Courts (690)
HELD:
"In addition to the fact that the Ground 2 of the 1st Respondent's Notice of Appeal and the issue distilled therefrom are both incompetent (as resolved under the issue 2 above), the finding of the Court below on the issue was made suo motu without according the parties especially the Appellant to address on the point.
HELD:
"The law is that a Court of law, particularly the lower Court and this Court, has a statutory duty to consider and decide on all issues raised and submitted to it for determination.
HELD:
"It is clear to me, that the issue bordering on a Court's jurisdictional competence, dated back to the oft-cited locus classicus case of Madukolu vs. Nkemdilim (1962) 1 All NLR 587. It has been variously described as the threshold of the power of a Court to adjudicate over a matter submitted before it.
HELD:
"The fact that the lower Court treated the question of the abandonment of the statement on oath in issue in its judgment did not amount to denial of fair hearing to the appellant, who had the opportunity to address the Court on the issue but failed or abstained from doing so.
HELD:
"It has been reiterated several times by this Court that the lower hierarchy of Courts should endeavor to consider and determine all issues distilled by parties before them.
HELD:
"The law is settled that a Court of first instance or an intermediate Court has a duty to consider and make a pronouncement on all issues properly raised before it by the parties.