Okoye Chukwudi J
HELD:
"...it must be borne in mind always, that each case must be considered on its own particular or peculiar facts or circumstances.
APPLICATION(S)/MOTION(S) - Whether Court must determine/consider every application brought before it
HELD:
"The general principle of law, as rightly submitted by the Appellant in all his cited cases, is that all applications properly brought before a Court must be heard.
HELD:
"...The implication of all that I have been saying, is that the Appellant, had knowledge of the pendency of the appeal, and failed to take requisite steps.
HELD:
"It is a fundamental requirement of our adversarial system of administration of justice, that a party to the litigation before the Court must be heard before the Court can determine his civil rights or obligations before it.
HELD:
"On whether Exhibit A1 was made by a person interested, Section 91(3) of the Evidence Act, provides that-
HELD:
"... The appellants need be reminded that a counter-claim must succeed on the strength of their case to entitle them to judgment.
HELD:
"The invitation by the appellants to carry out the appeal from the trial Court which is what is implied by the appellant's posture is an invitation this Court rejects.
HELD:
"In defining a situation where Lis Pendens applies, the Supreme Court in BUA V DAUDA (2003) 13 NWLR (PT. 838) 657 AT PAGE 686 held that:
HELD:
HELD:
"Again of note in this regard is that appellants did not object to the admissibility of Exhibit A1 at the trial Court and so it is too late in the day to bring up the objection on the admissibility of the document.