"It is expedient to restate emphatically that, no law, legislation, be it regulation, rules or guidelines of whatever nature can come into effect so as to undermine the effect of a constitutional provision." Per OGUNBIYI, J.S.C. (Pp. 79-80, Paras. F-A)    JOE ODEY AGI, SAN v. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY & ORS(2016) LPELR-42578(SC)

Certainly, the two Courts below are concurrent in their findings on the issues that constitute appellant's claim. This Court remains very slow in interfering with concurrent findings of fact by Courts. It does so only where the appellant succeeds in showing that the findings are perverse. Learned senior counsel for the appellant's reference to this Court's restatement of the principle in James v. INEC (2015) 12 NWLR (Part 1474) 538 at 602 is apposite.

"At this point in time it is pertinent to revisit and determine the legal effect of the withdrawal made of the 1st respondent's brief of argument which consideration was kept on hold earlier in the course of this judgment. As a preamble, I will seek to recapitulate that on the 27/9/16 when the appeal was heard, the learned counsel N.E Ibegbunam, Esq. represented the 1st respondent and applied that the said respondent's brief of argument be withdrawn.

"At this point in time it is pertinent to revisit and determine the legal effect of the withdrawal made of the 1st respondent's brief of argument which consideration was kept on hold earlier in the course of this judgment. As a preamble, I will seek to recapitulate that on the 27/9/16 when the appeal was heard, the learned counsel N.E Ibegbunam, Esq. represented the 1st respondent and applied that the said respondent's brief of argument be withdrawn.

"Addedly, this Court has stated in so many cases that the traditional role of a respondent is to defend the judgment appealed against. The rules accommodate the respondent's desire to depart from this traditional role to attack the judgment in any way only by filing a cross appeal. In the case at hand, 1st respondent whose counsel has withdrawn its brief, having not filed a cross appeal cannot be obliged to depart from the judgment by conceding the appeal. See Eliochin (Nig) Ltd & Ors v. Victor Ngozi Mbadiwe (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt 14) 47 and Adefulu v Oyesile (1989) 5 NWLR (Pt 122) 377." Per RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C. (Pp. 100-101, Paras. E-B)  JOE ODEY AGI, SAN v. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY & ORS(2016) LPELR-42578(SC)

"The law is settled that in construing pleadings, the totality of the averments have to be taken and read together in order to get a narrative and flowing story of the party. See Okochi & 2 Ors v. Animkwoi & 2 Ors (2003) 18 NWLR (Pt. 851) 1, at 24 per Tobi, JSC." Per OGUNBIYI, J.S.C. (P. 18, Paras. E-G)    JOE ODEY AGI, SAN v. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY & ORS(2016) LPELR-42578(SC)

"The establishment of custom is a matter of evidence to be decided on the evidence presented to the Court in each particular case-See Angu v. Attah P. C. 1874 -1928, 43; Giwa v. Erinmilokun (1961) 1 All N.L.R. 294. Where evidence of custom is cogent and reliable, the veracity of the testimony not in dispute, the credibility of the witness accepted by the court, and there is no other evidence to the contrary, the fact that evidence of custom was by a witness alone will not affect its proof In the Ex parte Chief Lewis Ekpenga, (supra) the evidence of custom of the Head Chief rejected contradicted the evidence of custom of the sub-chiefs.

"The court of Appeal quite properly held that "it is not the business of the courts to make declarations of customary law relating to the selection of Chiefs under the Chiefs' Law. But it is the business of the court to make a finding of what the customary law is and apply the law for the purpose of the claims for declarations.

"...all parties to a "lis" or to any enquiry of this nature must be given the same type of hearing. To start with, in conducting a lis or an enquiry, a Judge must not only be impartial, but must be so seen. Brett Ag C.J.N., in Obadana and Ors. v. Commissioner of Police (1967) N. M. L. R.39, had said with great force in this Court "The principle that a Judge must be impartial is accepted in the jurisprudence of any civilised country". And Nigeria is a civilised country, whose jurisprudence is accepted worldwide or at least in the common law countries." Per ESO, J.S.C. (Pp. 70-71, paras. E-A)  PRINCE YAHAYA ADIGUN & ORS v. ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF OYO STATE & ORS(1987) LPELR-177(SC)

"A hearing can be on oral evidence or written documents submitted by the parties interested in the inquiry or whose civil rights and obligations will be affected by the inquiry. Dr Agiri's Commission qualifies as an Administrative Tribunal [see Wednesbury Corporation v. Ministry of Housing and Local Government No.2 (1966) 2 QB. 275] and is bound to observe the Rules of Natural Justice.