SUPREME COURT & COURT OF APPEAL DECISIONS (13665)
Children categories
Courts not being academic institutions, do not brook academic disputations of any sort. Nkwocha v. Governor, Anambra State (J 984) 1 SCNLR 634; Governor of Kaduna State v. Dada (1984) 4 NWLR (Pt. 38) 687; Yusuf and Ors v. Toluhi (2008) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1107) 237; Saraki v. Kotoye (1992) 11 -12 SCNJ 26.
APGA vs Al-Makura & 3 ors[2016]1 M. J. S. C (Pt. III) [Po 98] Paras. F-G
Generally, the Supreme Court may depart or overrule its previous decisions under certain circumstances and in accordance with laid down principles of law. Order 6 Rule 5 (4) of the Rules of the Supreme Court. These include situations where it is shown or demonstrated that the earlier decisions are either erroneous in law or were given per incuriam etc. Opebiyi v. Oshoboja (1976) 9 and 10 SC 195; Ewetan v. Gyang (2003); Ugwu v. Ararume (2007); Oyeniran and Ors v. Egbetola and Anor. (1997) 5 NWLR (Pt. 504) 122.
APGA vs Al-Makura & 3 ors[2016]1 M. J. S. C (Pt. III) [Po 91] Paras. E-G
Sometimes the line between what is investigation and what is evaluation of documentary evidence is blurred and difficult to define, the distinction is that whereas investigation leads to the discovery of fresh facts, the truth of which could have been challenged by fresh contrary evidence; evaluation of evidence leads merely to finding based on the quality of evidence already existing.
APGA vs Al-Makura & 3 ors[2016]1 M. J. S. C (Pt. III) [Po 90) Paras. E-F
The duty of a court is to decide between the parties on the basis of what has been demonstrated, tested, canvassed and argued in court.
It is anathema for a Judge to be allowed to act on what he discovered from such a document in relation to an issue when that was not supported by evidence or was not brought to the notice of the parties to be agitated in the usual adversarial procedure.
The rationale for the statutory endorsement of this concept [of front loading] is that through its espousal, the configuration and delineation of the contours of forensic contests may be attained with considerable facility such that their resolution could be achieved at the earliest opportunity and with minimal costs. The ultimate objectives of this technique, and the other equally innovative features of the rules, are for the evolution of a user-friendly trial procedure in which the Judge can effectively and efficiently manage the flow of cases in the court. Gambari and Anor v. Mahmud and Anor. (2010) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1181) 278.
APGA vs Al-Makura & 3 ors[2016]1 M. J. S. C (Pt. III) [Pp. 84-85] Paras. G-B
Where the words used in a statute are clear, they should be given their ordinary meaning, without any embellishments. Toriola v. Williams 1982 7 SC P. 27; Mobil v. FB.I.R. 1977 3 SC P. 53.
Mabamije & Otto [2016]1 M. J. S. C (Pt. III) [Po 44] Paras. D-E
A court will not Suo Motu raise issues which the parties do not raise. Both sides must be given the opportunity to address the court on issues raised Suo Motu. Where this is not done, it may be held that, the party denied the opportunity to address the court was denied fair hearing.
Mabamije & Otto [2016]1 M. J. S. C (Pt. III) [Po 54] Paras. C-D
By the provisions of Order 3 Rule 14 (4) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 1981, a Respondent notice must be served on the Appellant:-
- in the case of an appeal against an interlocutory order within fifteen (15) days, and
- in any other case within thirty (30) days alter the service of the Notice of Appeal on the Respondent.
Mabamije & Otto [2016]1 M. J. S. C (Pt. III) [Po 53] Paras. E-G
A Notice of discontinuance is a voluntary termination of a suit by the Plaintiff or complainant. When issues that gave rise to a suit are no longer in dispute, that is to say parties have settled Terms of settlement are filed in court to bring the suit to an end A notice of discontinuance may in certain circumstances have the same effect as terms of settlement.
Mabamije & Otto [2016]1 M. J. S. C (Pt. III) [Po 52] Paras. A-B