Justice (40)
HELD:
"Therefore, it is not every irregularity in a trial that will give rise to miscarriage of justice.
HELD:
"The concept of justice is the backbone and life wire of a peaceful co-existence in any given society and it cannot therefore be under estimated.
HELD:
"... In Sylvester Ogbomo V. The State (1985) 1 NCC 224; Aniagolu, JSC., had poignantly reiterated thus:
HELD:
"it is now settled law that in appropriate cases, our courts now appear to be deliberately shifting away from the narrow technical approach to justice which characterized some earlier decisions of courts on various matters.
HELD:
"As I bring this judgment to a close, I am aware of the current trend now a days to do substantial justice far and above technical justice, yet a court of law cannot in good conscience shut its eyes to fundamental incompetence of a party's case, particularly in relation to an originating process which turns out to be fundamentally incompetent.
HELD:
"All that I am saying is that, even in criminal cases, our Courts have departed and moved away from the era of technical justice to that of doing substantial justice.
HELD:
"Miscarriage of justice is a failure of justice. There is a miscarriage of justice where there are grave or serious errors in the proceedings as to make the proceedings fundamentally flawed. It means failure of the Court to do justice. See Enawakponmwhem Aigbobahi & Ors v. Edokpayi Aifuwa & Ors (2006) 6 NWLR (Pt.976) p.270; Amadi v. NNPC (2000) 10 NWLR (Pt.674) p.76;Kalu O. Irolo & Ors v. Ebe E. Uka & Anor (2002) 14 NWLR (Pt.786) p.195. Nnajiofor v. Ukonu (1986) 4 NWLR (Pt.36) p.505." TEMPLE NWANKWOALA v. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA(2018) LPELR-43891(SC)Per RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C. (P. 20, Paras. A-D)
FACTS:
HELD:
"I shall now take issues No 3 and 4 in the appellant's brief together with issues No 3 and 4 in the 1st and 2nd respondents brief from the angle of quest for pure justice. I shall start by saying that, over the years, courts have put a stamp of permanent authority in the saying that it is an essential attribute of the administration of justice, that justice must not only be done, but it must manifestly seen to be done. What I have just said here was lucidly put by Hewart C.J. in R VS. SUSSEX JUSTICES EX PARTE MARCATHY (1924) 1. K. B, 256 when at page 259 he reasoned:'It is not merely of some importance, but it is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done'. The above time-honoured dictum has often been cited with approval by our courts.
"... Our duty as an Apex Court is to do substantial, justice-stark justice, based on fairness which to all intent and purposes, seeks to not only ensure fairness in dispensing justice, but which is manifestly seen and duly acknowledged by all and sundry as justice both in content and context.
"Indeed, it is not in dispute that the final addresses in the Court of Appeal were made on the 18th day of February, 2002 and the judgment was delivered on the 30th day of July, 2003, a period of 450 days after those addresses were rendered.