SUPREME COURT & COURT OF APPEAL DECISIONS (13665)
Children categories
By virtue of the provisions of Section 169 of the· Evidence Act, 2011, when one person has either by virtue of an existing court judgment, deed or agreement, or by his declaration, act or omission, intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief neither he nor his representative in interest shall be allowed in any proceedings between himself and such person or such persons representative in interest, to deny the truth of that thing.
Mabamije & Otto [2016]1 M. J. S. C (Pt. III) [Pp. 48-49] Paras. G-A
Order 24(2) and (3) of the Bendel State (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1988 allows both parties to raise points of law in their pleadings and there is no restriction as to which of the point of law so raised disposes of a case against the Defendant.
Mabamije & Otto [2016]1 M. J. S. C (Pt. III) [Po 44 ] Paras. E-F
"In this case the Motion on Notice to set down points of law raised in paragraph 16 of the statement of defence was served on the Appellant, along with the supporting affidavit stating the grounds relied on. The Respondent had the opportunity to controvert the facts averred and deposed to, but did nothing. The trial court accepted the facts as proved, but surprisingly did not rely on them in its ruling. "
Mabamije & Otto [2016]1 M. J. S. C (Pt. III) - Per Rhodes- Vivour, JSC [Pp. 44-45] Para. G
An issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage in the proceedings including on appeal but that does not mean that there are no rules governing the raising of an issue of jurisdiction or that it can be raised without regard to the Rules of Court crafted or designed to aid parties to obtain justice in the court of law.
Ozurumba Nsirim & Dr. Samuel W. Amai [2016]1 M. J. S. C (Pt. III) [P. 15] Paras. E-F
Jurisdiction is defined as the legal capacity of a court to hear and determine judicial proceedings. It is a power to adjudicate concerning the subject matter of the controversy.
Ozurumba Nsirim & Dr. Samuel W. Amai [2016]1 M. J. S. C (Pt. III) [Po 15] Paras. A-B
An issue or issues for determination must arise from the grounds of appeal relied upon. Nwanezia v. Idris (1993) 3 NWLR (Pt. 279) 1 at 12. Therefore, when an issuers) as formulated be not based on the ground of appeal filed, the legal effect is that it is/they are on that account irrelevant. Ugo v. Obiekwe (J989) 1 NWLR (Pt. 99) 566. Osinupebi v. Sabiu (1982) 7 SC 104, 110, 111; Western Steel Works Ltd v. Iron Workers Union of Nigeria (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt. 49) 284, 304.
Ozurumba Nsirim & Dr. Samuel W. Amai [2016]1 M. J. S. C (Pt. III) [Pp. 14-15] Paras. G-A
It is settled law and practice that the duty of a Respondent to an appeal is to defend the judgment of the court below which is usually in his favour His duty is not to attack the judgment already given in his favour except where he disagrees with some aspects of the judgment in which case, he is required to file a cross appeal in which he prays the appellate court to set aside the aspect of the judgment he considers against his interest or for the court to consider an aspect of the case he put forward at the lower court which the lower court failed and/or neglected to consider and determine in its judgment.
By the provisions of Order 3 Rule 14(1), (2) and (3) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2002, A Respondent, who not having appealed from the decision of the court below desires to contend on the appeal that the decision of that court should be varied, either in any event or in the event of the appeal being allowed in whole or in part, must give notice to that effect, specifying the grounds of that contention and the precise form of the order which he proposes to ask the court to make, or to make in that event, as the case may be.
Undoubtedly, it is the primary function of the trial tribunal to evaluate evidence and ascribe probative value to same. The Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court will only interfere where the tribunal fails to discharge that duty and the failure has occasioned 122 MONTHLY JUDGMENTS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA Jan. 2016 (P1.II)miscarriage of justice. Makinde v. Akinwale (2000) NWLR (Pt. 645) and Ihekoronye v. Hart (2000) 15 NWLR (Pt. 692) 840.
Maku vs Al-Makura & 3 ors [2016] 1 M. J. S. C (Pt. II) [Po 133] Paras. B-C
While admissibility is based on relevance, the probative value to be attached on the document depends not only on relevance but on proof The fact that they have been admitted in evidence does not necessarily render them reliable. Buhari v. INEC (2008) 12 SC (Pt. 1) 1.
Maku vs Al-Makura & 3 ors [2016] 1 M. J. S. C (Pt. II) [Po 132] Paras. E-F
Where a document ought to be signed and it is not, its authenticity is in doubt. An unsigned document carries no weight. Omega Bank (Nig) Pic v. OB.e. Ltd. (2005) 8 NWLR (Pt. 928) 547; Ikem v. Bidah Packaging Ltd (2011) ALL FWLR (Pt. 601) 1476 at 1507, Ojo v. Adejobi & Ors. (1978) NSCC (vol. 11) 161.
Maku vs Al-Makura & 3 ors [2016] 1 M. J. S. C (Pt. II) [Po 132] Paras. C-D