Interpretation of Statutes (295)
HELD:
"It is trite that a judicial interpretation must construe a provision to save it and should by interpretation, avoid making nonsense of the statute.
HELD:
"It is not matter of disputation that the two exhibits, the letter and CSR fall within the province of documents in that their contents are "expressed or described upon any substance by means of letters, figures or marks", see Section 258 of the Evidence Act, 2011.
HELD:
"It is also trite that the object of interpreting any statute or instrument is to ascertain the intention of the legislature or the parties who made it.
HELD:
"The law is trite that where the words used in a statute are clear and unambiguous, the Courts are enjoined to interpret the words in their ordinary and natural meanings.
HELD:
"In the case of Sani v. President, Federal Republic of Nigeria (2020) LPELR-50990 (SC), the Court stated one of the guiding principles of interpretation of statutes, as follows:
HELD:
"The law is long settled that in interpreting the provisions of a written contract, no addition thereto or, subtraction therefrom is permissible.
HELD:
"In Rabiu Nafiu vs. Kano State (1980) FNLR 509 the Supreme Court had to interprete the word "includes" in Section 277 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1979. Udo Udoma J.S.C. came to the following conclusion at page 524 of the decision:
HELD:
"...Section 36(12) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended.
HELD:
"In Kalu v. Odili (1992) 6 SCNJ (Pt.1) 76, Karibi-Whyte, JSC held at page 119 that:
HELD:
"section 28(1) of the Land Tenure Law, Cap. 59. Section 28(1) provides, inter alia, as follows: