court - Supreme Court will not interfere (H4) Nwakonobi v. Udeorah (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1555; (2013) 7 NWLR (PT.1354) 499

 

SUPREME COURT - Appeals - Evidence - Reevaluation - Since the matter does not involve assessment of credibility of witnesses - Supreme Court and Court of Appeal are in a position evaluate the evidence (H1) Eyiboh v. Abia (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4301; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1325) 51

 

SUPREME COURT - Appeals - Filing - Appeal is said to be entered in the court - When record of appeal has been transmitted to it - And entered on the cause list (H3) Barigha v. PDP (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4221; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1349) 108

 

SUPREME COURT - Appeals - Findings of courts - Supreme Court will not interfere with findings made by lower courts - Including the refusal of Court of Appeal to act on the medical report (H5) Rabiu v. Amadu (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 417; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1337) 36

 

SUPREME COURT - Appeals - Fresh issue on jurisdiction - Leave - Leave must be obtained - To raise the issue for the first time - In Supreme Court (H10) Alawiye v. Ogunsanya (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 2957; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1348) 570

 

SUPREME COURT - Appeals - Grounds of law - Leave - Since appellants’ three grounds are of law - Leave of Court of Appeal or Supreme Court - Is not required (H1) Marine Mgt. Asso. v. N.M.A. (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3863; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1333) 506

 

SUPREME COURT - Appeals - Hearing - Supreme Court hears appeals against judgment of Court of Appeal - And not against judgment of High Court (H15) Emeka v. Okadigbo (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2611; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1331) 55

 

SUPREME COURT - Appeals - Judgments - Determination - Basis - Supreme Court determines whether Court of Appeal’s judgment was correct - And not really whether its reasons were right or wrong (H2) Afolabi v. Western Steel Works Ltd. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2503; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1329) 286

 

SUPREME COURT - Appeals - Notice of appeal - Filing - Time frame - By s.27(2)(b) Supreme Court Act - Criminal appeal to the court must be filed within 30 days from date Court of Appeal delivered its judgment (H5) Okereke v. James (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2385; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1326) 339

 

SUPREME COURT - Appeals - Supreme Court will not interfere with the findings - Since there was no perversity (H1) Obueke v. Nnamchi (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1801; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1314) 327

 

SUPREME COURT - Constitution - Interpretation - Election petitions - 1999 Constitution s. 285(6) - Since the provisions are unambiguous - Supreme Court cannot extend the period provided therein (H1) Akpanudoedehe v. Akpabio (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 314) 2211; (2013) 7 NWLR (PT.1354) 485

 

SUPREME COURT - Courts - Discretion - Exercise of - Once discretion is exercised judicially and judiciously - Supreme Court does not interfere (H2) Rabiu v. Adebajo (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 314) 2329; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1322) 125

 

SUPREME COURT - Election petitions - Appeals - Governorship Election Tribunal - Judgment - Deferment of reasons - 1999 Constitution s. 285(8) - Supreme Court is solely empowered to defer reasons for its judgment - In appeals arising from the tribunal (H2) Ikenya v. PDP (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1139; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1315) 493

 

SUPREME COURT - Election petitions - Evidence - Evaluation - Appraisal & ascription of probative value to evidence - Is function of trial tribunal - And Supreme Court does not interfere - Save there is miscarriage of justice (H3) ACN v. Nyako (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3267

 

SUPREME COURT - Election petitions - Gubernatorial election - Appeal - Judgment - Final court - Since C.A. is not final court by virtue of s.233(2)(e)(iv) 1999 Constitution - The judgment is appealable to S.C (H2) CPC v. Suntai (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3543

 

SUPREME COURT - Election petitions - Jurisdiction - By 1999 constitution s. 233(2)(e)(iv) as amended - Decisions of Court of Appeal on who is validly elected as Governor - Is now appealable (H1) Abubakar v. Nasamu (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 479; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1330) 407

 

SUPREME COURT - Elections - Jurisdiction - S.22 of Supreme Court Act - The section cannot be invoked - Since courts have no power - To question nomination of candidates for election (H9) PDP v. Sylva (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1575; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1316) 85

 

SUPREME COURT - Equity jurisdiction - Applicability - The court will consider the motive and intention of the parties - So as to give effect to what was proved but was not awarded in law - Because it was not specifically claimed (H4) Adusei v. Adebayo (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 205; (2012) 3 NWLR (PT.1288) 534

 

SUPREME COURT - Evidence - Evaluation - Interference - Decision to apply s. 4(2) Land Use Act was based on improper evaluation - Hence Supreme Court can rightly intervene - Since credibility of witnesses is not involved (H6) Akere v. Gov. Oyo State (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3471; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1314) 240

 

SUPREME COURT - Hierarchy of courts - Supreme Court is not bound by decisions of Court of Appeal - As it is the highest court in the land - Whose decisions are binding on all and sundry (H7) Marwa v. Nyako (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 231; (2012) 6 NWLR (PT.1296) 199

 

SUPREME COURT - Judgment - Review - For the Court to depart from its previous decision - There must be real likelihood of injustice - That the decision was given per incuriam - And that the issue of public policy is involved (H3) Adeyemi-Bero v. L.S.D.P.C. (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3743; (2013) 8 NWLR (PT.1356) 238

 

SUPREME COURT - Judgment - Review - The court does not have jurisdiction to alter its decision - Save inter alia where judgment was obtained by fraud - Or is a nullity (H3) TSA Ind. Ltd. v. FBN (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 4055; (2012) 14 NWLR (PT.1320) 326

 

SUPREME COURT - Judicial precedent - Binding nature of - The court is bound by its previous decision - Where facts and laws in the earlier case - Are similar to cases being determined (H2) Braithwaite v. Sky Bank Plc (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3087; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1346) 1

 

SUPREME COURT - Jurisdiction - Appeals - Issue of jurisdiction can be raised any time even before Supreme Court - And court can suo motu raise same - But parties must be heard before decision is taken (H4) Egunjobi v. FRN (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4259; (2013) 3 NWLR (PT.1342) 534

 

SUPREME COURT - Jurisdiction - Issue of - Time to raise - Issue of jurisdiction is a threshold matter - That it can be raised at anytime - Even for the first time in Supreme Court - Provided parties are heard (H2) Emeka v. Okadigbo (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2611; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1331) 55

 

SUPREME COURT - Jurisdiction - Issue of - Time to raise - Jurisdiction can be raised at any stage of proceedings - Even for first time in Supreme Court (H7) Alawiye v. Ogunsanya (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 2957; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1348) 570

 

SUPREME COURT - Jurisdiction - Issue of - Time to raise - Jurisdiction can be raised at any stage of proceedings - Even on appeal up to Supreme Court (H2) Gbagbarigha v. Toruemi (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4355; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1350) 289

 

SUPREME COURT - Jurisdiction - Issue of - Time to raise - Jurisdiction can be raised at anytime - Even for first time in Supreme Court - And can be raised suo motu by court - Provided counsel are heard (H11) Lafia L.G. v. Gov. Nasarawa State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4385; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 94

 

SUPREME COURT - Jurisdiction - Manner of raising - Jurisdiction is raised by motion on notice in High Court - And by inclusion in ground of appeal in Court of Appeal and Supreme Court (H3) Gbagbarigha v. Toruemi (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4355; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1350) 289

 

SUPREME COURT - Original jurisdiction - Parties - 1999 Constitution s. 232(1) - The court sits on disputes bordering on extent of legal right - Between Federal and State(s) Government - Or between States Government (H3) A-G Rivers State v. A-G Bayelsa State (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2519; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1340) 123

 

SUPREME COURT - Powers - Orders of court - Modification - By s.22 S.C. Act - The court is empowered to modify orders - Given by Court of Appeal (H8) Iseogbekun v. Adelakun (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3573; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1337) 14

 

SUPREME COURT - Powers - S.C. Act s.22 - The court is empowered to deal with any case before it on appeal - Including power to act as trial court (H9) Alawiye v. Ogunsanya (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 2957; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1348) 570

 

SUPREME COURT - Powers - Supreme Court Act s. 22 - The court can evaluate evidence - But has no jurisdiction to correct mistakes made by counsel (H9) Aliucha v. Elechi (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1065

 

SUPREME COURTS - Appeals - Concurrent judgments - Supreme Court will interfere - Where the judgments are perverse - Or has occasioned a miscarriage of justice (H15) Ajayi v. Adebiyi (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1843; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1310) 137

 

TECHNICALITIES - Actions - Commencement - Manner - Form of commencement is not enough to vitiate an action - If the ends of justice would be compromised - By such technical application of rules (H1) Nagogo v. CPC (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4441; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1339) 448

 

TECHNICALITIES - Appeals - Ground - Format - Complaint on - Propriety - MILAD Benue State v. Ulegede - Such complaint is mere technicality - Where it is not based on contents of the grounds (H1) Ogboru v. Uduaghan (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1351; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1311) 357

 

TECHNICALITIES - Court processes - Wrong naming - The use of the word refinery or refining interchangeably - Did not overreach respondent - In absence of any earlier complaint (H2) Agbule v. Warri Refinery (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3435; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1350) 318

 

TECHNICALITIES - Courts - Criminal procedure - Presence of interpreter - Failure to record - Effect - There is an irrebuttable presumption of the presence of an interpreter - And failure to so record by the judge - Is an omission that can be waived aside as mere irregularity (H4) Okoro v. State (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 337; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1290) 351

 

TECHNICALITIES - Courts - Error - Effect on litigant - Party should not be punished because of error - Committed by judge counsel or court officials (H1) Fidelity Bank Plc v. Monye (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1203; (2012) 10 NWLR (PT.1307) 1

 

TECHNICALITIES - Land law - Survey plan - Deed of Assignment - Attachment - Propriety - Although the attachment is condemnable - Same cannot affect validity of the Deed (H6) Phillips v. Eba Odan Commercial & Industrial Co. Ltd. (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1611; (2013) 1 NWLR (PT.1336) 618

 

TECHNICALITIES - Rules of court - By O. 26 r. 5 FHC Rules - Failure to comply with the rules - Is irregularity which would not nullify proceedings or judgment (H5) Marine Mgt. Asso. v. N.M.A. (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3863; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1333) 506

 

TECHNICALITIES - Statutes - Interpretation - Legal Practitioners Act s.2(1) & 24 - Applying substantive provisions of the law - Does not imply technical justice (H5) FBN Ltd. v. Jawa Intn’l Ltd. (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1749

 

TORTS - Defamation - A person may make defamatory statement about another - Where there exists a qualified privilege to make the statement - Provided the maker is not actuated by malice (H2) Peterside v. Fubara (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3969; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1349) 156

 

TORTS - Defamation - Meaning - Defamation is imputation which tends to lower a person - In the estimation of right thinking members of society - And thus expose the person to hatred (H3) Oruwari v. Osler (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3941; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1348) 535

 

TORTS - Defamatory words - Interpreter - Trial court must satisfy itself as to correct English translation of the words in foreign language - By an independent sworn interpreter (H2) Oruwari v. Osler (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3941; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1348) 535

 

TORTS - Legal practitioners - Negligence - Conduct of case - Counsel is master of his case - As he may decide not to call witness - Or cross-examine witness of the other party - But may be sued for professional negligence (H2) Chidoka v. First City Finance Co. Ltd. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2585; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1346) 144

 

TORTS - Res ipsa loquitur - Meaning - Res speaks where inference from facts shows that - What happened is reasonably attributed to some act of negligence - On the part of defendant (H3) Nig. Ports Plc. v. Beecham Pharm. Ltd (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4155; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1333) 454

 

TORTS - Res ipsa loquitur - Principle - Application - The doctrine operates inter alia - Where there is unexplained occurrence - That happened due to negligence of person other than plaintiff (H1) Plateau State Health Serv. Mgt Board v. Goshwe (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3233; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1338) 383

 

TORTS - Slander - Definition - Slander is false and defamatory statement - Made by spoken words in some non permanent form - Published of plaintiff whereby he has suffered special damages (H4) Oruwari v. Osler (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3941; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1348) 535

 

TORTS - Slander - Foreign language - Interpreter - Plaintiff is to prove correctness of the translation of such language to English - By a sworn interpreter brought for that purpose (H8) Oruwari v. Osler (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3941; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1348) 535

 

TORTS - Slander - Proof - Slander is actionable without proof of damages - Being required of plaintiff to succeed in the action (H5) Oruwari v. Osler (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3941; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1348) 535

 

TORTS - Slander - Translation - For a cause of action to arise - Slander uttered in foreign language must firstly be set out in the original language - Followed by literal translation to English (H1) Oruwari v. Osler (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3941; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1348) 535

 

TRADE DISPUTES - Trade Unions - National Industrial Court - Trade dispute - Manner of initiating - By 1976 Trade Dispute Act s. 10 - All matters within the competence of the court - Must be referred to the court by the Minister of Labour (H8) NURTW v. RTEAN (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 149; (2012) 10 NWLR (PT.1307) 170

 

TRADE UNIONS - National Industrial Court - Trade dispute - Manner of initiating - By 1976 Trade Dispute Act s. 10 - All matters within the competence of the court - Must be referred to the court by the Minister of Labour (H8) NURTW v. RTEAN (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 149; (2012) 10 NWLR (PT.1307) 170

 

TRESPASS - Actions - Limitation - Land law - Continuing trespass - The action is not statute barred - Since the trespass continued - Until when the action was instituted (H3) Oriorio v. Osain (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 2001; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1327) 560

 

TRESPASS - Basis - Trespass to land is actionable - At the suit of person in possession of the land (H6) Military Gov. Lagos State v. Adeyiga (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 839; (2012) 5 NWLR (PT.1293) 291

 

TRESPASS - Continuing trespass - Statute of Limitation - Applicability - The plea of limitation does not constitute defence - To continuing acts of trespass (H2) Obueke v. Nnamchi (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1801; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1314) 327

 

TRESPASS - Land law - Damages - Award of - Where damages are awarded for trespass - And there is claim for injunction - Court will grant same - To prevent multiplicity of actions (H7) Oriorio v. Osain (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 2001; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1327) 560

 

TRIBUNAL - Election petitions - Appeals - Governorship Election Tribunal - Judgment - Deferment of reasons - 1999 Constitution s. 285(8) - Supreme Court is solely empowered to defer reasons for its judgment - In appeals arising from the tribunal (H2) Ikenya v. PDP (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1139; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1315) 493

 

TRIBUNAL - Election petitions - Appeals - National & State Assembly Elections Tribunal - Judgment - Deferment of reasons - 1999 Constitution s. 285(8) - Court of Appeal can defer reasons for its judgment - In appeals arising from the tribunal (H1) Ikenya v. PDP (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1139; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1315) 493

 

TRIBUNAL - Fair hearing - Breach - Elections - Adjournments - Where opportunity to present case was granted - But appellant failed to utilize it - He cannot be heard to complain of denial of fair hearing (H1) ACN v. Lamido (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 621; (2012) 8 NWLR (PT.1303) 560

 

TRIBUNAL - Words & phrases - “Decision” - Definition - Decision means determination of court or tribunal - Which includes judgment or recommendation (H3) Ogboru v. Uduaghan (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1351; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1311) 357

 

TRIBUNALS - Appeals - Election petitions - Judgment - Validity of - Decision given by the tribunal on 10/08/11 is valid - Since there is no successful appeal against same (H5) ANPP v. Goni (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 701; (2012) 7 NWLR (PT.1298) 147

 

TRIBUNALS - Election petitions - Appeals - Evidence on records - Evaluation of - Appellate court rightly exercised its powers - In affirming the decision of the tribunal (H6) ACN v. Lamido (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 621; (2012) 8 NWLR (PT.1303) 560

 

TRIBUNALS - Election petitions - Appeals - Jurisdiction - Court of Appeal - By 1999 Constitution s. 246(3) - It shall be the final court - In respect of appeals arising from National Assembly election petition tribunal (H6) Dangana v. Usman (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 577; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1349) 50

 

TRIBUNALS - Election petitions - Appeals - National Assembly election tribunal - Appeals arising from the tribunal - Terminates at Court of Appeal (H10) Ogboru v. Uduaghan (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1351; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1311) 357

 

TRIBUNALS - Election petitions - Criminal & civil allegations - Proof - Appellants must prove the criminal allegation - As the Tribunal found that the allegation - Penetrated the entire election (H12) Gundiri v. Nyako (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3341

 

TRIBUNALS - Election petitions - Documents - Refusal to tender - Options - Appellant can move the Tribunal - To compel 5th respondent to comply with its order - Or the certified copies of the such documents can be tendered (H2) ACN v. Nyako (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3267

 

TRIBUNALS - Election petitions - Evidence - Evaluation - Appraisal & ascription of probative value to evidence - Is function of trial tribunal - And Supreme Court does not interfere - Save there is miscarriage of justice (H3) ACN v. Nyako (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3267

 

TRIBUNALS - Election petitions - Expert witness - Opinion - Where Tribunal requires to form to form opinion on a point - Opinion of persons specially skilled in the point - Are admissible (H6) ACN v. Nyako (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3267

 

TRIBUNALS - Election petitions - Judgment - 1999 Constitution s. 285(6) - Once tribunal gives decision within 180 days and aggrieved party appeals - Its time runs until the 180 days shall be exhausted - And appellate court cannot extend the time (H2) Udenwa v. Uzodinma (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 4093; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1346) 94

 

TRIBUNALS - Election petitions - Judgment - Appeals - By 1999 Constitution ss. 246 & 318 - The aspect of the Tribunal’s judgment appellant purports to appeal against is not appealable - Since same was not its decision (H1) ACN v. Nyako (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3267

 

TRIBUNALS - Election petitions - Jurisdiction - 1999 Constitution s. 285(6) - Non compliance with - Effect - Jurisdiction of tribunal lapses - And same cannot be conferred by court order (H2) ANPP v. Goni (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 701; (2012) 7 NWLR (PT.1298) 147

 

TRIBUNALS - Jurisdiction - Failed banks tribunal - Crime - By s.3(1)(b)(c)(d) of Decree No.18 1994 - The tribunal can try new offences specified under Pt.111 - As well as existing offences under other enactments (H5) Egunjobi v. FRN (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4259; (2013) 3 NWLR (PT.1342) 534

 

TRIBUNALS - Land tribunal - Judicial notice of - No evidence is required to prove existence or otherwise of the tribunal - As it is a matter court can take judicial notice of (H5) Akere v. Gov. Oyo State (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3471; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1314) 240

 

TRIBUNALS - Words & phrases - Constitution - “Final appeals” - Meaning - The phrase does not relate to final decisions of election tribunal - It relates to the final court - Beyond which there is no further appeal (H9) Abubakar v. Nasamu (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 479; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1330) 407

 

UNDEFENDED SUITS - Actions - Defence - Defendant who wishes to defend the action - Must disclose his intention to registrar - With affidavit disclosing defence on merit (H3) Bona.V. Textile Ltd. v. Asaba Textile Mill Plc (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3063; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1338) 357

 

UNDEFENDED SUITS - Actions - Ex parte hearing - Court can hear application for such action ex parte - And can enter the suit in the list - Where it is satisfied that there is no defence to plaintiff’s claim (H2) Bona.V. Textile Ltd. v. Asaba Textile Mill Plc (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3063; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1338) 357

 

UNDEFENDED SUITS - Appeals - Right of appeal - Actions - Undefended list - 1999 Constitution s. 241(2)(a) - No right of appeal exists against order of court - Transferring suit from the list to general cause list (H7) Bona.V. Textile Ltd. v. Asaba Textile Mill Plc (2012) 9-12 KLR (pt. 318) 3063; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1338) 357

 

UNDEFENDED SUITS - Courts - Jurisdiction - Undefended list - Transfer to general list - Anambra State High Court Rules O. 24 r. 9(5) - At any stage of the proceedings - Court can order the suit to be so transferred (H3) Intercontinental Bank Plc v. Brifina Ltd. (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1927; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1316) 1

 

UNDEFENDED SUITS - Courts - Undefended list - Transfer to general list - Basis - Where a judge is satisfied that there is triable issue - The suit must be transferred to general list (H4) Intercontinental Bank Plc v. Brifina Ltd. (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1927; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1316) 1

 

UNDEFENDED SUITS - Undefended list - Determination - Court must consider notice of intention to defend - And examine if plaintiff has established prima facie claim - In the affidavit (H1) Intercontinental Bank Plc v. Brifina Ltd. (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1927; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1316) 1

 

WORDS & PHRASES - “Shall” - Meaning - Under Criminal Procedure Act s. 246 - It connotes a command - And denotes of no other meaning than the command must be obeyed (H2) State v. Okpala (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 437; (2012) 3 NWLR (PT.1287) 388

 

WORDS & PHRASES - 1979 Constitution s. 230(1) - “Any of its agencies” - The phrase is interpreted to cover all organs established by law - Through which Federal government carries out its functions (H5) Agbule v. Warri Refinery (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3435; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1350) 318

 

WORDS & PHRASES - Actions - “Cause of action” - Meaning - The words connote totality of all material facts - Necessary to establish legal right in a case (H1) Nig. Ports Plc. v. Beecham Pharm. Ltd (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4155; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1333) 454

 

WORDS & PHRASES - Actions - Academic suit - Meaning - A suit is academic when it is merely theoretical - And of no practical utilitarian value to plaintiff - Even if judgment is given in his favour (H6) NDP v. INEC (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3901; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1350) 392

 

WORDS & PHRASES - Actions - Cause of action - Meaning - It refers to entire set of facts that give rise to enforceable claim - Comprising of every fact which if traversed - Plaintiff must prove to entitle him to judgment (H1) Lagos State Bulk Purchase Corp. v. Purification Techn. Ltd. (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3829; (2013) 7 NWLR (PT.1352) 82

 

WORDS & PHRASES - Actions - Cause of action - Meaning - This is fact which gives rise to right to sue in court - And it includes every material fact - Which has to be proved to entitle plaintiff to succeed (H2) Uwazuruonye v. Gov. Imo State (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3415; (2013) 8 NWLR (PT.1355) 28

 

WORDS & PHRASES - Actions - Reasonable cause of action - Meaning - This is cause of action which when only allegation in statement of claim are considered - Have some chances of success (H3) Uwazuruonye v. Gov. Imo State (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3415; (2013) 8 NWLR (PT.1355) 28

 

WORDS & PHRASES - Admiralty - Action in rem - Meaning - It is a proceeding against an arrested ship - In which the owner is compelled to enter appearance - To defend the ship (H1) Pacers Multi-Dynamics Ltd v. The M.V. Dancing Sister (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 385; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1289) 169

 

WORDS & PHRASES - Appeals - Court of Appeal - “Nemo dat quod non habet - Use of - The doctrine was not wrongly used - As the court rightly clarified the effect of Decree 21 of 1996 - Which amended error in Decree 54 of 1993 (H2) Adeyemi-Bero v. L.S.D.P.C. (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3743; (2013) 8 NWLR (PT.1356) 238

 

WORDS & PHRASES - Armed Robbery - “Arms” - Definition - Robbery & Firearms Act s. 15(1) - Arms are offensive weapons - Which include axe and machete (H2) Adekoya v. State (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 987; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1306) 539

 

WORDS & PHRASES - Armed Robbery - Conspiracy - Meaning - Conspiracy consists of intention of persons - To commit an unlawful act - And conviction is on circumstantial evidence (H5) Adekoya v. State (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 987; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1306) 539

 

WORDS & PHRASES - Armed robbery - Meaning of - Armed robbery means stealing with violence - While robbery is stealing without violence - And person that aids in commission of the offence - Is guilty of armed robbery (H2) Bassey v. State (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1495; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1314) 209

 

WORDS & PHRASES - Armed Robbery - Robbery & Firearms Act s. 15(1) - Robbery is using violence - To obtain anything being stolen (H1) Adekoya v. State (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 987; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1306) 539

 

WORDS & PHRASES - Bills of lading - Endorsement - Meaning - This is where consignee writes his name on the back of the bills (H7) Pacers Multi-Dynamics Ltd v. The M.V. Dancing Sister (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 385; (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1289) 169

 

WORDS & PHRASES - Cause of action - Meaning - These are facts giving rise to enforceable claim - Including things necessary to give right of action - And material facts that entitle plaintiff to succeed (H1) Sulgrave v. FGN (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4565; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1329) 309

 

WORDS & PHRASES - Conspiracy - Meaning - Conspiracy is agreement between persons to do unlawful act - And failure to prove substantive offence - Does not render conviction for conspiracy inappropriate (H2) Osetola v. State (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2399; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1329) 251

 

WORDS & PHRASES - Constitution - “All final appeals” - Meaning - It means all appeals - After which there is no further appeal to a higher court or tribunal (H10) Abubakar v. Nasamu (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 479; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1330) 407

 

WORDS & PHRASES - Constitution - “Decision” - Definition - Decision means determination of court or tribunal - Which includes judgment or recommendation (H3) Ogboru v. Uduaghan (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1351; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1311) 357

 

WORDS & PHRASES - Constitution - “Final appeals” - Meaning - The phrase does not relate to final decisions of election tribunal - It relates to the final court - Beyond which there is no further appeal (H9) Abubakar v. Nasamu (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 479; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1330) 407

 

WORDS & PHRASES - Constitution - “The court” - Meaning - By 1999 Constitution s. 285(8) - It refers to Court of Appeal and Supreme Court - Depending on the facts of the case (H8) Abubakar v. Nasamu (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 479; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1330) 407

 

WORDS & PHRASES - Constitution - “The Court” - Meaning - The phrase used in s. 285(8) refers to Court of Appeal - Hearing appeal from States and National Assembly elections (H2) PDP v. Okorocha (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1155; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1323) 205

 

WORDS & PHRASES - Constitution - Interpretation - Literal rule - Court must confine itself to the ordinary meaning of words used - Save it is at variance with legislature’s intention (H5) Dangana v. Usman (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 577; (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1349) 50

 

WORDS & PHRASES - Constitution - Interpretation - Words used must be given their ordinary meaning - Where they are unambiguous (H8) Elelu-Habeeb v. A-G Federation (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 743; (2012) 13 NWLR (PT.1318) 423

 

WORDS & PHRASES - Contracts - Consideration - Definition - Consideration is impelling influence - Which induces a contracting party - To enter into contract (H5) BFI Group Corp. v. Bureau of Public Enterpr. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2553; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1332) 209

 

WORDS & PHRASES - Contracts - Counter offer - Meaning - It is an outright rejection of the original offer - And it is tantamount to a new offer (H5) Akinyemi v. Odu’a Inv. Co. Ltd (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 55; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1329) 209

 

WORDS & PHRASES - Court - “Judgment” - Definition - Judgment is the official and authentic decision of court - Upon rights of parties in an action (H4) Ogboru v. Uduaghan (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1351; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1311) 357

 

WORDS & PHRASES - Courts - “Act judicially” & “Judiciously”- Meaning - The words connote duty to hear evidence and submissions from each side - And a decision based on sound and sensible judgment (H5) Nig. Laboratory Corp. v. Pacific Merchant Bank (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 314) 2249; (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1324) 505

 

WORDS & PHRASES - Criminal procedure - “Judgment” - Meaning - Judgment refers to conviction and sentence - Pronounced upon finding of guilt (H5) Ogboru v. Uduaghan (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1351; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1311) 357

 

WORDS & PHRASES - Criminal procedure - Drug - Definition of - NDLEA Act s. 10 (h) - Drug is natural or synthetic substance - That alters ones perception (H6) Okewu v. FRN (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 923; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1305) 327

 

WORDS & PHRASES - Criminal procedure - Plea - Meaning of - This is the act of accused responding to criminal charge - Either as guilty or not guilty (H3) Okewu v. FRN (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 923; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1305) 327

 

WORDS & PHRASES - Criminal procedure - Proof - Beyond reasonable doubt - Meaning - This does not mean proof beyond all shadow of doubt - It means establishing the guilt of accused - With compelling evidence (H2) Ugwanyi v. FRN (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1407; (2012) 8 NWLR (PT.1302) 384

 

WORDS & PHRASES - Criminal procedure - Proof - Beyond reasonable doubt - Meaning - It means prosecution establishing guilt of accused - With compelling evidence which is conclusive (H5) Bassey v. State (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1495; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1314) 209

 

WORDS & PHRASES - Criminal procedure - Proof beyond reasonable doubt - Meaning - It does not mean proof beyond any degree of doubt - It is based on critical examination of facts and law (H3) Akindipe v. State (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 313) 2047; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1325) 94

 

WORDS & PHRASES - Decision - Meaning - 1999 Constitution s.318 - Decision means any determination of court - Which includes judgment - Decree - Or Order (H5) CPC v. Suntai (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3543

 

WORDS & PHRASES - Decision of a court - Meaning - By 1999 Constitution s. 285(7) - The phrase means decision and the reasons for same - Which must be given within the assigned sixty days (H7) Abubakar v. Nasamu (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 479; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1330) 407

 

WORDS & PHRASES - Documents - Bond - Definition - Bond is evidence of debt -On which issuing company promises to pay the bond holder - Specified amount of interest for specified length of time - And to repay the loan on expiration date (H3) BFI Group Corp. v. Bureau of Public Enterpr. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2553; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1332) 209

 

WORDS & PHRASES - Elections - “Substitute” - Definition - Substitute means person or thing that is used - Instead of the one normally used (H2) Peretu v. Gariga (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4543; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1348) 415

 

WORDS & PHRASES - Elections - Gubernatorial - Nullification - “Null & void” - Meaning - Where the acts of a governor whose election is nullified are saved - Court will describe the election as voidable (H6) Marwa v. Nyako (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 231; (2012) 6 NWLR (PT.1296) 199

 

WORDS & PHRASES - Estoppel - Meaning - It means a bar that prevents one from asserting a right - That contradicts what one has done before - Or what has been legally established as true (H8) Tukur v. Uba (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2651; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1343) 90

 

WORDS & PHRASES - Estoppel by silence - Meaning - It arises when a party is under a duty to speak - But fails to do so (H9) Tukur v. Uba (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2651; (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1343) 90

 

WORDS & PHRASES - Evidence - “May” - Meaning - The word is not always “may” - It sometimes may be equivalent to “shall” - Where the context so admits (H4) Ugwanyi v. FRN (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1407; (2012) 8 NWLR (PT.1302) 384

 

WORDS & PHRASES - Evidence - “Tainted witness” - Meaning - The phrase refers to an accomplice - Or witness with some personal motives (H4) Akindipe v. State (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 313) 2047; (2012) 16 NWLR (PT.1325) 94

 

WORDS & PHRASES - Evidence - Circumstantial evidence - Definition - It is defined as evidence of surrounding circumstances - Which by undersigned coincidence can prove a proposition with accuracy (H4) Adesina v. State (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3713; (2012) 14 NWLR (PT.1321) 429

 

WORDS & PHRASES - Evidence - Contradiction - Meaning - Evidence contradicts one another - When they are inconsistent on material facts (H9) Bassey v. State (2012) 4 KLR (pt. 310) 1495; (2012) 12 NWLR (PT.1314) 209

 

WORDS & PHRASES - Evidence - Examination of witnesses - Meaning - Evidence in chief testifies plaintiff’s case - Cross examination tests credibility of stated testimony - While re-examination restores credibility to the testimony (H2) Ayorinde v. Sogunro (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 312) 1895; (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.1312) 460

 

WORDS & PHRASES - Evidence - Hearsay - Meaning - Hearsay is testimony by witness - On what he heard from another - And such testimony is inadmissible (H4) FRN v. Usman (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 308) 1119; (2012) 8 NWLR (PT.1301) 141

 

WORDS & PHRASES - Evidence - Islamic law - Expert evidence - Meaning - It is the opinion which an expert gives - In relation to some scientific or professional matters (H4) Rabiu v. Amadu (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 417; (2013) 2 NWLR (PT.1337) 36

 

WORDS & PHRASES - Fair hearing - Audi alteram partem - Meaning - The maxim denotes fairness - As a judge should allow both parties to be heard - Before resolving issue at stake (H8) Emeka v. Okadigbo (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2611; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1331) 55

 

WORDS & PHRASES - Judicial discretion - Meaning - It is exercise of judgment by a judge based on what is fair - And guided by the rules and principles of law (H9) Akinyemi v. Odu’a Inv. Co. Ltd (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 304) 55; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1329) 209

 

WORDS & PHRASES - Justice - Miscarriage of justice - Meaning - Miscarriage depends on facts of each case - And it occurs where justice - Is not according to law (H9) Emeka v. Okadigbo (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 316) 2611; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1331) 55

 

WORDS & PHRASES - Proceeding - Meaning - This means the regular and orderly progression of law suit - Including all acts and events - Between commencement and entry of judgment (H4) Audu v. A-G Fed (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3321; (2013) 8 NWLR (PT.1355) 175

 

WORDS & PHRASES - Property law - Successor - Meaning - Successor is one who takes the place that another has left - And sustains the like part or character (H3) Lagos State Bulk Purchase Corp. v. Purification Techn. Ltd. (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3829; (2013) 7 NWLR (PT.1352) 82

 

WORDS & PHRASES - Property law - Transfer - Meaning in relation to the Edict in issue - It is assignment or conveyance of all assets and liabilities - That may vest in transferee as the transferor had therein (H2) Lagos State Bulk Purchase Corp. v. Purification Techn. Ltd. (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3829; (2013) 7 NWLR (PT.1352) 82

 

WORDS & PHRASES - Statutes - “Or” - Interpretation - As used in 1st schedule of Customary Court Law 1986 - “Or” means “and” not disjunctive (H4) Olaleye-ote v. Babalola (2012) 11-12 KLR (pt. 319) 3637; (2012) 6 NWLR (PT.1297) 574

 

WORDS & PHRASES - Statutes - “Shall” and “within” - Meaning - The words mean that the applicable provision - Is mandatory as it admits of no discretion (H5) Abubakar v. Nasamu (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 479; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1330) 407

 

WORDS & PHRASES - Statutes - Interpretation - “May” - Court of Appeal Rules O.8 r.18 - The word generally means permissive action - But may exceptionally connote mandatory action (H2) Nigerian Navy v. Labinjo (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 313) 2135; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 56

 

WORDS & PHRASES - Statutes - Interpretation - “Must” “Shall”- The words are not always interpreted as mandatory - As they can mean “may” - Where the context so admits (H3) Fidelity Bank Plc v. Monye (2012) 3 KLR (pt. 309) 1203; (2012) 10 NWLR (PT.1307) 1

 

WORDS & PHRASES - Statutes - Interpretation - High Court Rules of Lagos State O. 48 r. 5(1) - The word “or” denotes an alternative and not similarity (H1) Military Gov. Lagos State v. Adeyiga (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 307) 839; (2012) 5 NWLR (PT.1293) 291

 

WORDS & PHRASES - Torts - Defamation is imputation which tends to lower a person - In the estimation of right thinking members of society - And thus expose the person to hatred (H3) Oruwari v. Osler (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3941; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1348) 535

 

WORDS & PHRASES - Torts - Res ipsa loquitur - Meaning - Res speaks where inference from facts shows that - What happened is reasonably attributed to some act of negligence - On the part of defendant (H3) Nig. Ports Plc. v. Beecham Pharm. Ltd (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 321) 4155; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1333) 454

 

WORDS & PHRASES - Torts - Slander is false and defamatory statement - Made by spoken words in some non permanent form - Published of plaintiff whereby he has suffered special damages (H4) Oruwari v. Osler (2012) 12 KLR (pt. 320) 3941; (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1348) 535

 

WRIT OF SUMMONS - Courts - Contracts - Award of interest - Court can award interest as consequential order - Even where same is not claimed in writ of summons (H11) African Intn’l Bank Ltd. v. Integrated Dimensional System Ltd. (2012) 5 KLR (pt. 311) 1635; (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1328) 1

 

WRIT OF SUMMONS - Pleadings - Statement of claim - Relevance - It supersedes writ of summons - As such any relief claimed in the writ but not claimed in the statement of claim - Is deemed abandoned (H1) Stowe v. Benstowe (2012) 1 KLR (pt. 305) 457; (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1306) 450

 

WRIT OF SUMMONS - Previous judgment - Claim - Basis - Party predicating his relief on the judgment - Should indicate the basis of his claim in writ (H2) Purification Tech. Nig. Ltd. v. Jubril (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 313) 2157; (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1331) 109

ACTIONS - Claims - Special damages - Award - Propriety - Award of N2.5 million is wrong - Since claim was outside period of agreement (H3) Nsit Ibom Local Govt. v. Iyoho (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2469 CA

 

ACTIONS - Courts - Jurisdiction - Court retains inherent jurisdiction to decide on a matter - Until such a time it rules that it lacks same (H10) Ericsson Nig. Ltd. v. Aqua Oil Nig. Ltd. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2887 CA

 

ACTIONS - Evidence - Defences - Laches & acquiescence - Proof of the defences - Are dependent on evidence of defendants that raised them - And not on previous evidence of the dead witness in exhibit B (H4) Ijebu-Ode Local Govt. Council v. Segun (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2453 CA

 

ACTIONS - Limitation - Plea of - Must not be based on previous evidence of dead witness - But it is based on statement of claim - To know when cause of action arose - And was equally filed in court (H3) Ijebu-Ode Local Govt. Council v. Segun (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2453 CA

 

ACTIONS - Writ of summons - Statement of claim - Failure to file means absence of pleadings - Trial court was wrong to find against defendants - For not filing statement of defence (H2) Vatsa v. FBN (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2923 CA

 

AFFIDAVITS - Depositions - Denial - There must be specific and outright denial - As using the phrase “not in a position to admit or deny” - Is deemed an admission (H3) Oyelese v. INEC (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 681 CA

 

AGREEMENTS - Special damages - Award - Propriety - Award of N2.5 million is wrong - Since claim was outside period of agreement (H3) Nsit Ibom Local Govt. v. Iyoho (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2469 CA

 

APPEALS - Competence - Grounds must relate and attack the ratio of decision of court - Ground 1 herein is competent as it relates to the ratio (H7) Ericsson Nig. Ltd. v. Aqua Oil Nig. Ltd. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2887 CA

 

APPEALS - Criminal procedure - Judgments - Obiter dictum - Effect - Statement of the judge in this case is expression of an opinion - Which cannot be a subject of an appeal (H9) Nguma v. A-G Imo State (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 653 CA

APPEALS - Issues - Basis - Issue not predicated on ground of appeal is incompetent - And court is bound to discountenance same (H3) Udo v. Jackson Devos Ltd (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2479 CA

 

APPEALS - Issues - Competence - By O.2 r.3 and O.17 r.7 of Court of Appeal Rules - Respondent’s issue 2 is incompetent - Since he neither filed cross-appeal - Nor respondent’s notice (H1) Nsit Ibom Local Govt. v. Iyoho (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2469 CA

 

APPEALS - Leave - Ground of law - By s. 241(1)(b) of Constitution - Leave of court is not required to file the ground - Since Ground 2 is of law (H6) Ericsson Nig. Ltd. v. Aqua Oil Nig. Ltd. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2887 CA

 

APPEALS - Leave - Grounds of mixed law and facts - By s.14(1) of Court of Appeal Act - Leave of either High Court or Court of Appeal is required to file such grounds (H4) Ericsson Nig. Ltd. v. Aqua Oil Nig. Ltd. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2887 CA

 

APPEALS - Preliminary objection - Seeks to terminate an appeal - Hence it should be determined first - Before further steps are taken (H1) Ericsson Nig. Ltd. v. Aqua Oil Nig. Ltd. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2887 CA

 

APPEALS - Record of proceedings - Completeness of - Where strict adherence to C.A. Rules will not serve the ends of justice - Leave is granted to include Exhibits B and C as supplementary record (H4) Oyelese v. INEC (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 681 CA

 

APPEALS - Right of appeal - Sources of - It is not a common right - Because it is vested by either the Constitution or other relevant statutes - 1999 Constitution s.241(2)(a) did not confer such right (H3) Ericsson Nig. Ltd. v. Aqua Oil Nig. Ltd. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2887 CA

 

APPEALS - Unchallenged finding - Supreme Court does not disturb clear finding of trial court - That was not challenged in appeal (H2) Udo v. Jackson Devos Ltd (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2479 CA

 

ARMED ROBBERY - Conspiracy - Conviction based on confession - Is valid where confession is positively direct and unequivocal - As to admission of guilt (H10) Nguma v. A-G Imo State (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 653 CA

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Appeals - Leave - Ground of law - By s. 241(1)(b) of Constitution - Leave of court is not required to file the ground - Since Ground 2 is of law (H6) Ericsson Nig. Ltd. v. Aqua Oil Nig. Ltd. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2887 CA

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Appeals - Right of appeal - Sources of - It is not a common right - Because it is vested by either the Constitution or other relevant statutes - 1999 Constitution s.241(2)(a) did not confer such right (H3) Ericsson Nig. Ltd. v. Aqua Oil Nig. Ltd. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2887 CA

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Fair hearing - Confessional statement - Admissibility - Tendering of such statement - Even if resiled from by accused - Does not infringe on 1999 Constitution s. 36(11) (H6) Nguma v. A-G Imo State (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 653 CA

 

CONVICTION - Based on confession - Is valid where confession is positively direct and unequivocal - As to admission of guilt (H10) Nguma v. A-G Imo State (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 653 CA

 

CONVICTION - Based on retracted confession - Validity - Prior to conviction - Extraneous evidence needs to be adduced - To make it probable that the confession is true (H8) Nguma v. A-G Imo State (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 653 CA

 

CORROBORATION - Confession - Material facts discovered from information given by accused - Can be used to corroborate his statement (H2) Nguma v. A-G Imo State (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 653 CA

 

CORROBORATION - Conviction - Based on retracted confession - Validity - Prior to conviction - Extraneous evidence needs to be adduced - To make it probable that the confession is true (H8) Nguma v. A-G Imo State (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 653 CA

 

COURT PROCESSES - Amendment - Effect - Where process is amended - The original process still forms part of the records of court (H4) Vatsa v. FBN (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2923 CA

 

COURT PROCESSES - Writ of summons - Issuance of - Validity - By O.5 r.16 Cross River State H.C. Rules - Writ is invalid if it is improperly issued or not served within 12 months in the first instance - Or within its renewal period for another 12 months (H3) Vatsa v. FBN (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2923 CA

 

COURTS - Actions - Limitation - Plea of - Must not be based on previous evidence of dead witness - But it is based on statement of claim - To know when cause of action arose - And was equally filed in court (H3) Ijebu-Ode Local Govt. Council v. Segun (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2453 CA

 

COURTS - Actions - Writ of summons - Statement of claim - Failure to file means absence of pleadings - Trial court was wrong to find against defendants - For not filing statement of defence (H2) Vatsa v. FBN (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2923 CA

 

COURTS - Appeals - Competence - Grounds must relate and attack the ratio of decision of court - Ground 1 herein is competent as it relates to the ratio (H7) Ericsson Nig. Ltd. v. Aqua Oil Nig. Ltd. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2887 CA

 

COURTS - Appeals - Issues - Basis - Issue not predicated on ground of appeal is incompetent - And court is bound to discountenance same (H3) Udo v. Jackson Devos Ltd (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2479 CA

 

COURTS - Appeals - Leave - Grounds of mixed law and facts - By s.14(1) of Court of Appeal Act - Leave of either High Court or Court of Appeal is required to file such grounds (H4) Ericsson Nig. Ltd. v. Aqua Oil Nig. Ltd. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2887 CA

 

COURTS - Appeals - Unchallenged finding - Supreme Court does not disturb clear finding of trial court - That was not challenged in appeal (H2) Udo v. Jackson Devos Ltd (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2479 CA

 

COURTS - Evidence - Evaluation - Assessment of credibility of witness is essential function of trial court - Appellate court does not delve into such (H1) Nguma v. A-G Imo State (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 653 CA

 

COURTS - Issues - Determination - Interlocutory stage - Court should refrain from determining at interlocutory stage - Any issue that will be decided at substantive suit (H9) Ericsson Nig. Ltd. v. Aqua Oil Nig. Ltd. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2887 CA

 

COURTS - Issues - Determination of - It is binding on court to consider issues properly submitted by parties before it - Except where such issues are incompetent (H8) Ericsson Nig. Ltd. v. Aqua Oil Nig. Ltd. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2887 CA

 

COURTS - Joinder of parties - Correctness of - Court is empowered to order joinder of parties in a case - If such parties are to be essentially affected by the outcome of the case (H5) Ericsson Nig. Ltd. v. Aqua Oil Nig. Ltd. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2887 CA

 

COURTS - Jurisdiction - Court retains inherent jurisdiction to decide on a matter - Until such a time it rules that it lacks same (H10) Ericsson Nig. Ltd. v. Aqua Oil Nig. Ltd. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2887 CA

 

COURTS - Jurisdiction - Fundamental nature - Absence of jurisdiction - Will render any proceedings null and void - And it will amount to exercise in futility (H2) Ericsson Nig. Ltd. v. Aqua Oil Nig. Ltd. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2887 CA

 

COURTS - Processes - Amendment - Effect - Where process is amended - The original process still forms part of the records of court (H4) Vatsa v. FBN (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2923 CA

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Armed robbery - Conspiracy - Conviction based on confession - Is valid where confession is positively direct and unequivocal - As to admission of guilt (H10) Nguma v. A-G Imo State (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 653 CA

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Confession - Corroboration - Material facts discovered from information given by accused - Can be used to corroborate his statement (H2) Nguma v. A-G Imo State (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 653 CA

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Confession - Meaning - It is express acknowledgment of guilt by accused - In a criminal case (H5) Nguma v. A-G Imo State (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 653 CA

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Confession - Retraction of - Admissibility - Such statement is admissible - And the question of its validity - Is decided at the end of trial (H7) Nguma v. A-G Imo State (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 653 CA

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Conviction - Based on retracted confession - Validity - Prior to conviction - Extraneous evidence needs to be adduced - To make it probable that the confession is true (H8) Nguma v. A-G Imo State (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 653 CA

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Fair hearing - Confessional statement - Admissibility - Tendering of such statement - Even if resiled from by accused - Does not infringe on 1999 Constitution s. 36(11) (H6) Nguma v. A-G Imo State (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 653 CA

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Judgments - Obiter dictum - Effect - Statement of the judge in this case is expression of an opinion - Which cannot be a subject of an appeal (H9) Nguma v. A-G Imo State (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 653 CA

 

DAMAGES - Master & servant - Retainership - Termination of - Reliefs - Since the retainership agreement was not in perpetuity - The termination can only give rise to damages - And not a declaration that it is null and void (H2) Nsit Ibom Local Govt. v. Iyoho (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2469 CA

 

DAMAGES - Special damages - Award - Propriety - Award of N2.5 million is wrong - Since claim was outside period of agreement (H3) Nsit Ibom Local Govt. v. Iyoho (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2469 CA

 

DOCUMENTS - Newspapers - Admissibility - Newspapers are not generally admissible - And when they are uncertified copies - No reliance should be placed on them (H2) Oyelese v. INEC (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 681 CA

 

EVIDENCE - Actions - Limitation - Plea of - Must not be based on previous evidence of dead witness - But it is based on statement of claim - To know when cause of action arose - And was equally filed in court (H3) Ijebu-Ode Local Govt. Council v. Segun (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2453 CA

 

EVIDENCE - Affidavits - Depositions - Denial - There must be specific and outright denial - As using the phrase “not in a position to admit or deny” - Is deemed an admission (H3) Oyelese v. INEC (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 681 CA

 

EVIDENCE - Confession - Corroboration - Material facts discovered from information given by accused - Can be used to corroborate his statement (H2) Nguma v. A-G Imo State (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 653 CA

 

EVIDENCE - Confession - Meaning - It is express acknowledgment of guilt by accused - In a criminal case (H5) Nguma v. A-G Imo State (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 653 CA

 

EVIDENCE - Confession - Retraction of - Admissibility - Such statement is admissible - And the question of its validity - Is decided at the end of trial (H7) Nguma v. A-G Imo State (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 653 CA

 

EVIDENCE - Conviction - Based on retracted confession - Validity - Prior to conviction - Extraneous evidence needs to be adduced - To make it probable that the confession is true (H8) Nguma v. A-G Imo State (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 653 CA

 

EVIDENCE - Courts - Evaluation - Assessment of credibility of witness is essential function of trial court - Appellate court does not delve into such (H1) Nguma v. A-G Imo State (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 653 CA

 

EVIDENCE - Defences - Laches & acquiescence - Proof of the defences - Are dependent on evidence of defendants that raised them - And not on previous evidence of the dead witness in exhibit B (H4) Ijebu-Ode Local Govt. Council v. Segun (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2453 CA

 

EVIDENCE - Documents - Newspapers - Admissibility - Newspapers are not generally admissible - And when they are uncertified copies - No reliance should be placed on them (H2) Oyelese v. INEC (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 681 CA

 

EVIDENCE - Fair hearing - Confessional statement - Admissibility - Tendering of such statement - Even if resiled from by accused - Does not infringe on 1999 Constitution s. 36(11) (H6) Nguma v. A-G Imo State (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 653 CA

 

EVIDENCE - Hearsay - Meaning - It is testimony that depends on credibility of someone else - Other than the witness who relates it - Which is generally inadmissible (H4) Nguma v. A-G Imo State (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 653 CA

 

EVIDENCE - Hearsay Rule - Exceptions - Admissions and confessions are exceptions to this rule - Because of legal presumption of their truthfulness (H3) Nguma v. A-G Imo State (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 653 CA

 

EVIDENCE - Pleadings - Binding nature of - Parties are bound by their pleadings - And evidence on an un-pleaded material fact is irrelevant - But if wrongfully admitted - Same must be expunged (H5) Ijebu-Ode Local Govt. Council v. Segun (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2453 CA

 

EVIDENCE - Technicalities - Appeals - Record of proceedings - Completeness of - Where strict adherence to C.A. Rules will not serve the ends of justice - Leave is granted to include Exhibits B and C as supplementary record (H4) Oyelese v. INEC (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 681 CA

 

EVIDENCE - Testimony - Of a dead witness in previous proceeding - S.34(1) Evidence Act was complied with - Since appellant is deemed to have participated in the proceedings - By proxy through 2nd-4th respondents (H1) Ijebu-Ode Local Govt. Council v. Segun (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2453 CA

 

EVIDENCE - Unchallenged evidence - Admissibility - Mere production of such evidence by party - Does not mean that judgment will be in his favour - As such evidence is not synonymous with proof by credible evidence (H1) Udo v. Jackson Devos Ltd (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2479 CA

 

FAIR HEARING - Breach - Effect - Consequence of the breach in a trial is that - Decision reached thereat is a nullity - And liable to be set aside (H1) Vatsa v. FBN (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2923 CA

 

FAIR HEARING - Confessional statement - Admissibility - Tendering of such statement - Even if resiled from by accused - Does not infringe on 1999 Constitution s. 36(11) (H6) Nguma v. A-G Imo State (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 653 CA

 

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS - Fair hearing - Breach - Effect - Consequence of the breach in a trial is that - Decision reached thereat is a nullity - And liable to be set aside (H1) Vatsa v. FBN (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2923 CA

 

INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS - Objections - Procedure for raising - Is to file notice of preliminary objection (H1) Oyelese v. INEC (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 681 CA

 

JUDGMENTS - Appeals - Competence - Grounds must relate and attack the ratio of decision of court - Ground 1 herein is competent as it relates to the ratio (H7) Ericsson Nig. Ltd. v. Aqua Oil Nig. Ltd. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2887 CA

 

JUDGMENTS - Criminal procedure - Obiter dictum - Effect - Statement of the judge in this case is expression of an opinion - Which cannot be a subject of an appeal (H9) Nguma v. A-G Imo State (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 653 CA

 

JUDGMENTS - Evidence - Unchallenged evidence - Admissibility - Mere production of such evidence by party - Does not mean that judgment will be in his favour - As such evidence is not synonymous with proof by credible evidence (H1) Udo v. Jackson Devos Ltd (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2479 CA

 

JUDGMENTS - Fair hearing - Breach - Effect - Consequence of the breach in a trial is that - Decision reached thereat is a nullity - And liable to be set aside (H1) Vatsa v. FBN (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2923 CA

 

JURISDICTION - Courts - It retains inherent jurisdiction to decide on a matter - Until such a time it rules that it lacks same (H10) Ericsson Nig. Ltd. v. Aqua Oil Nig. Ltd. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2887 CA

 

JURISDICTION - Fundamental nature - Courts - Absence of jurisdiction - Will render any proceedings null and void - And it will amount to exercise in futility (H2) Ericsson Nig. Ltd. v. Aqua Oil Nig. Ltd. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2887 CA

 

JUSTICE - Technicalities - Appeals - Record of proceedings - Completeness of - Where strict adherence to C.A. Rules will not serve the ends of justice - Leave is granted to include Exhibits B and C as supplementary record (H4) Oyelese v. INEC (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 681 CA

 

LAND LAW - Title - Competing claims - Where such claims arise - An averment of possession is an averment of ownership of the disputed land (H2) Ijebu-Ode Local Govt. Council v. Segun (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2453 CA

 

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS - Retainership - Termination of - Reliefs - Since the retainership agreement was not in perpetuity - The termination can only give rise to damages - And not a declaration that it is null and void (H2) Nsit Ibom Local Govt. v. Iyoho (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2469 CA

 

MASTER & SERVANT - Retainership - Termination of - Reliefs - Since the retainership agreement was not in perpetuity - The termination can only give rise to damages - And not a declaration that it is null and void (H2) Nsit Ibom Local Govt. v. Iyoho (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2469 CA

 

NEWSPAPERS - Admissibility - Newspapers are not generally admissible - And when they are uncertified copies - No reliance should be placed on them (H2) Oyelese v. INEC (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 681 CA

 

OBJECTIONS - Appeals - Preliminary objection - Seeks to terminate an appeal - Hence it should be determined first - Before further steps are taken (H1) Ericsson Nig. Ltd. v. Aqua Oil Nig. Ltd. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2887 CA

 

OBJECTIONS - Interlocutory applications - Procedure for raising - Is to file notice of preliminary objection (H1) Oyelese v. INEC (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 681 CA

 

ORDERS OF COURT - Courts - Joinder of parties - Correctness of - Court is empowered to order joinder of parties in a case - If such parties are to be essentially affected by the outcome of the case (H5) Ericsson Nig. Ltd. v. Aqua Oil Nig. Ltd. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2887 CA

 

PARTIES - Courts - Issues - Determination of - It is binding on court to consider issues properly submitted by parties before it - Except where such issues are incompetent (H8) Ericsson Nig. Ltd. v. Aqua Oil Nig. Ltd. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2887 CA

 

PARTIES - Courts - Joinder of parties - Correctness of - Court is empowered to order joinder of parties in a case - If such parties are to be essentially affected by the outcome of the case (H5) Ericsson Nig. Ltd. v. Aqua Oil Nig. Ltd. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2887 CA

 

PARTIES - Evidence - Unchallenged evidence - Admissibility - Mere production of such evidence by party - Does not mean that judgment will be in his favour - As such evidence is not synonymous with proof by credible evidence (H1) Udo v. Jackson Devos Ltd (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2479 CA

 

PARTIES - Pleadings - Binding nature of - Parties are bound by their pleadings - And evidence on an un-pleaded material fact is irrelevant - But if wrongfully admitted - Same must be expunged (H5) Ijebu-Ode Local Govt. Council v. Segun (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2453 CA

 

PLEADINGS - Actions - Limitation - Plea of - Must not be based on previous evidence of dead witness - But it is based on statement of claim - To know when cause of action arose - And was equally filed in court (H3) Ijebu-Ode Local Govt. Council v. Segun (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2453 CA

 

PLEADINGS - Binding nature of - Parties are bound by their pleadings - And evidence on an un-pleaded material fact is irrelevant - But if wrongfully admitted - Same must be expunged (H5) Ijebu-Ode Local Govt. Council v. Segun (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2453 CA

 

PLEADINGS - Land law - Title - Competing claims - Where such claims arise - An averment of possession is an averment of ownership of the disputed land (H2) Ijebu-Ode Local Govt. Council v. Segun (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2453 CA

 

PLEADINGS - Writ of summons - Statement of claim - Failure to file means absence of pleadings - Trial court was wrong to find against defendants - For not filing statement of defence (H2) Vatsa v. FBN (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2923 CA

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Actions - Writ of summons - Statement of claim - Failure to file means absence of pleadings - Trial court was wrong to find against defendants - For not filing statement of defence (H2) Vatsa v. FBN (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2923 CA

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Affidavits - Depositions - Denial - There must be specific and outright denial - As using the phrase “not in a position to admit or deny” - Is deemed an admission (H3) Oyelese v. INEC (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 681 CA

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Appeals - Preliminary objection - Seeks to terminate an appeal - Hence it should be determined first - Before further steps are taken (H1) Ericsson Nig. Ltd. v. Aqua Oil Nig. Ltd. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2887 CA

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Evidence - Defences - Laches & acquiescence - Proof of the defences - Are dependent on evidence of defendants that raised them - And not on previous evidence of the dead witness in exhibit B (H4) Ijebu-Ode Local Govt. Council v. Segun (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2453 CA

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Evidence - Testimony - Of a dead witness in previous proceeding - S.34(1) Evidence Act was complied with - Since appellant is deemed to have participated in the proceedings - By proxy through 2nd-4th respondents (H1) Ijebu-Ode Local Govt. Council v. Segun (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2453 CA

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Interlocutory applications - Objections - Procedure for raising - Is to file notice of preliminary objection (H1) Oyelese v. INEC (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 681 CA

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Jurisdiction - Fundamental nature - Courts - Absence of jurisdiction - Will render any proceedings null and void - And it will amount to exercise in futility (H2) Ericsson Nig. Ltd. v. Aqua Oil Nig. Ltd. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2887 CA

 

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Pleadings - Binding nature of - Parties are bound by their pleadings - And evidence on an un-pleaded material fact is irrelevant - But if wrongfully admitted - Same must be expunged (H5) Ijebu-Ode Local Govt. Council v. Segun (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2453 CA

 

RULES OF COURT - Appeals - Issues - Competence - By O.2 r.3 and O.17 r.7 of Court of Appeal Rules - Respondent’s issue 2 is incompetent - Since he neither filed cross-appeal - Nor respondent’s notice (H1) Nsit Ibom Local Govt. v. Iyoho (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2469 CA

 

RULES OF COURT - Technicalities - Appeals - Record of proceedings - Completeness of - Where strict adherence to C.A. Rules will not serve the ends of justice - Leave is granted to include Exhibits B and C as supplementary record (H4) Oyelese v. INEC (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 681 CA

 

STATUTES - Appeals - Right of appeal - Sources of - It is not a common right - Because it is vested by either the Constitution or other relevant statutes - 1999 Constitution s.241(2)(a) did not confer such right (H3) Ericsson Nig. Ltd. v. Aqua Oil Nig. Ltd. (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2887 CA

 

STATUTES - Fair hearing - Confessional statement - Admissibility - Tendering of such statement - Even if resiled from by accused - Does not infringe on 1999 Constitution s. 36(11) (H6) Nguma v. A-G Imo State (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 653 CA

 

SUPREME COURT - Appeals - Unchallenged finding - Supreme Court does not disturb clear finding of trial court - That was not challenged in appeal (H2) Udo v. Jackson Devos Ltd (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2479 CA

 

TECHNICALITIES - Appeals - Record of proceedings - Completeness of - Where strict adherence to C.A. Rules will not serve the ends of justice - Leave is granted to include Exhibits B and C as supplementary record (H4) Oyelese v. INEC (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 681 CA

 

TORTS - Laches & acquiescence - Proof of the defences - Are dependent on evidence of defendants that raised them - And not on previous evidence of the dead witness in exhibit B (H4) Ijebu-Ode Local Govt. Council v. Segun (2012) 6 KLR (pt. 315) 2453 CA

 

WORDS & PHRASES - Affidavits - Depositions - Denial - There must be specific and outright denial - As using the phrase “not in a position to admit or deny” - Is deemed an admission (H3) Oyelese v. INEC (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 681 CA

 

WORDS & PHRASES - Confession - Meaning - It is express acknowledgment of guilt by accused - In a criminal case (H5) Nguma v. A-G Imo State (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 653 CA

 

WORDS & PHRASES - Evidence - Hearsay - Meaning - It is testimony that depends on credibility of someone else - Other than the witness who relates it - Which is generally inadmissible (H4) Nguma v. A-G Imo State (2012) 2 KLR (pt. 306) 653 CA

 

WRIT OF SUMMONS - Actions - Statement of claim - Failure to file means absence of pleadings - Trial court was wrong to find against defendants - For not filing statement of defence (H2) Vatsa v. FBN (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2923 CA

 

WRIT OF SUMMONS - Issuance of - Validity - By O.5 r.16 Cross River State H.C. Rules - Writ is invalid if it is improperly issued or not served within 12 months in the first instance - Or within its renewal period for another 12 months (H3) Vatsa v. FBN (2012) 7 KLR (pt. 317) 2923 CA

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER ALL SC 2008 DECISIONS